The last time I reviewed ClaimID, I was very negative about it. I have to admit I am now using the service more, and I now even find some of it’s features useful.

ClaimID is a bookmarking service which allows you to link together information about you. For example, I list all my user accounts on various websites, my blog, posts about me, my PGP key and a few other things on my ClaimID profile. You then have the option to provide these links descriptions and titles, and the ability to categorise them, reorder them, tag them and add stars to them. ClaimID also allows links to be verified by the placement of a meta tag in the page’s head; this confirms the site belongs to you. In my opinion, an image would be better than a meta tag, as you’re more likely to be able to place it. ClaimID also caches all links.

ClaimID publish’s its RSS feeds under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 license, however, I am uncertain if this extends to the main content of the website (if it doesn’t that seems illogical).

ClaimID also responded to my opinion:

Also, it would be nice to see features which allow you to use your ClaimID as a .NET passport like utility, where it integrates with sites you use.

ClaimID now supports OpenID, allowing you to use your ClaimID account as a log-in on OpenID sites. My review on OpenID explains OpenID itself (very interesting idea!).

However, you can still not search through the site for tags, and have hits returned from different users.

ClaimID is a useful way for people to see who you are across the net. My profile is here.

Tags: claimid, web2.0, web 2.0, web2, web 2, ajax, social network, social networking

In December 2005, Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales announced that the ability for anonymous users to create page on the English Wikipedia would be disabled as an experiment. In the same month of that year, the semi-protection policy of the Wikipedia was also introduced, which prevented anonymous users making edits to certain pages such as George W Bush.

Many things led up to both of these changes. Mainly it was the John Seigenthaler, Sr. affair, where an [anonymous] user created a dubious article about the journalist John Seigenthaler, who in turn wrote an article for the USA Today criticising the nature of the Wikipedia. However, more than a year after the decision to stop anons from creating pages, Jimbo Wales is reconsidering.

I can say that I think that the experiment with disabling page creation for anons has not been particularly useful and that we should turn page creation back on for anons at some point fairly soon.

The key problem with the page creation disabling for anons is that you can spend a few seconds extra, and register, and you are then able to create an article. Many articles are still self-promotional, however, there are not many which are purely vandalism. In my opinion, though, re-enabling page creation for anons is going to create more trouble for Wikipedia editors who patrol recent changes and newly created pages.

When this restriction is lifted, I wonder what the press’s reaction will be. Bill Thompson was complaining over a proposal, which I and most other Wikipedians know very little about, whcih would control the version of a page anonymous users view. He seemed in oppposition of this; many journalists are in opposition of the principle of an encyclopaedia anyone can edit.

Digg

Tags: wikipedia, wiki, jimmy wales, bbc, jimbo wales, web2.0, web 2, web 2.0, web2

This blog is currently getting an excess of spam, so please bare with it. Just to demostrate how much, I shan’t delete spam on this thread.

TechCrunch launched TechCrunch UK two days ago, and I think it is a bad idea. It’s all fair and good making TechCrunch available in other languages, but according to Arrington, TechCrunch UK’s goal isn’t to translate TechCrunch into English English, but to tell us all about UK start-ups. I dislike this idea, is there a need to disambiguate between UK and US start-ups? Though some services are US-focused, I have no problem reading about them, the vast majority of start-ups aren’t focused on any particular country.

TechCrunch UK has only been around for a couple of days, but already has twice as many readers as me. The latest 2 posts have had nothing to do with Web 2.0 or VC

With the launch of TechCrunch UK, I get the feeling that the main TechCrunch blog will be unwilling to blog about UK start-ups, leaving them for TechCrunch UK. I see why the main TechCrunch may be unwilling to blog about UK events such as Geek in the park, however I’m fairly sure the majority of TechCrunch’s 98,000 readers do not care about Arrington’s Silicon Valley parties.

Still, is there a need to seperate start-ups based on their countries of origin? In my opinion the answer is no. Though markets slightly differ over the Atlantic, the Web is a very small place and generally there is nothing stopping a European joining a US start-up, or vice-versa. The Web is a very small place, and the only real barrier is language (and that’s why I agree with foreign TechCrunch’s). Fortunately, there is only a very small language barrier between Brits, Americans and Aussies, and any English speaker can understand the writings of any other English speaker.

Do you feel as if there’s a need for TechCrunch UK? Would you like a TechCrunch blog for your country or your language?

(read more at TechCrunch and TechCrunch UK)

The web page hosting is very helpful in promoting the website pages on the World Wide Web with the support of potent servers. The search engine optimization manager promotes the websites by employing the strategic techniques of link building for the enhancement of pay per click revenues.

Tags: techcrunch, techcrunch uk, web2.0, web 2.0, web2, web 2, blogging, vc, blogs, michael arrington

The IAU have decided to strip Pluto of its status as a planet, becoming a dwarf planet, and not to give the status to Charon, Ceres and 2003 UB₃₁₃. Personally, I think anything of a relatively large mass orbiting a star should be classed as a planet.