I don't know what the big bang will be on "7th January" but it just looks like wikia site i have been trying to ask dave and sue to contribute for days. Was this the big bang of searching? Angela Jimbo tell me something good is gonna happen with a bang ;-)
Mike
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:29:05AM +0000, michael west wrote:
I don't know what the big bang will be on "7th January" but it just looks like wikia site i have been trying to ask dave and sue to contribute for days. Was this the big bang of searching? Angela Jimbo tell me something good is gonna happen with a bang ;-)
Hi Mike,
Wikia is a commercial company with no relations to the Wikimedia Foundation or the English Wikipedia. It just happens to be founded by the same person.
You should ask on Wikia's mailing lists about this, e.g. http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/search-l
Regards,
jens
On 1/3/08, Jens Frank jf@mormo.org wrote:
Wikia is a commercial company with no relations to the Wikimedia Foundation or the English Wikipedia. It just happens to be founded by the same person.
It's a bit more than that. From [[Wikia]]:
"Wikia, Inc. has ties in terms of personnel and resources with the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia and other collaborative projects. Also, key players at Wikia simultaneously serve the Foundation in high-profile capacities — namely, Wales (Chairman Emeritus), Michael E. Davis (Treasurer until December 2007), and Beesley (serves on the Communications Committee of the Foundation and also chairs the Foundation's Advisory Board)."
In practical terms, Wikia also gets quite a few free kicks from Wikipedia, and is often the designated dumping ground for stuff that doesn't fit into Wikipedia.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 1/3/08, Jens Frank jf@mormo.org wrote:
Wikia is a commercial company with no relations to the Wikimedia Foundation or the English Wikipedia. It just happens to be founded by the same person.
It's a bit more than that. From [[Wikia]]:
"Wikia, Inc. has ties in terms of personnel and resources with the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia and other collaborative projects. Also, key players at Wikia simultaneously serve the Foundation in high-profile capacities — namely, Wales (Chairman Emeritus), Michael E. Davis (Treasurer until December 2007), and Beesley (serves on the Communications Committee of the Foundation and also chairs the Foundation's Advisory Board)."
In practical terms, Wikia also gets quite a few free kicks from Wikipedia, and is often the designated dumping ground for stuff that doesn't fit into Wikipedia.
Is this, possibly, the reason to why the enwiki data dumps (willingly?) continue to fail?
Regards,
// Rolf Lampa
Of course not, why would it? and why would you suggest such a thing?
On Jan 7, 2008 6:19 PM, Rolf Lampa rolf.lampa@rilnet.com wrote:
Is this, possibly, the reason to why the enwiki data dumps (willingly?) continue to fail?
Regards,
// Rolf Lampa
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:23 -0500, Casey Brown wrote:
Of course not, why would it? and why would you suggest such a thing?
On Jan 7, 2008 6:19 PM, Rolf Lampa rolf.lampa@rilnet.com wrote:
Is this, possibly, the reason to why the enwiki data dumps (willingly?) continue to fail?
Regards,
// Rolf Lampa
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It seems that people are lately getting suspicious of Jimbos intentions. There are many people, at least I have heard from and of many, that are not too certain that Jimbos stated goals at Wikipedia (free information) and Wikia (a for-profit company) are compatible. Of course, Jimbo has to live and make a living and I don't have any problem. However, it might be time to seperate his duties at Wikipedia and Wikia and cut all ties they may have. I would welcome such a move, however don't believe it to be absolutely necessary.
Have a good night,
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On 1/8/08, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that people are lately getting suspicious of Jimbos intentions. There are many people, at least I have heard from and of many, that are not too certain that Jimbos stated goals at Wikipedia (free information) and Wikia (a for-profit company) are compatible. Of course, Jimbo has to live and make a living and I don't have any problem. However, it might be time to seperate his duties at Wikipedia and Wikia and cut all ties they may have. I would welcome such a move, however don't believe it to be absolutely necessary.
Would such a move benefit Wikipedia? I doubt it. If we had to choose between Jimbo and Angela working on both projects, or working only on Wikia, we would be crazy to choose the latter.
Steve
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 11:55 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 1/8/08, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that people are lately getting suspicious of Jimbos intentions. There are many people, at least I have heard from and of many, that are not too certain that Jimbos stated goals at Wikipedia (free information) and Wikia (a for-profit company) are compatible. Of course, Jimbo has to live and make a living and I don't have any problem. However, it might be time to seperate his duties at Wikipedia and Wikia and cut all ties they may have. I would welcome such a move, however don't believe it to be absolutely necessary.
Would such a move benefit Wikipedia? I doubt it. If we had to choose between Jimbo and Angela working on both projects, or working only on Wikia, we would be crazy to choose the latter.
Steve
No no, I'm not saying they should chose - not at all! We wouldn't be where we are without Jimbo. I am saying that the emphasise on the ties should be less, possibly and according to some people.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On Jan 7, 2008 7:55 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Would such a move benefit Wikipedia? I doubt it. If we had to choose between Jimbo and Angela working on both projects, or working only on Wikia, we would be crazy to choose the latter.
In a year or two it probably won't matter anyway, as Wikia won't exist any more.
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 20:21 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Jan 7, 2008 7:55 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Would such a move benefit Wikipedia? I doubt it. If we had to choose between Jimbo and Angela working on both projects, or working only on Wikia, we would be crazy to choose the latter.
In a year or two it probably won't matter anyway, as Wikia won't exist any more.
I wouldn't bet for or against that one, it all depends what happens this year really. It depends on what Wikia does and also the market - if this whole Web2.0 stuff, which we sadly Wikia also belongs, bubble pops it might be over. It's hard to tell.
On the point of satire: Copyright situation for satire is defiantly different to other areas, however I am not an expert in this field at all and couldn't find any decent google hits within 10 seconds. Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on [[Satire]] doesn't mention anything as far as I can see. This could possibly be taken up by somebody.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
Use search terms "fair use parody" and see what you get.
Nathan
On Jan 7, 2008 8:26 PM, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 20:21 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Jan 7, 2008 7:55 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Would such a move benefit Wikipedia? I doubt it. If we had to choose between Jimbo and Angela working on both projects, or working only on Wikia, we would be crazy to choose the latter.
In a year or two it probably won't matter anyway, as Wikia won't exist any more.
I wouldn't bet for or against that one, it all depends what happens this year really. It depends on what Wikia does and also the market - if this whole Web2.0 stuff, which we sadly Wikia also belongs, bubble pops it might be over. It's hard to tell.
On the point of satire: Copyright situation for satire is defiantly different to other areas, however I am not an expert in this field at all and couldn't find any decent google hits within 10 seconds. Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on [[Satire]] doesn't mention anything as far as I can see. This could possibly be taken up by somebody.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 08/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Use search terms "fair use parody" and see what you get.
I think one could reasonably argue that many of enwiki's copyright claims are themselves a bad parody *of* fair use...
What really confuses me is not the links between Wikipedia and the SearchWikia, but the lack of them. I think they/we are missing an obvious possibility.
When I search wikia for "example", two questions arise:
1) Why is the Wikipedia article on "example" not listed? It is rated third in Google, why not at all by wikia? Even when a type "example wikipedia" I don't get a hit? What on earth? Wikipedia seems to be excluded from most searches - or certainly undervalued.
2) Wikia search invites me to write a short article on "example", and release it under the GNU:
We do not have a mini article about "example". Improve the search results for everyone by starting this article!
What is point in creating a free content alternative article to the Wikipedia one? Surely the sensible thing would be to link to the Wikipedia/wikitionary article - and if that article is non-existent, invite the searcher to write one for Wikiasearch. That new article, written for Wikiasearch, could then be transposed back into wikipedia or wikitionary (although perhaps through some sort of human filter where a regular wikipedia/wiktionary editor will decide whether it benefits the project).
If this was put into effect, it would help both projects. People, never connected previously with wikipedia, would be providing content for us. And free knowledge generally would increase.
Doc
On 08/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
What really confuses me is not the links between Wikipedia and the SearchWikia, but the lack of them. I think they/we are missing an obvious possibility.
When I search wikia for "example", two questions arise:
- Why is the Wikipedia article on "example" not listed? It is rated
third in Google, why not at all by wikia? Even when a type "example wikipedia" I don't get a hit? What on earth? Wikipedia seems to be excluded from most searches - or certainly undervalued.
Welcome to the black art of trying to figure out search engine algorithms. First google is a bad choice of comparison here it overanks wikipedia compared to pretty much everyone else. The most popular theory is that google is more relying on domain authority than pagerank. There are other elements such as site age and content change rate that could be causing wikipedia to rank highly. There are other theories.
Search Wikia was a nonsense see this http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080111.wweb11/BNStory/T...
I was bit confused when I wrote the first post. Obviously Wikia is seperate from Wikipedia, but I am sure it is one of its biggest benefactors too.
I saw a press release the day I saw "the grand opening" and checked the page for news and was shocked that I was already registered and able to edit. I tend to delete cookies after a day or two and hadn't visited Wikia in weeks. I was bit hungover and presumed the interwiki had begun! my bad.
wikia can get you a top ten listing on google and I am not suggesting anybody try it as joke. like wikipedia there are vigilent b and sys there.
search wikia is going to work on ratings? so no or not a lot of home spun raters going to be out there. is it just going to be a review site or an idea Jimbo sprung up for a bit of media?
I'm still very confused. The last time i went there on Special:Wantedpages AltaVista was there with 5 entries.
mike
On 08/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
What really confuses me is not the links between Wikipedia and the SearchWikia, but the lack of them. I think they/we are missing an obvious possibility.
When I search wikia for "example", two questions arise:
- Why is the Wikipedia article on "example" not listed? It is rated
third in Google, why not at all by wikia? Even when a type "example wikipedia" I don't get a hit? What on earth? Wikipedia seems to be excluded from most searches - or certainly undervalued.
Welcome to the black art of trying to figure out search engine algorithms. First google is a bad choice of comparison here it overanks wikipedia compared to pretty much everyone else. The most popular theory is that google is more relying on domain authority than pagerank. There are other elements such as site age and content change rate that could be causing wikipedia to rank highly. There are other theories.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 8, 2008 12:46 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Welcome to the black art of trying to figure out search engine algorithms. First google is a bad choice of comparison here it overanks wikipedia compared to pretty much everyone else. The most popular theory is that google is more relying on domain authority than pagerank. There are other elements such as site age and content change rate that could be causing wikipedia to rank highly. There are other theories.
For whatever it's worth ... I monitor google search rankings for WP and it's declined a lot over the last few months.
Is that just a guess, or is Wikia in a financial bind?
About Jimbo, that's crazy. There are tons of CEOs that are also on non- profit boards that have similar areas of interest. Jimbo's for-profit companies are what originally helped fund Wikipedia in the first place. For a guy who was so willing to put that money into Wikipedia instead of into his own pockets, I find it hard to believe there is any kind of conflict simply because his latest venture also uses MediaWiki software, or that it is even a viable business strategy.
-- Ned Scott
On Jan 7, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Jan 7, 2008 7:55 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Would such a move benefit Wikipedia? I doubt it. If we had to choose between Jimbo and Angela working on both projects, or working only on Wikia, we would be crazy to choose the latter.
In a year or two it probably won't matter anyway, as Wikia won't exist any more.
On Jan 8, 2008 12:54 AM, Ned Scott ned@nedscott.com wrote:
Is that just a guess, or is Wikia in a financial bind?
It was based on the product they just released. I don't think Wikia has released any information on their revenues.
About Jimbo, that's crazy. There are tons of CEOs that are also on non- profit boards that have similar areas of interest.
I don't dispute this, but I can't think of any off-hand. I'd be surprised if there were a lot of CEOs that founded their for-profit company while sitting on the non-profit board. The other way around, a prominent CEO who gets elected to a non-profit board, that's very different.
Jimbo's for-profit companies are what originally helped fund Wikipedia in the first place. For a guy who was so willing to put that money into Wikipedia instead of into his own pockets, I find it hard to believe there is any kind of conflict simply because his latest venture also uses MediaWiki software, or that it is even a viable business strategy.
You're talking about Bomis? Bomis put money into Wikipedia to try to make a profit. They spun it off into a non-profit after they realized they couldn't make a profit - they couldn't even afford to pay Larry Sanger. According to Alex T. Roshuk, Jimmy has even said that he regrets the decision to make Wikipedia a non-profit.
Jimbo himself was even clear in the early days that Wikipedia was *not* an act of altruism.
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:23 -0500, Casey Brown wrote:
Of course not, why would it? and why would you suggest such a thing?
On Jan 7, 2008 6:19 PM, Rolf Lampa rolf.lampa@rilnet.com wrote:
Is this, possibly, the reason to why the enwiki data dumps (willingly?) continue to fail?
Regards,
// Rolf Lampa
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On the matter raised in the subject line, I was rather disappointed with the release (even if early alpha) of Wikia search. However, possibly this project will take off - depending on the willingness of people to work for free on a -afaik- for-profit project.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
"for profit" basically just means that the owners make money off of it by ads, very similar to google.
On Jan 7, 2008 6:31 PM, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:23 -0500, Casey Brown wrote:
Of course not, why would it? and why would you suggest such a thing?
On Jan 7, 2008 6:19 PM, Rolf Lampa rolf.lampa@rilnet.com wrote:
Is this, possibly, the reason to why the enwiki data dumps (willingly?) continue to fail?
Regards,
// Rolf Lampa
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On the matter raised in the subject line, I was rather disappointed with the release (even if early alpha) of Wikia search. However, possibly this project will take off - depending on the willingness of people to work for free on a -afaik- for-profit project.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l