I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested.
The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much
as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with
just translation needed. Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc
etc should already have been sorted. Comments?
luke
Please take a minute to have a look at this and read the methodology document that accompanies it.
In any event, this kind of metric, 154M unique visitors in September, demonstrates we are one of the top web sites on the planet.
/me pats the community on the back!
-Brad
=======================================================================
Press Release
Media Alert: comScore Releases Worldwide Ranking of Top Web Properties
RESTON, Va., October 26, 2006 – comScore Networks, a leader in
measuring the digital age, today reported the latest worldwide ranking
of top Web properties, ranked by unique visitors. Of note were the
gains experienced by Wikipedia Sites and Youtube.com during September.
Both sites were up 12 percent versus August.
Top Global Web Properties
Total Unique Visitors (000),age 15+ *
September 2006
Total Worldwide - Home and Work Locations
Source: comScore World Metrix
Web Properties
Total Unique Visitors (000) Sept-06
Worldwide Total (Age 15+) 726,749
Microsoft Sites 505,479
Yahoo! Sites 480,641
Google Sites 467,498
eBay 237,327
Time Warner Network 217,843
Wikipedia Sites 154,848
Amazon Sites 133,518
Fox Interactive Media 117,789
Ask Network 112,768
Adobe Sites 95,196
Apple Computer, Inc. 94,909
Lycos, Inc. 91,126
CNET Networks 84,259
YouTube.com 81,019
Monster Worldwide 60,162
I have been thinking it over and decided to face reality. I have lost
all my believe in the wikimediaprojects. So much even that I am now
adding content to places outside of the wikimediaprojects instead of
having to deal with all the 100000000000000's of procedures and rules
being implemented by people who do not even know how to write an article.
The projects have been taken over by a group of people, mostly
teenagers, whom apparently have lost all sight of realism and have taken
other people's work hostage, without creating one bit of content
themselves. Who feel that adding templates, writing rules and policing
(the process) is more important than what we set out to do. Also there
is a very very very strong western bias in the projects. Ideas and
processes are launched which might work perfectly in a western world
(like the rules for verification) but which fall flat on their face when
applied to non-western items. When someone actually rises this point on
the lists (me) it is ignored.
Also Jimbo's statement that en: wikipedia has covered most subjects
disappoints me. This might be true for subjects on developed countries.
But the projects are heavily lacking in the same sort of content with
regards to the developing world. While every lake in the US probably has
an article. Most Asian / African / South American countries have barely
got articles describing these kind of features. And if someone does
write an article about it, it gets deleted as non-encyclopedic. Also
wikipedia's become very nationalistic like the nl: wikipedia where a
fairly large group feels non-Dutch and non-Belgian topics should not be
covered in the Dutch language edition! And they actually wrote rules to
enforce this.
The amount of people who only care about their own backyard (the west)
and wanna delete everything they do not understand has grown to big.
Also other idiocism like on nl: wikipedia where procedure is 100x more
important than the smooth running of the project, resulting in an
everyone can insult everyone situation and no-one get's actually blocked
is taking to much time and stress.
Jimbo invented the wheel with the wikimedia projects. Unfortunately the
wheel never evolved, nor will it in the current climate. Every form of
progress of the projects in something meaningfull and working gets
blocked or grinded in bureaucracy by a group of people who want to be
the boss.
Meanwhile on the boardlevel politicians rule who only give a shit about
themselves and about political games. I have seen many of these games
played out over the years. Also the projects diversify to much and to
much new niches where new small groups start that take their particular
niche hostage (commons being a prime example) are started. Instead of
looking at how things can co-operate people start their own new kingdoms
and fiefdoms (like wikitionaryz, which is GerardM's fiefdom) into things
that are not our core imho. We are about creating content, not spreading
it, let other people do that job.
On some projects I still have moderating bits, I hereby ask the stewards
to take these bits away as I do not wish to spend to much time anymore
on the projects, I might shout a bit from the sideline. The wikimedia
projects will always exist, and the original idea was great.
Unfortunately Winston Churchill was right .... democracy works in theory
only. When the masses take over like on our project, the sum gets
lowered to the level of the masses. Which means herd thinking.
Waerth
>From my understanding, the founding of a local chapter shall be based more
on the need of local members than relying solely on lingual or political
status of a place. Local chapters enable the local members with a legal
status in getting sponsors, communication with organization.
Hello,
As some of you may have noticed, I, along with a few
volunteers who showed up, now have LSS (List Summary Service)
going for foundation-l in English, French, and Spanish:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
Earlier when I announced it, I said I'd like to wait to get
used to the workload before I took on any other lists. I'm
pretty comfortable with the pace at this point, and would
be willing to take on another list with roughly the same
volume -- if anyone can suggest another list important to
the community that's not too much bigger, I'll start on
it. If anyone has ideas on how to get more eyes on the
list summaries, feel free to put them into practice.
I can't speak for the volunteers willingness to take on
more translation, but I suspect that foundation-l is the
most important list, for community relations, to translate
anyhow (and that translated versions are actually more important
than the English edition because they improve trust between the
other-language communities and the English-dominated foundation
folk). The people who stepped up so far are, from the Spanish
Wikipedia, FAR and Cinabrium, and from the French Wikipedia,
(:Julien:) and Teofilo (with a few smaller edits from other folk).
---
Pat Gunn
mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
http://dachte.org
Ceaselessly the river flows, and yet the water is never the same,
while in the still pools the shifting foam gathers and is gone,
never staying for a moment.
-- Hojoki (poem by 13th century Japanese monk)
>
> No becuase logistics issues would kick in
>
> The languages thing with to deal with the problem of countires
like
> say India where it is quite posible that people would not share
a
> common language
>
It is quite possible the opposite position: they will probably
speak in english (that is the "lingua franca" of India).
> Switerland has German, French, Italian, and Romansh that I know
of. I
> don't know how bi/trilingual people are in Switzerland.
They speak in english or in german. In Europe you can easily find
persons who speak three languages without problems.
>
> While logicists will most require that to the case there are
logical
> exceptions (any kurdish speaking chapter would probably have to
be
> based in northen Iraq although sadly I suspect it will be a long
time
> before that becomes an issue).
In any case it's important to be recognized outside your nation
with a legal value. My question was based in this mean... if the
Wikimedia Hong Kong is recognized in any country as an association
with legal value.
Ilario
Hi,
I would like to state that due to the political status of Taiwan, it's not
proper to say "Taiwan from the PRC". Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan for more
information.
Thanks and regards,
H.T.
>From Taiwan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Damian Finol
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:27 AM
> To: effeietsanders(a)gmail.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Some question about Wikimedia Hong Kong
>
> Greetings,
>
> I see it more like, if a group of people feel socially,
> culturally, politically or for some other reason, different
> from other people in their "country" they could create a chapter.
>
> For example:
> Hong Kong and Taiwan from the PRC (maybe Macau too).
> Puerto Rico from the USA
> French Guiana from France
> And maybe (not wanting to start a war here :P) Quebec from Canada.
>
> Just examples of my perception.
>
> Regards,
> Damian
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
___________________________________________________
您的生活即時通 － 溝通、娛樂、生活、工作一次搞定！
http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/
Ok... and in this case can also South Tyrol create its own chapter
considering that he has the some autonomy that Hong Kong and it not
will finish in 2047?
...and also Guernesey, Man, Shark....
Ilario
----Messaggio originale----
Da: shimgray(a)gmail.com
Data: 24.10.06 18.19
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Some question about Wikimedia Hong
Kong
>
> I don't understand if this creation is correct considering that
> Hong Kong will be completely integrated in mainland of China in
the
> 2047.
2047 is a long, long time away. When it comes, we can cross that
bridge.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Why?
If the chapter must have a legal basis and legal ability it must be
founded on "jurisdictional" basis.
The rule is based on jurisdiction and not in the countries border.
Ilario
----Messaggio originale----
Da: smoddy(a)gmail.com
Data: 24.10.06 19.01
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Some question about Wikimedia Hong
Kong
On 10/24/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/06, Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > One chapter per "jurisdiction" is closer to what we are trying
to do.
> >
> > Delphine
>
Delphine was quite clearly not saying this was a hard-and-fast
rule.
Obviously these things should be taken case-by-case.
There's no need to pick holes in everything anyone says. It's very
impolite.