I'd be happy to take and maintain the memoirs. I'm not sure what's to be
done with the personal and company tribute pages, as they aren't really
consistent with the mission of memorywiki.org.
Best, MP
Marshall Poe, Ph.D.
The Atlantic Monthly
600 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-266-6511
mpoe(a)theatlantic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Angela
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:18 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 9/11wiki content sharing
On 10/26/05, Poe, Marshall <MPoe(a)theatlantic.com> wrote:
> As a part of my effort to enrich www.memorywiki.org, I would like to
> take some of the personal memoir content from 9/11wiki and posting it
> to the site. I think my audience would benefit from the memoirs, and
> that the memoirs would be more widely read (eventually).
How about just moving the whole wiki there rather than copying it page
by page?
I see no point in keeping in what was supposed to be an archive of
content that had to be removed from the English Wikipedia in an editable
form as a unwanted pseudo-Wikimedia project. It is not well maintained,
as a check of the main page's history will show before I resorted to
protecting it. Considering the difficulty in getting any new project
approved by Wikimedia, including a lot of very worthwhile ideas, I don't
see the point in keeping one controversial, monolingual, biased wiki
that has no community.
I really think this would be an ideal opportunity to find a new home for
it.
Angela.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The core mission of Wikipedia is so far I know to write a free
encyclopaedia.
The number of visitors to Wikipedia is exploding. Are all of these
people writing articles? That seems not likely. I do not know how many
of all traffic is done by editors but I assume it must be relative small
compared to the total traffic.
So Wikipedia now is not only a project to write a encyclopaedia but also
a website where people come to read the encyclopaedia.
Why? Is it so important to be one of the most visited websites in the
world? (and have to pay for it)
Outsource the reading of the encyclopaedia. Keep Wikipedia out of the
results of the search engines. Reduce drastically the traffic to
Wikipedia. Keep Wikipedia only as the project to write the encyclopaedia.
Assist company's to set-up mirrors and sync whit the real wikipedia.
Those mirrors can be the entry points to the real wikipedia for users
who like to edit.
This way the cost of operating wikipedia can be reused. Wikipedia.org
will disappear from the alexa stats. And Wikipedia can focus on writing
a free encyclopaedia. The result of this can be a slowing down of the
grow of the encyclopedia. But Wikipedia is now +/- 5 years old. There is
time. Better a slower growed then a exposing and then failier because of
to fast growed.
--
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be
Just a quick question.
Isn't it the case that Google Adsense (and similar programs) basically
cut the tie between specific advertisers and specific publications? As
I understand it, the ads are dynamically generated by Google--neither
the advertiser nor the website owner have much say in placement, nor do
the advertiser or website owner have any contact with one another.
If this is so, it's pretty hard for me to understand how putting Adsense
ads on Wikipedia pages could ever lead to any of the editorial-influence
scenarios being described here. Adsense makes the "wall" between
editorial and advertising that stronger than it already is (and I work
for a magazine where it is very strong without Adsense).
Best,
Marshall Poe, Ph.D.
The Atlantic Monthly
600 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-266-6511
mpoe(a)theatlantic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Jenkinson
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 12:21 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation to Form
NewPartnership
GerardM wrote:
> As you assume that it is enough to have your own point of view and do
> not need to consider what others say and as you do not bring
> alternatives that addresses the negative side-effects of your stance.
> I fail to see what principles you are referring to; the primary goal
> is to bring good NPOV Free information to all people in all
languages.. What are you referring to?
I don't assume that at all; I would be interested to know how you came
by that assumption (because it is absolutely wrong). The principles I am
referring to are the exact same as you have said there - free access to
uninfluenced information.
> Why does it not apply to corporations and, why have all individuals
> the moral high ground ? From my perspective organisations including
> corporations can do good and I hate the idea that every cooperation
> needs to be considered evil.
It doesn't apply to corporations because corporations are legal entities
whose reason for existence is to deliver profit to shareholders. By
definition, they are not required to "do good".
I don't think every corporation is evil or should be considered evil,
and I never said that. Of course corporations can do good, they aren't
required to - which is exactly why we shouldn't assume that they are in
existence to "do good".
This is why the Board needs to explain why the partnership is good for
the continued existence of the various projects.
> You have to assure that you do not become beholden to one source of
revenue.
> So let us have many corporate sponsors. Let us have many
> organisational sponsors. Let us get loaded with money, let us be able
> to do good, the good that we do not do because of lack of funds.
Yes, let's - but let's not compromise on our core beliefs.
> The project as far as I am concerned is not Wikipedia. We are bigger
> than that. Please read what I say; I am an admin NOT a Wikipedia
admin.
I still have no idea what you are talking about here. Could you try
rephrasing it in a different way?
> We disagree strongly. I try to explain why removing these links wrong
> and you do not want to know. The lack of revenue will disproportially
> hurt projects other than the English Wikipedia. You must be an
> en.wikipediaadmin, I do not see andy consideration for the other
> projects or languages.
Yes, I am an admin on the English language Wikipedia, but that's not
relevant. I would be making the same points if it were a different
language Wikipedia or one of the other projects (in any language).
> I fail to see how your stance helps us get information that is NPOV,
> free and available in all languages to all people of this world. I
> only see that your stance prevents us from getting aditional funds.
Funds that are needed.
My stance is that we shouldn't compromise on our key beliefs - free
access to information which is not influenced by individuals,
governments or corporations. If we have to scale back our operations or
reject some funding because it might affect this in some way, then so be
it. Money is not our goal here.
> It is cheap to only consider your POV and not consider the
implications.
> Money is needed and money from *MANY* sources prevents us from
> becoming reliant on any one of them. Your argument that the
> consequences of your POV are for someone else is inconsiderate.
I don't have the legal skills nor financial skills to budget for an
organisation like this. It's not inconsiderate for me to constructively
criticise the Board or the Foundation. It's not only inconsiderate but
socially negligent of me not to.
> You have read the arguments why this partnership is a good move. You
> do not accept these arguments, it does not mean that it was not
> explained to you and it does not mean that the reasons are not valid.
> It only shows that you disagree.
I have heard some arguments regarding this partnership, but not all, and
not all the arguments are complete. I agree with some of what I have
heard, disagree with other bits, and believe there is more information
on this to come - as with anything. Please don't tell me what I do or do
not believe, and let me be the judge of what I think is valid.
Chris
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Well, since the list is being overrun by people's comments on the
Answers.com agreement, I may as well dive in with some thoughts of my
own. I think I am pretty qualified to speak-after all, I actually saw
the agreement, which is more than I can say for many of the people
commenting on it.
But first, I want to tell you a little story about my former place of
employment, a museum in Manhattan. Said Museum is now $17 million
dollars in debt. It has used up its emergency fund. It has been forced
to let people go (I was not let go, and was immediately replaced, but a
few of my colleagues, including many more qualified than me, were).
It's part of a problem faced by most not-for-profits today. Lots of
great ideas, and not enough money to go around. In fact, the little
donations ($10-$500), or in the case of museums, admissions are never
enough to cover basic operating costs.
We are now among the top 30 websites in the world. I believe that we
are the only one that is a not-for-profit (haven't checked it recently,
but it is a fairly safe assumption). How can we cover our operating
costs?
Grants are one possibility, but there are plenty of people competing
for those same grants. Besides, grants have to be sexy. And they have
to be something we can really carry through with. And NO ONE will give
us a substantial sum to just do whatever we want with it. The CFO of my
old place of employment used to tell me that it was easy to find people
to pay for some crap sculpture that no one else liked, or for marble in
the elevators, but when it came to basic operating costs like a monthly
cleaning bill of $40,000-forget it.
Nor are we in the position to put up a plaque, have a cocktail
reception, and dedicate the "Stanley and Edith Rosenthal Server in
honor of their grandson Milton's bar mitzvah." Nor do we want to.
We don't want pop up ads on our site. We don't want ad sense or Google
ads, though I find it rather odd that one of the vocal opponents to the
Answers.com deal admits to running a mirror of Wikipedia with Google
ads. Along comes someone who wants to use our information, which we are
giving away for free, and to pay us for it in the name of fair play.
Rather than asking for ads on every page, they simply suggested a
modest link on a single page, a tools page which most people don't go
to. They did this out of respect for our mission and our ideals.
How are people responding? Well, someone suggested that it would be
better to shut down Wikipedia for editing except for one hour a day.
People are talking about drastically cutting the budget, though I can
only wonder if they can point to anything significant in the budget
that can be cut, or if they have even seen the budget at all. Of
course, everyone wants the site to run faster. I would just like
someone to tell us how we can do just that without getting significant
funding. I would like someone to explain to me how we can realize our
goal of providing every person in the world with an encyclopedia in a
language that they can understand without paying for it in some way.
Danny
This has been an exciting discussion from the spectator POV. But I'd
like to bring up a few wiki points:
# Only intervene if a problem exists, and then only the least amount
necessary to address the issue.
#: Funding is an existing problem. Wikipedia usability is an existing
problem. The proposed item appears, to me, to address both, while not
increasing system costs.
# Assume good faith.
#: The persons who are involved in this effort are very likely aware
of the potential issues, and are bringing this to the community in a
time and effect constrained manner - a 60 day trial period, and
they're talking to us nearly 90 days before they even start that.
Seems to me to be a good-faith effort to avoid possible community
issues, and to hear from all parts of the community, and we should
assume they have the best interests of everyone at heart.
# Avoid bad feelings, edit wars, and disruptive behaviour. Be polite.
#: We have clear differences of opinion. Although some here feel the
issues are stark, black and white, it is also clear that others feel
it is a continuum of greys. Respect that other people feel
differently, and strongly, about the issues. Consider if what you want
to say is specifically helpful, and avoid rhetoric which is only
attempting to support one of many valid opinions.
# Be bold.
#: Changes happen. They can be reverted if they are shown to be a
problem.
Amgine
BTW: Board, Officers, etc? Thanks for your patience.
Hi all,
We had a rather large discussion today on privacy and its application on
Wikipedia (specifically anonymous editing and the checkuser tool which
is the subject of much debate at the moment).
I am curious to whether the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy is
compatible with EU legislation on privacy (which is tightly regulated),
and whether it is obliged to be, as the Foundation hosts servers in the
European Union (which are presumably subject to EU law).
I would also like to propose that any person with access to server logs
(which include IP addresses), including people with access to the
checkuser tool, should sign a legal agreement of some sort with the
Wikimedia Foundation concerning non-disclosure of this information.
I am unsure whether or not an IP address qualifies as "personal
information" under EU law and I have contacted the UK Information
Commissioner's Office asking them for their opinion.
Thoughts on the legal agreement proposal, and answers to the question of
legal obligations are much appreciated.
Chris
Danny wrote:
"We don't want ad sense or Google ads."
Gosh, I don't know why we wouldn't *try* such a program. The benefits
seem huge, the pitfalls few, and if we don't like it we could just cut
it off after the trial period (we'd vote!). A test would scale up
nicely: first you allow the ads on the front page, then if that worked
alright some other pages, and if that looked good, you'd open up more.
Moreover, since we're big and have leverage, we could limit the *kinds*
of ads AdSense placed to those consistent with our goals (e.g., no porn,
no x, no y, no z--damned if I know). Another idea: we could use AdSense
in focused, time-limited "campaigns," like a pledge drive on NPR. We
assess our needs, state a fund raising goal, tell AdSense to serve the
ads until the goal is reached. After that, the ads come down until we
need more money. I imagine that just the prospect of long AdSense
"campaigns" would drive contributions from users. "You tired of those
ads? We are too. So donate to Wikipedia and shorten the campaign."
Best, MP
Marshall Poe, Ph.D.
The Atlantic Monthly
600 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-266-6511
mpoe(a)theatlantic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
daniwo59(a)aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 5:53 PM
To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
Subject: [Foundation-l] Answers.com stuff
Well, since the list is being overrun by people's comments on the
Answers.com agreement, I may as well dive in with some thoughts of my
own. I think I am pretty qualified to speak-after all, I actually saw
the agreement, which is more than I can say for many of the people
commenting on it.
But first, I want to tell you a little story about my former place of
employment, a museum in Manhattan. Said Museum is now $17 million
dollars in debt. It has used up its emergency fund. It has been forced
to let people go (I was not let go, and was immediately replaced, but a
few of my colleagues, including many more qualified than me, were).
It's part of a problem faced by most not-for-profits today. Lots of
great ideas, and not enough money to go around. In fact, the little
donations ($10-$500), or in the case of museums, admissions are never
enough to cover basic operating costs.
We are now among the top 30 websites in the world. I believe that we are
the only one that is a not-for-profit (haven't checked it recently, but
it is a fairly safe assumption). How can we cover our operating costs?
Grants are one possibility, but there are plenty of people competing for
those same grants. Besides, grants have to be sexy. And they have to be
something we can really carry through with. And NO ONE will give us a
substantial sum to just do whatever we want with it. The CFO of my old
place of employment used to tell me that it was easy to find people to
pay for some crap sculpture that no one else liked, or for marble in the
elevators, but when it came to basic operating costs like a monthly
cleaning bill of $40,000-forget it.
Nor are we in the position to put up a plaque, have a cocktail
reception, and dedicate the "Stanley and Edith Rosenthal Server in honor
of their grandson Milton's bar mitzvah." Nor do we want to.
We don't want pop up ads on our site. We don't want ad sense or Google
ads, though I find it rather odd that one of the vocal opponents to the
Answers.com deal admits to running a mirror of Wikipedia with Google
ads. Along comes someone who wants to use our information, which we are
giving away for free, and to pay us for it in the name of fair play.
Rather than asking for ads on every page, they simply suggested a modest
link on a single page, a tools page which most people don't go to. They
did this out of respect for our mission and our ideals.
How are people responding? Well, someone suggested that it would be
better to shut down Wikipedia for editing except for one hour a day.
People are talking about drastically cutting the budget, though I can
only wonder if they can point to anything significant in the budget that
can be cut, or if they have even seen the budget at all. Of course,
everyone wants the site to run faster. I would just like someone to tell
us how we can do just that without getting significant funding. I would
like someone to explain to me how we can realize our goal of providing
every person in the world with an encyclopedia in a language that they
can understand without paying for it in some way.
Danny
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthony Wrote:
"I did just think of another potential problem with Google Adsense in
particular, though. It may provide incentive for certain people to
insert certain keywords into random articles to draw competitors away
from the pages they want to advertise on (and thus lower the cost to
appear on those articles). I'm not sure if it'd work or not, though."
I don't really follow. WP contributors would not gain anything by
trying to increase traffic/click-throughs on articles with bogus key
words, would they? Contributors wouldn't profit from AdSense at all,
would they? All the money from AdSense would flow to the Foundation,
right?
MP
Marshall Poe, Ph.D.
The Atlantic Monthly
600 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-266-6511
mpoe(a)theatlantic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
DiPierro
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 5:08 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation to
FormNewPartnership
On 10/24/05, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
>
> Angela wrote:
>
> >In a scenario which is hard to imagine ever occurring on Wikipedia,
> >the influence could come from the fact that AdSense relies on
> >context, and particular keywords on a page will lead to
> >higher-revenue-generating ads. So, attempts to drop phrases like
> >"credit repair" into articles could lead to greater revenues and
> >might encourage some to insert an odd sort of influence on the
> >content for this purpose. It would, of course, be violating Google's
> >terms of service and not something I would recommend doing. :)
> >
> >
> AdSense-style ads would also lead to the potentially undesirable
> scenario where companies (or individuals) would be able to buy text on
> a particular Wikipedia article's page, for example to refute it or
> point to an advocacy page attacking the viewpoints the article
summarizes.
> There's no way to do this directly, but some trial-and-error playing
> with keywords could allow an advertiser to,. with high probability,
> get their ads to appear on specific Wikipedia pages in that manner.
>
> -Mark
I can't actually think of a situation where that would be a bad thing,
even if I add in the types of ads which Google isn't going to allow
anyway (like a pro-Nazi page being advertised on a Wikipedia page on
Nazism). But maybe that's just because I believe the best way to fight
speech is with speech, a position which not everyone agrees with. If
Nazis (or any POV pushers) want to give us money to help spread factual
neutral information, that's fine with me.
I did just think of another potential problem with Google Adsense in
particular, though. It may provide incentive for certain people to
insert certain keywords into random articles to draw competitors away
from the pages they want to advertise on (and thus lower the cost to
appear on those articles). I'm not sure if it'd work or not, though.
Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Just a quick question.
Isn't it the case that Google Adsense (and similar programs) basically
cut the tie between specific advertisers and specific publications? As
I understand it, the ads are dynamically generated by Google--neither
the advertiser nor the website owner have much say in placement, nor do
the advertiser or website owner have any contact with one another.
If this is so, it's pretty hard for me to understand how putting Adsense
ads on Wikipedia pages could ever lead to any of the editorial-influence
scenarios being described here. Adsense makes the "wall" between
editorial and advertising that stronger than it already is (and I work
for a magazine where it is very strong without Adsense).
Best,
Marshall Poe, Ph.D.
The Atlantic Monthly
600 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-266-6511
mpoe(a)theatlantic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
DiPierro
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 12:23 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Benefits of advertising (was Re: Our
exponentiallyincreasing costs)
On 10/24/05, Tim Starling <t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Neil Harris wrote:
> > Hmm. 2500 hits/sec * 86400 secs/day * $1 CPM = $216,000 / _day_, or
> > $78,000,000+/year. Have you considered that the Wikimedia foundation
> > board might be aware of this, and that its decision not to put up
> > advertising might be a principled decision, rather than motivated by
> > "fear of money"?
>
> We don't have 2500 hits/sec, we have 2500 requests/sec, i.e. including
> images, stylesheets, etc. The difference is roughly a factor of 3. The
> income would thus be closer to $26M.
>
By these figures, we could cover our current operating costs by putting
> ads on the site for two weeks per year. I'm not sure if it's a good
> idea though.
Alternatively, if just 5% of people *opted in* to advertisements, we'd
be set, and could use the donated money on other things (and wouldn't
have to run the ad begging for donations). Personally I'd rather see
targetted ads at the bottom of the page than requests for donations at
the top. Isn't it possible that 5% of Wikipedians are like me in this
respect?
I really don't see the reason not to try it, other than a fear of
money. Or in the case of Jimbo, the fact that he promised not to do it
until the community agrees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
To the board,
I just wanted to let you know how stunnded and disappointed I was to
hear that the board with very little input made this deal to advertise
on wikipedia. I feel that this is a sellout and a betrayal of the trust
that us the users place in the board and I urge you all to terminate
this deal as soon as possible. I understand that it would be nice to
have an extra income source for misc.projects however that too is
unecessary since there is most likely a better way. I'd also like to
point out that the community has expressed overall disapproval for the
idea and is as well disappointed in the board for this at Wikipedia
TAlk:Tools/1-Click_Answers
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tools/1-Click_Answers#I.27m_sor…>.
I urge you all to reconsider this before you alienate and isolate many
of the good editors and contributors that Wikipedia has.
Respectfully,
-Jacob T. Kiefer - User:Jtkiefer
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jtkiefer>
ps - I have subscribed to this list so that this mail will get through
but will be unsubscribing immediately after so I will not get any
replies sent only to the list.