Comment My one and only comment (Score 4, Interesting) 201
Gracenote founder Steve Scherf is busy again in his attempts to rewrite history after his recent interview at Wired
This is a pretty amazing statement, considering that the edits we're making on the Wikipedia article are supported by fact. The changes are also being facilitated by an impartial third party, after certain individuals continued to revert validated text under the guise of "unverifiable". Their behavior has illustrated the worst aspects of Wikipedia, as were first brought to wider public attention in the Seigenthaler incident. I've already given up on the page, because when you have Wikipedia editors disputing the verity of federal court documents, there is little point in continuing.
The reason for the Wired article was to hopefully shed some light on reality, not the /. history. Much of the history of Gracenote has been rewritten here on this site (and others, to be fair) over the years, and it's pretty amazing to see stories like this one that claim we're the ones rewriting it. As I said in the full text of the Wired interview, some of the Gracenote lore is obviously true, and not all of it is pretty. There is no disputing that. But a lot of the tall tales that have spread over the years are pure dreck.
I have spent my time at Gracenote doing two things, improving and expanding the technology, and doing my best to steer the company so that the original philosophies of CDDB are not forgotten (though I do not have a huge influence at the company in that regard, as you might guess from some of the company's early behavior). There have been a number of times I have thought of leaving, such as when the company was doing something I felt was wrong, and I have gotten in numerous and protracted battles with them over the years. But I stayed, because without me, there would no longer be a touchstone for them with CDDB's history (the other two CDDB partners, Ti Kan and Graham Toal, two of the nicest and most mild mannered people you could ever meet, are not with the company). And I think it's been for the better, because Gracenote is now largely moving in the right direction IMO, even if they weren't in the past.
So, yes, Gracenote has a checkered past, and it does have its detractors. But when detractors hate something so much that they perpetrate acts against that thing that are as bad or worse than they claim have been done to them, it's time for them to engage in a little self-reflection. I say this not just for the Wikipedia "editors" who have been using the Gracenote page as a weapon against Gracenote, but for anyone who's formed a negative opinion of the company based on what they've heard here and there on the net. Read the Wired interview and use your own judgement, but for gods sake, stop abusing Wikipedia just to get at Gracenote (or anyone for that matter).
Steve Scherf
This is a pretty amazing statement, considering that the edits we're making on the Wikipedia article are supported by fact. The changes are also being facilitated by an impartial third party, after certain individuals continued to revert validated text under the guise of "unverifiable". Their behavior has illustrated the worst aspects of Wikipedia, as were first brought to wider public attention in the Seigenthaler incident. I've already given up on the page, because when you have Wikipedia editors disputing the verity of federal court documents, there is little point in continuing.
The reason for the Wired article was to hopefully shed some light on reality, not the
I have spent my time at Gracenote doing two things, improving and expanding the technology, and doing my best to steer the company so that the original philosophies of CDDB are not forgotten (though I do not have a huge influence at the company in that regard, as you might guess from some of the company's early behavior). There have been a number of times I have thought of leaving, such as when the company was doing something I felt was wrong, and I have gotten in numerous and protracted battles with them over the years. But I stayed, because without me, there would no longer be a touchstone for them with CDDB's history (the other two CDDB partners, Ti Kan and Graham Toal, two of the nicest and most mild mannered people you could ever meet, are not with the company). And I think it's been for the better, because Gracenote is now largely moving in the right direction IMO, even if they weren't in the past.
So, yes, Gracenote has a checkered past, and it does have its detractors. But when detractors hate something so much that they perpetrate acts against that thing that are as bad or worse than they claim have been done to them, it's time for them to engage in a little self-reflection. I say this not just for the Wikipedia "editors" who have been using the Gracenote page as a weapon against Gracenote, but for anyone who's formed a negative opinion of the company based on what they've heard here and there on the net. Read the Wired interview and use your own judgement, but for gods sake, stop abusing Wikipedia just to get at Gracenote (or anyone for that matter).
Steve Scherf
