Eric Friedman is an ASUCD Senator on the GO slate.

There's more information on his public page.


You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

2007-10-13 02:22:41   Because I'm a fellow wiki editor, and I'm trying to help make the entry better: more useful to everybody looking to read it. Your points were GO platform points, so I moved them down to the section of the mission statement and bullet pointed them (it looked like you were trying to originally — you have to have a leading space in front of the * to make it work). I also fixed your bullets in the LEAD reply you made. If you need any help, just ask. —JabberWokky

2007-10-13 02:25:28   Oh, by the way (and this is just a bit of a tip), you might want to use the Preview function, as each time you save, a new revision is made and appears on the Recent Changes list. It's not terrible, but one of those things that makes it harder for others to figure out when you're done editing. Also, every change you make is visible. —JabberWokky

2007-11-03 23:40:22   "OUTREACHED TO THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING COMMUNITY by holding the first ever Science and Engineering Symposium". Lulz. This is the first time I've ever heard of such a thing. You ASUCD folk have absolutely no effect on us engineering folk, except that you take our money. One hell of a job outreaching, eh? —WilliamLewis

2007-11-04 19:59:41   Please see ["Fall 2007 ASUCD Election/Talk"]. —JabberWokky

2007-11-04 20:28:04   Hey Eric, there's a discussion going on on the above linked Talk entry. It would be great if you could provide some input to support your assertions. —JabberWokky

2007-11-06 09:38:47   You can check the Recent Changes page to see what goes on in the wiki, or hit the "info" button up by the page title to see the pages info.EdWins

2007-11-06 10:16:16   All edits are signed... you can check the info button (as is pointed out above) to see who did what and when. During quick discussions (like on a talk page or comments to people on their entries), people often use shorthand initial signatures, especially when it is a conversation thread. Signatures are just for clarity when reading a discussion... the full records of every edit are available to anyone. —JabberWokky

2007-11-06 20:53:42   All this going on about Eric being a jackass is rather silly, he is trying to edit his page so that it reflects better on his 'slate' (as they say) so that he has a better 'chance' of being elected. I find it personally ironic that these means of censorship are being employed for an election process which is supposedly most democratic and helps promote choice voting (which is awesome). Honestly most folk don't really give a hoot about the modern ASUCD, it did good things in the past, and most things people care about are insuring the youth of the modern generation simply don't mess up what good endeavors were started long ago, thus the low voter turn out. If Eric wants to play censor, in his little realm of the ASUCD, and the minority of users who seek advice from the wiki on these matters, especially when GO uses their lovely ASUCD logo adorned website and facebook to promote itself, does it really need another censored source spouting the same annoying meaning careless dribble. I read your court case against Laabs, your arguments were so full of holes do poly sci folk not need logic or critical reasoning, do they only learn the art of equivocation? Seriously, all ya folk, can we just get rid of all this election propaganda on the wiki for all sides of the debate, I don't mind historical reference about the history of these slates, that is mildly interesting and relevant to the community, when they actually do stuff, but news of stupid campaigning in the dorms, I don't really why I should give a damn, perhaps we should link some ASUCD site that says all about election business. Anyways, Eric, your censoring edits will leave you worse off, Lewis and Laabs don't sleep and take pride in these revert wars, you should perhaps be focused on the students anyway. —DavidPoole

2007-11-23 20:58:37   Has anyone explained the customs about not editing one's public page ("Eric Friedman")? The general idea is that your page ("Users/EricFriedman") is yours to do with as you want, but that the public page is up to the community to edit. This custom has varied situation by situation, but has generally held. —JasonAller

2007-11-23 21:41:57   This is not your typical website. The information you are removing is not even negative. Public officials are not suppose to be heavily editing their public pages. Thats just how it is. —JamesSchwab

2007-11-23 21:45:22   Howdy, Eric. Just so you don't think it's a couple of people who are trying to mess with you, I'll add my voice to the collective: the public entry is about you, just as an article in the Daily Collegian would be about you. It doesn't belong to you... or rather, it belongs to everybody, including you. While you certainly can edit it, just like all other entries on the wiki (say, for instance, the entry about Sue Greenwald), it is a profile about the person... the entry about Mayor Greenwald is about her and written by the editors of the wiki. The same applies to the public entry about you: about you, but written by the editors of the wiki (including you). That means that if you want to make any changes, you need to work with other editors, the exact same way you'd have to work with other editors if you were making changes to Sue Greenwald's entry. Some people just avoid the issue by not editing their own entry at all to avoid the question of impropriety. Please try to work with your fellow editors, as the entry is theirs as much as it is yours. —JabberWokky

2007-11-23 22:26:51   By running for office, you have made yourself a public figure. That means that people can publish information about you... that whole first amendment right to speech and press. The SacBee, Davis Enterprise and Daily Collegian aren't somehow special compared to, say, James Schwab. They all have the same right to speech and press. Honestly, you really need to let others have a fair chance to edit that entry. It belongs to them as well. —JabberWokky

2007-11-23 23:13:25   You have no right to review everything written about you. You've already been told how this wiki works and yet you've ignored it. Whatever you take out is just going to be put right back and you will have wasted tons of time just making yourself look like an oversensitive moron. Cut it out. —WilliamLewis

2007-11-23 23:36:19   Eric, wikis do not have webmasters. You really do not seem to understand some of the basic concepts at work here: the content is in Creative Commons, and when it comes to content, all editors are equal here. That is why you need to work with your fellow editors. The community in general has decided on the tradition of the split public/private entries. It is like a public park: a shared resource that everybody uses, and over time some basic conventions have arisen that help people work together. The people you need to appeal to are all the people talking to you about the issue at hand... which is why we're all spending the time trying to help you understand how this wiki works. It may help to read the Welcome to the Wiki, which outlines in simplified terms some of the basics. The fundamental thing you don't seem to realize is that you have been an active member of the Senate of UC Davis, which makes you a Davis related figure worth writing about. Your actions are part of a long line of student Senators, and are recorded in various minutes, your actions are published in publications from the Aggie to the Davis Enforcer, and you are profiled on the ASUCD webpage and the Davis Wiki. In the latter case, the content is edited by the editors of the wiki, and while that includes you, it is not limited to you. What you are editing is community property, and gutting the content of the entry is like cutting down a gazebo in a public park... you'd have to convince a bunch of people that it is the right thing to do. The whole wiki is community built and owned, and although there is an entry about you, it does not belong solely to you... any more than than the entry about Borders belongs to them. It is certainly about them, as they are a visible and public part of the Davis community. As an office holder in the UC Davis student government, you became part of the history of Davis. The wiki serves as a community resource, and so your tenure and public activities are being written about. We're a pretty easy going group of editors, but we're working to document and explore the Davis community, and that's why the content of the entry is being protected by your fellow editors: it is part of the community property. If there are specific problems with the entry, several people have asked you to explain them on the talk page so we can all work them out. The more specific the better, as it makes it easier to discuss. It takes a bit of time to understand how the wiki works, just like it takes a bit of time to figure out any other volunteer run organization, but there are plenty of people here to help you out if you're willing to try and work together with your fellow editors.


2007-11-24 00:47:00   Eric, it seems that you're initial edit earlier today was regarding the portion about the censure that Brent Laabs added a couple of weeks ago. Is that the only part of the page that is considered slanderous? Seeing that Brent Laabs failed to provide any evidence that would support his assertion, I think we can safely delete what he wrote, unless he is willing to provide such evidence. I only propose this because the others are going to insist on some form of a public page existing, and I would rather see a positive conclusion to this mess rather than a prolonged edit war. —PaulAmnuaypayoat

2007-11-24 07:23:12   "Now, let me tell you the way I work. I am not community property. No one owns me but me. The page that is about me is my property. There is no other way to look to at it. Under your reasoning, becasue I hold an elected office in the UC Davis student government, it is OK for people to slander my name? This is ludicrous. I am getting fed up with this."

It is no more yours than the Davis Enforcer newspaper article written about you belongs to you... or do you think that, say, Senator Barbara Boxer owns and has a say in everything written about her? You are welcome to be part of the wiki editor community. If you choose not to be, that is perfectly fine... just logout (if you feel you *really* want to exit, you could even delete your account). If you choose to be part of the editor community, you need to accept that there are others who are editing here as well. If you have problems with part of the entry, people are happy to try and improve the entry (see Paul reaching out to you in the above message... heck, see a steady stream of people reaching out to you above). Barbara Boxer may disagree with the way the SacBee writes articles about her, but she does not have sole editoral jurisdiction over the articles they write about her, nor do you have sole jurisdiction over the entry about you. The wiki allows you to work with other editors, which is a durn sight better than most published resources. Go ahead and try to get the Aggie to alter This article about you, which also shows up in Google. The wiki editors are willing to work with you to improve the public entry about you (although honestly, your unilateral actions have likely started to sour your relationship with a few of them), but I highly doubt that the Aggie will be willing to remove that past Opinion article from their web site (let alone library copies). —JabberWokky

2007-11-24 16:07:50   Do you think that the last line of this comment is going to result in achieving your aims? It is a little like announcing that you are going to get up each morning and find every newspaper on every driveway in town and black out things you disagree with. — Are you familiar with the legend of Masamune and Muramasa? Edit like Masamune and you won't have to hack away at the content of the wiki. —JasonAller

2007-11-24 16:16:52   What exactly on your public page is slanderous? —JamesSchwab

I'm wondering this too. What's being deleted looks like his candidate statement, which we save for all of the past ASUCD candidates. —PhilipNeustrom

  • My hunch is that it's the stuff that Brent Laabs added, which should be correctly taken out unless Brent can actually show some evidence of truth in his text (the stuff about a potential censure, and Eric's desire to help his cronies). If it is something else, we need to know about it so that we can help resolve the matter. - Paul Amnuaypayoat
    • I see this old edit that was made by Brent, but that material isn't on the page right now, so I'm at a loss understanding what Eric thinks is slanderous. —PhilipNeustrom
      • Eric mentioned this reason on JW's page also, but he was concerned that other slander might be created here, and not caught because there are many wiki users who are either against GO, or are not knowledgeable enough to know what is true and what is not. In all honestly, someone probably should have removed Brent's inappropriate text much sooner, or at least made the text neutral, but I guess it slipped past us. Going forward, I think we all know what to watch out for. - Paul Amnuaypayoat

2007-11-24 17:10:46   If you go to Eric Friedman/Talk and tell people what you think is slanderous you'll have a lot better chance of getting what you want. The wiki is compromise and intolerant unilateral action doesn't work. —JasonAller

2007-11-24 17:29:31   Oh, and please review Slander and Libel before continuing to toss those words around. —JasonAller

2007-11-24 17:55:59   OMG Paul is libelizing me by saying my text was inappropriate! What proof do you have?! —BrentLaabs

2007-11-26 11:15:47   What was your point? —JamesSchwab

2007-12-02 21:10:15   Hey, no worries. Dean's page is gonna stay. Some people get it in their heads that if something no longer exists, it isn't worth having info about. —WilliamLewis

2007-12-06 21:01:24   Yes, and I'm having a conversation with you that you are ignoring. Please note that there are many many edit conflicts there. I'm currently removing them, but please note that I'm also responding to some of the allegations. —JabberWokky

2007-12-08 14:37:26   The edit you mentioned in your comment "censorship?.." was made by BrentLaabs, not JabberWokky. —PhilipNeustrom

2007-12-08 15:16:29   It's not censorship if I'm deleting content that makes you look like a tool. It's for your own good, really. —BrentLaabs

2007-12-08 18:45:47   Nothing big, just that GO was descended from Student Focus. Years ago, Student Focus did a lot of bad things, much of which occurred before the Davis Wiki formed. That's is why I supported the original FUCK slate. Since then, I never really shook off my bias towards Student Focus or its descendants. But then again, I never really considered LEAD to be anything more than the lesser of 2 evils either. And given the cyclical nature of ASUCD political power, I am sure LEAD will shoot itself in the foot one of these days. At this point, I prefer to be pro-wiki and treat everyone as equals, despite my personal biases. It makes things much easier from my point of view. —PaulAmnuaypayoat

2008-06-06 11:52:09   I just want to take a moment to thank Eric Friedman for his unequivocal display of his true character. It has been easy for me to determine just what sort of person he is based on his comments, especially on ["Fall 2007 ASUCD Election/Talk"]. The Senator has shown with great predictability his marrow of impertinent conceit and sarcasm. It is evident to me that Eric Friedman is nothing but an uncaring politico who realizes the student body's majority obliviousness to the comments he makes. —GregRobinson