In a message dated 2/12/2008 11:34:59 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
The money depends on the job, not the job title. The foundation isn't
going to pay them extra in exchange for them accepting a lesser title,
is it?>>
------------------------------------------------
No, and my point wasn't from the view of the Foundation, but rather from the
view of the desk-worker.
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. Go to AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
In a message dated 2/12/2008 11:13:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
and because people like to have a big title, of course.>>
---------
Once they realize the average, one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco goes
for $1800 a month, they will be more interested in the money.
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. Go to AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
----- Original Message ----
From: Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
> Yeah, so those were my thoughts on the audit. Anyone else?
I'd love to hear someone say something along those lines
"Thank you to the staff and board to have succeeded to have the
Foundation audited for the 4th time"
There are over 200 000 000 people reading Wikipedia everyday.
It would be very cool even ONE says "thank you". It would go a long way
to keep us working.
Something like
"for every criticism you voice, provide a thank you on another point"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Florence, I found your statement here to be really tacky and inappropriate and your follow-up comment to be even more tacky. You're the Chair of a multi-million dollar foundation. Frankly, the fact that your volunteers care enough to actually scrutinize the Foundation reports in the way they do should show they care. Secondly, every donation that's made ... whether it's $5 from a college student or a large grant, but especially the $5 from the college student, is a thank you that says "we think you're doing a good job ... please keep it up." I work for a non-profit and know how difficult it is to get each and every donation. I'm pleased as punch with every donation we bring in, and I can't even imagine our CEO or even or VP of Fund Development going to one of our volunteers or donors who asked a question about our financial statement and making a comment like yours.
Sue Anne
sreed1234(a)yahoo.com
In a message dated 2/10/2008 2:20:48 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
I don't follow... is that meant to be a joke?>>
-----------------------------
Yes.
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0030000…
48)
>"Note C - Contingencies
> In the normal course of business, the Organization receives
> various threats of litigation on a regular basis. In the
> opinion of management, the outcome of the pending
> lawsuits will not materially affect present operations or the
> financial stability of the Organization."
This is standard boilerplate language for an audit. It means there are no lawsuits on the horizon that are sufficiently credible to be worried about. The accountants can't risk saying "they'll never be sued" so they use that weaselly language. Go to www.sec.gov and pull up some corporate financial reports -- you'll see some with statements like that and others with statements about big lawsuits.
A. B.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A._B.
In a message dated 2/10/2008 1:27:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
If you start reading an article and are finding it difficult to
understand, the sensible thing to do is to go and read a more general
article on the subject first.>>
--------------------
I find it defamatory that our readers are implied to be "sensible"
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0030000…
48)
"Steve Bennett"
> Hmm. 5 letters per word is one thing, but 5 bytes per word? Seems like
> it will be skewed by wikitext syntax (tables and templates in
> particular)...
Yes - OTOH this is just shading it down a bit. Within 10% would be good enough, really. And some articles use looong words.
So is it possible to get the distribution of articles (without pages marked as disambiguations), rendered as "plain text", by total number of words, say by something like quartiles?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
This may be something old, but a friend of mine asked me a question online
today, including this bit:
--------------
I got an email for a liquidation sale.
http://rd.sales.overstock.com/cprOverstock/10000/cphostredirect.asp?sid=202…
I click that link, and below the merchandise is a box with the following in
it.
===========
* Wikipedia has become an instrument of mass mind-control.
I thought you'd want to know.
Respectfully,
Patrick M. Byrne
CEO, Overstock.com
PS Ask yourself, might there be other subjects, like Wall Street corruption,
where the same techniques are being employed? (Incidentally, Jimbo Wales,
the founder of Wikipedia, is a former Chicago options trader. How odd.)
For the full picture, click here.*
================
--------------------------------
what the hell's going on?
--
-Brock
NavouWiki wrote
> Outdated data where an approximate median size can be extrapolated.
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
>
>
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
Thanks. Doesn't quite answer the question, since there isn't recent data. To be more precise, at average 5 bytes per word, I'd be interested in whether a median 400 words (2K therefore), or 500 words, is more plausible. The extrapolation would suggest the former, but the figure is going to be pulled down by disambiguation pages that are only technically articles.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam