Istari Istari

Rewriting deviantART history

Rewriting deviantART history

You can't fool Archive.org

http://web.archive.org/web/20010203154900/www.deviantart.com/contact.php

Editorial:
deviantART is possibly the most popular art community on the Internet. Its community has been friends with our community since the beginning of this site. Its adminstrators have hung out here and WC's admins have hung out there. With milliosn of visitors a month, dA seems on the precipe of huge success. But last week, the company that owns deviantART fired the popular community founder Scott Jarkoff (aka "Jark").

More troubling has been the seemingly rewriting of history. Most long time members of the skinning community remember that it was Jark and his friend Matteo who founded and nursed deviantART. That it was their site and their vision. Such communities regularly get bought out by companies but rarely are the original founders rewritten to be minor players in the tail.

The CEO of the company that owns deviantART wrote this in response to the recent uproar over the dismissal of Jark: Spyed's response:Link

Excerpt:

"jark and I have worked together on deviantART from day 1. A little bit after the first year, we were joined by $mccann who created the Sonique MP3 player back in 1998. He began providing us with technical and financial assistance to keep it going.

Before this, deviantART was quite small and the costs of operation were nominal. With it's rapid growth thereafter, it began costing an arm and a leg to operate.

I was the first person to work on deviantART full time in 2002, and am also the only co-founder who took the risk of working with no salary at all. That is how much I believe in this community. I have dedicated my life to it. The other two co-founders have never worked fulltime on deviantART. They have always had either college, or a full-time job to contend with. Without question, especially in the early to mid parts of deviantART's life, Scott (°jark) sacraficed all of his available free time. And this was a significant sacrifice.

The second fulltime employee of deviantART was $chris at around the same time I joined in 2002. He was our CTO; today he manages our architecture.

I personally hand built and "installed" deviantART's first 35 servers. Chris rebuilt and maintained all of deviantART's code-base, servers and architecture beginning in 2002. We're talking math, computer science, architecture. That kind of stuff."

But Archive.org's caching of deviantART doesn't support these claims. deviantART was founded in late 2000 and even going forward into 2001, Spyed is not listed on the contact page. Why would a founder of the site not be listed on the contact page? Even using their dates -- 2002, that's a full two years after deviantART was founded which is a long time in the Internet world. By then, deviantART was already a success. Archive.org cashes throughout 2001 and into 2002 all list Jark, Matteo and a handful of others as the ones in charge, no mention of Spyed at all. It wasn't until mid 2002 before Angelo Sotira began being mentioned as CEO of "deviantART, Inc.", two years after the site's founding.

This isn't to diminish the importance of good business, capital, and infrastructure in deviantART's successful history. But deviantART wasn't founded in mid 2002. It was founded in 2000. Had deviantART been founded in 2002, even with the investment their CEO had lined up, it is unlikely that deviantART would be where it is today. deviantART's success was was a matter of timing. It was one of the few established art-related community sites left when the dot-com crashed in 2001. Through the efforts of its original community founders, it was in a position by 2002/2003 to be taken to the next level by investors. Both the company and the community founders were crucial in the site's success. But it is unenthical to discount the critical contribution that a couple of visionaries had, back in 2000, to create deviantART in the first place.
 

34,760 views 43 replies
Reply #26 Top
Me -->is a deviant since Aug 7, 2000, 2:59 AM

Granted, the "Deviantart" he is refering to is the corporate entity, I assume, not the site as a whole. I never got very involved, but I know from lurking that there were hardships pre-2002, and it took dedication to the project to keep it going.

I have no doubt that it has become as successful as it has through great work by current operator, but frankly most people would have given up on the monstrous 'hobby' site before 2002. Without those times, the current operator wouldn't have had anything to build on.
Reply #27 Top

What in the WORLD are you talking about and/or referring to?! It doesn't seem to be anything posted here in the comments or in the article.

Read spyed's comments and you'll understand.  There is *a lot* of history behind all this.

If the letter posted on the wen is true, and Jark has 35% of shares of the company, there is no way that they could vote in board members without his acknowledgment unless they have the most bizarre bylaws.  Any action like that requires a super-majority (66.6%) vote, which you couldn't have without his vote.

Excalpius, I know that you were picked on about "irregardless" already, but I can't help but mention this: it's "breach" not "breech".  Trust me, they are far from meaning the same.   Not that a spell checker will help on that one, but if you want an easy spell checker, check out iespell.

 

Reply #28 Top
is a deviant since Dec 8, 2000, 3:27 AM

Looks to me like Jarko got a royal screwin' but it also appears that our favorite yellow alien has his ducks in a row and knows what he's doin'.

community is community and Deviant art will not be the same without jark just like this place would be wierd without Froggboy however I don't know how that applies to young members who don't know or weren't around as the community was starting out?
Reply #29 Top

Karma...the resident spell checker can distinguish between 'breech' and 'breach'.....even 'britches'....fear you not....Spell checker

Also, according to that email...jark was supposed to have 45% .... so it seems someone did some book-fiddling somewhere....

Reply #30 Top
Jark has posted his side of the story (the part he could...some details aren't there because of legal ramifications) in his latest journal.

I'd recommend EVERYONE read it. It does confirm a few things...

http://jark.deviantart.com/journal/6119826/
Reply #32 Top
I'll keep my deviations at dA for the time beeing. But until further development of this issue I will not upload any more devations or renew my subscription.

btw, did anyone else notice that the guy posting that email at Blogger called himself "devDeepThroat"?
Reply #33 Top
 StephanA ...no, but I fear he may have taken his eye off the ball....and it's now dribbling to the other end of the field....[the ball, not his eye]...
Reply #34 Top
Ultimately, control of a website based company boils down to who has control over the domain. How others got control of the domain and under what terms and conditions that control was transferred is the million dollar question.
Reply #35 Top
Yup. Jarkles is in Japan, Spyed plus servers are in the US, so it was unlikely to have happened the other way around.
Reply #36 Top
Ultimately, control of a website based company boils down to who has control over the domain. How others got control of the domain and under what terms and conditions that control was transferred is the million dollar question.


DA is pretty web pased, but after the courts (I believe) said cyber-squatting is illegal, does it really matter who owns the domain? If Jark is victor, he would get the url back (if he doesn't own it in the first place for whatever reasons)?

If Microsoft doesn't renew its URL for some reason, can someone just take it and use it for their own project?


It's so funny that this guy just KNOWS how influencial he was to the success of dA. However noone out there has really recognized him for anything specific that he's done (aside from asserting his own greatness).


Damn right! LOL




In the end I don't know about this from an inside level. It seems to me though, even without all of the 'leaked emails' and other such ramblings, that Liquidsoft and/or Deviant Art Inc made a bad business decision here.


Out of all of this craziness, that is what bothers me the most. I like DA and want it to last, but how can it if it makes its decisions based off of wackiness? I can bet my cup of tea that the reason for this move was, at best, not researched enough in the first place.

I could be wrong about Liquidsoft's decision to remove Jark, but I don't think I'm wrong.
Reply #37 Top
... and I still find it SOOOOO funny that the about page of DA changed from its original state on how DA was started. I would think if certain members owned said website from the beginning, that his name would have been there.


I also wonder who those links to the Web Archive don't work... there is a case in court about businesses not wanting archived pages of their website.
Reply #38 Top

Developer joeKnowledge ...this isn't about a Url...and/or cyber-squatting ...it's about a corporate take-over of dubious legality [at best].

There's nothing 'SOOOOO funny' about changing the 'about page of DA'....rewriting history has been a popular practise....usually done by people who either have usurped power, or by people who will be embarassed by the record retention....and that's often one and the same.

It can be left to the public's imagination....[read a book] for those to find parallels in history...

Reply #39 Top
Well, the one thing you can gather from the latest post by Jark is that the "e-mail" everyone had read and was speculating about must be the real thing. All of the facts fit. Let the court proceedings begin. GO JARK!!!!
Reply #40 Top
You might find this journal an interesting read: http://pachunka.deviantart.com/journal/6151291/#journal
Reply #41 Top
Angelo has been there since before Day 1. If you want to claim that Angelo deserves no founding credit, the same should go for Matt. The fact that Angelo's involvement was in the beginning entirely background is being taken advantage of and it's not right.

You can only trust archive.org as far as the people who put together the pages it displays. I see the same kind of trust being put in the Wikipedia entry. Drives me nuts, I tell ya.
Reply #42 Top
I think I read this somewhere else but whoever said it was right. DeviantArt is the collective rectum alright. What happens when you concenrate a bunch of self involved, melodramatic teens into one site? You get DeviantArt. Now the person who created that culture is going to probably find out that those same self involved melodramatic teens will do nothing more than squeek for a couple of weeks and then move on to their next "cause".
Reply #43 Top
If Microsoft doesn't renew its URL for some reason, can someone just take it and use it for their own project?


Microsoft sued some kid a while back for coming up with a URL that almost matched the word "Microsoft" so basically he was sent a cease and desist letter.