"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - Mark Twain
Since Citizendium is all the rage on this mailing list, a review and comparison of Alexa stats seemed like a good idea. Here's how things stack up:
TRAFFIC RANK: Citizendium: 63,929 Wikipedia: 7
REACH: (Percent of global Internet users who visit the site, 3 month average) Citizendium: 0.00155% Wikipedia: 8.711%
Of course, the numbers vary a bit depending on what ranking service one selects. But not by all that much. It's been two and a half years since Citizendium's launch. The project has 10,500 articles and slightly over 100 approved articles. English Wikipedia topped 100,000 articles in January 2003, just about two years after launch. In January 2004 English Wikipedia reached 200,000 articles. Arguably, Citizendium both gains and loses by launching later: the site can draw upon a large pool of existing free content at Wikipedia, but Wikipedia had already become a prominent website by the time Citizendium started.
With respect extended toward Larry Sanger and his undertaking, a few questions are worth asking: 1. Is Citizendium a snapshot of what Wikipedia's growth would have been, if Larry Sanger had remained with the project? 2. Will Citizendium become a top 1000 website within the next five years? 3. Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder claims regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor?
-Durova
2009/4/16 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
- Is Citizendium a snapshot of what Wikipedia's growth would have been, if
Larry Sanger had remained with the project?
No. Wikipedia changes the online landscape for that to be the case.
- Will Citizendium become a top 1000 website within the next five years?
I wouldn't expect it to but if it finds a market wikipedia has missed it might.
- Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder claims
regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor?
In some respects. The problem is the community has effectively already settled the issues as can be seen by the content of the relevant articles. Larry's other targets appear to be jimbo, the board and the media. This list has only a very limited impact on all three.
2009/4/16 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
- Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder claims
regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor?
Not here. It doesn't help us develop and improve the English Wikipedia.
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, James Farrar wrote:
- Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder claims
regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor?
Not here. It doesn't help us develop and improve the English Wikipedia.
I've found the "to improve Wikipedia" clause in various rules to be an odd loophole. Usually it gets abused in BLP and privacy discussions: "that helps the individual named in the BLP but doesn't improve the encyclopedia". The idea that we must improve the encyclopedia is *not* a blanket excuse to avoid our responsibilities to get things correct or not to cause harm.
In fact, this is almost the same as the BLP and privacy abuses. Sanger is a particular named individual that Wikipedia is making claims about. He says the claims are wrong. It's up to us to get them right, whether it "improves the encyclopedia" or not--and if getting them right doesn't improve the encyclopedia, what are we doing making *any* claims about *anyone's* founder status?
(Moreover, Sanger has pointed to particular things he claims aren't true, above and beyond the founder/cofounder issue.)
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:24 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
I've found the "to improve Wikipedia" clause in various rules to be an odd loophole. Usually it gets abused in BLP and privacy discussions: "that helps the individual named in the BLP but doesn't improve the encyclopedia". The idea that we must improve the encyclopedia is *not* a blanket excuse to avoid our responsibilities to get things correct or not to cause harm.
In fact, this is almost the same as the BLP and privacy abuses. Sanger is a particular named individual that Wikipedia is making claims about. He says the claims are wrong. It's up to us to get them right, whether it "improves the encyclopedia" or not--and if getting them right doesn't improve the encyclopedia, what are we doing making *any* claims about *anyone's* founder status?
(Moreover, Sanger has pointed to particular things he claims aren't true, above and beyond the founder/cofounder issue.) ---------------------------
I didn't get the impression that he was complaining here about Wikipedia, but rather just about Jimmy. I looked at the article and it seemed to present them both as co-founders.
I think Larry was just complaining that Jimmy, as an individual person, has been saying this or that about him or about the early history of the project that Larry didn't like. Not that those things have been incorporated into the project.
Will Johnson
2009/4/16 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
In fact, this is almost the same as the BLP and privacy abuses. Sanger is a particular named individual that Wikipedia is making claims about. He says the claims are wrong. It's up to us to get them right, whether it "improves the encyclopedia" or not--and if getting them right doesn't improve the encyclopedia, what are we doing making *any* claims about *anyone's* founder status?
Oh, I'd agree. But (a) we won't settle the truth of the matter in yet another discussion here, and (b) Sanger didn't post to the list to improve Wikipedia; he posted here to bitch about Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales, not necessarily in that order.
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, James Farrar wrote:
(b) Sanger didn't post to the list to improve Wikipedia; he posted here to bitch about Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales, not necessarily in that order.
The same can be said of an ordinary BLP question. Most people who want to correct BLPs about themselves don't want to improve the encyclopedia; they just want to protect their own interests. We listen to them anyway.
2009/4/16 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, James Farrar wrote:
(b) Sanger didn't post to the list to improve Wikipedia; he posted here to bitch about Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales, not necessarily in that order.
The same can be said of an ordinary BLP question. Most people who want to correct BLPs about themselves don't want to improve the encyclopedia; they just want to protect their own interests. We listen to them anyway.
But correcting a falsehood does improve the encyclopedia (even if that's not the "ordinary BLP" complainant's motivation).
I don't believe Sanger truly cares how Wikipedia describes him with respect to its foundation. He just wants to bitch. There's a big difference between your "ordinary BLP question" and this case.
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, James Farrar wrote:
(b) Sanger didn't post to the list to improve Wikipedia; he posted here to bitch about Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales, not necessarily in that order.
The same can be said of an ordinary BLP question. Most people who want to correct BLPs about themselves don't want to improve the encyclopedia; they just want to protect their own interests. We listen to them anyway.
But correcting a falsehood does improve the encyclopedia (even if that's not the "ordinary BLP" complainant's motivation).
That's true if the BLP complaint is factual, but there are BLP rules beyond that (like the one about not disparaging our subjects). Of course, you can say that anything which follows a Wikipedia rule must of necessity improve the encyclopedia, or else we wouldn't have the rule, but that makes the phrase merely a tautology.
I don't believe Sanger truly cares how Wikipedia describes him with respect to its foundation. He just wants to bitch. There's a big difference between your "ordinary BLP question" and this case.
He obviously is claiming that things which we say are true, aren't. Even in the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of proclamations by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay attention to.
He hasn't been complaining about the presentation of the issue in the encyclopedia, but about the stances and conduct of individuals (as he views it) outside the editorial realm.
The reason many here are dismissive is not that these claims are or aren't without merit, but that they are irrelevant to the aim or the project, which is not to resolve who gets how much glory or criticism, but to write neutral encyclopedic content pages in a collaborative manner and leave other issues outside the door - a goal which renders the entire issue largely pointless to many experienced editors, unless some actual mis-balancing of an actual encyclopedia article is in the frame.
FT2
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, James Farrar wrote:
- Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder
claims
regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor?
Not here. It doesn't help us develop and improve the English Wikipedia.
I've found the "to improve Wikipedia" clause in various rules to be an odd loophole. Usually it gets abused in BLP and privacy discussions: "that helps the individual named in the BLP but doesn't improve the encyclopedia". The idea that we must improve the encyclopedia is *not* a blanket excuse to avoid our responsibilities to get things correct or not to cause harm.
In fact, this is almost the same as the BLP and privacy abuses. Sanger is a particular named individual that Wikipedia is making claims about. He says the claims are wrong. It's up to us to get them right, whether it "improves the encyclopedia" or not--and if getting them right doesn't improve the encyclopedia, what are we doing making *any* claims about *anyone's* founder status?
(Moreover, Sanger has pointed to particular things he claims aren't true, above and beyond the founder/cofounder issue.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, James Farrar wrote:
It doesn't help us develop and improve the English Wikipedia.
I've found the "to improve Wikipedia" clause in various rules to be an odd loophole. Usually it gets abused in BLP and privacy discussions: "that helps the individual named in the BLP but doesn't improve the encyclopedia". The idea that we must improve the encyclopedia is *not* a blanket excuse to avoid our responsibilities to get things correct or not to cause harm.
"To improve Wikipedia" is usually a catch-phrase utilized by those evangelizing on behalf of their personal vision. It is on a par with statements made by various nations who go into battle with "God on their side."
Ec
2009/4/16 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - Mark Twain
Since Citizendium is all the rage on this mailing list, a review and comparison of Alexa stats seemed like a good idea. Here's how things stack up:
TRAFFIC RANK: Citizendium: 63,929 Wikipedia: 7
REACH: (Percent of global Internet users who visit the site, 3 month average) Citizendium: 0.00155% Wikipedia: 8.711%
I don't think those are the relevant statistics. Take a look at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics - the article growth is linear and has been from the start. Citizendium will never become significant without exponential growth, and I see nothing to suggest that is going to happen.
"Durova" nadezhda.durova@gmail.com quoted Samuel Clemens in message news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcbcef@mail.gmail.com...
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - Mark Twain
In book called "They never said it!", that is identified as apocryphal, which means that he did not write it (maybe I can find a finer criterion printed in the book). It is a lot of fun to say it, though, so if he said it once, then he probably said it a few times. Einstein said something like it on a sign that hung at his door: " Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that counts can be counted. "
Jay Litwyn wrote:
"Durova" nadezhda.durova@gmail.com quoted Samuel Clemens in message news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcbcef@mail.gmail.com...
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - Mark Twain
In book called "They never said it!", that is identified as apocryphal, which means that he did not write it (maybe I can find a finer criterion printed in the book). It is a lot of fun to say it, though, so if he said it once, then he probably said it a few times. Einstein said something like it on a sign that hung at his door: " Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that counts can be counted. "
My book of quotes (Chambers Dictionary of Quotations) says Clemens attributed it to D'Israeli, citing as source Mark Twain ''Autobiography, vol.1 (1924). So although Clemens may have said it, he wasn't first, or at least didn't think he was first. And it does have the ring of D'Israeli, regardless of whether D'Israeli ever said it. After writing all that, I turned to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
We really aren't half bad, are we?
Jay Litwyn wrote:
"Durova" nadezhda.durova@gmail.com quoted Samuel Clemens in message news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcbcef@mail.gmail.com...
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - Mark Twain
In book called "They never said it!", that is identified as apocryphal, which means that he did not write it (maybe I can find a finer criterion printed in the book).
Have just turned up an instance from 1892, in the */Birmingham Daily Post, /*so I'll add that to the article.*/ /*
Ok, here's a thing.
Should that really be in the wikipedia? It's just all about a quote. Shouldn't that be in wikiquote?
I must admit, whenever I ask questions like this, I get 'it's dunn enuff' to be in the wikipedia. Could somebody point me to [[WP:DUNNENUFF]] policy because it seems to be a red link whenever I try it. I've been looking for this policy, it's clearly one of the 5 pillars because it's used quite a lot, but I haven't located it yet.
;-)
On 11/08/2009, Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikipedian@googlemail.com wrote:
Jay Litwyn wrote:
"Durova" nadezhda.durova@gmail.com quoted Samuel Clemens in message news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcbcef@mail.gmail.com...
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - Mark Twain
In book called "They never said it!", that is identified as apocryphal, which means that he did not write it (maybe I can find a finer criterion printed in the book).
Have just turned up an instance from 1892, in the */Birmingham Daily Post, /*so I'll add that to the article.*/ /*
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The shortcut isn't [[WP:DUNNENUFF]], it's [[WP:IAR]]. You may also find [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] useful. :-P Unless I need to pack my bags and leave for fear my every turn be questioned. What's that Beatles song? "Let It Be"?
Ian Woollard wrote:
Ok, here's a thing.
Should that really be in the wikipedia? It's just all about a quote. Shouldn't that be in wikiquote?
I must admit, whenever I ask questions like this, I get 'it's dunn enuff' to be in the wikipedia. Could somebody point me to [[WP:DUNNENUFF]] policy because it seems to be a red link whenever I try it. I've been looking for this policy, it's clearly one of the 5 pillars because it's used quite a lot, but I haven't located it yet.
;-)
On 11/08/2009, Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikipedian@googlemail.com wrote:
Jay Litwyn wrote:
"Durova" nadezhda.durova@gmail.com quoted Samuel Clemens in message news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcbcef@mail.gmail.com...
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - Mark Twain
In book called "They never said it!", that is identified as apocryphal, which means that he did not write it (maybe I can find a finer criterion printed in the book).
Have just turned up an instance from 1892, in the */Birmingham Daily Post, /*so I'll add that to the article.*/ /*
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l