In a message dated 11/20/2007 1:21:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
moreschiwikiman(a)hotmail.co.uk writes:
Noo, I understand Wikipedia quite well - it simply doesn't work. The
fundamental model is fundamentally flawed. Is this news? It shouldn't be - the sta
tistics speak for themselves. 2 million articles, all except 5000 of which
probably contain at least a couple lies.
In order to help fix this, the Veropedia team will be launching a contest
for all Wikipedians, with the goal of fixing core articles and bringing them up
to par. More information is forthcoming, but there will be five prozes for
the most improved articles among the core group of articles. I hope people
participate and get the most importan wikipedia articles to where they should be.
Danny
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Hi. I have just this minute subscribed to the list and read about your
fundraising difficulties, discussed in early Nov. I came after having
thrown $25 your way, the average donation i see. I have an idea as to how
you guys could make money ethically, unobtrusively, wiithout alienating
customers, and it's cheap to implement.
Micropayments. Ask people to voluntarily become subscribers to a
micropayment system. They give you $5 up front. You charge them .01 a
page, or maybe .05 tops. I like $.01 better, because it is literally the
least you can ask. Charge their account, you don't need to ask for a credit
card each time, you have $5, just take it out of that until it's gone.
You can embellish the program a bit. Don't charge for contributions or
edits or other "giving" activities, only for article views. In fact giving
activities could earn you a credit, although there are "cheating" issues
with that. Make sure you remind them that they just donated a penny, and
hey, thanks for that, we appreciate it.
When they use up the $5, which will probably take a while, it's 500
articles, but they will use it up eventually, and then you start by
emailing them a reminder and then nagging them at the bottom of the article
that they need to refill their account. DO NOT STOP SERVING THEM PAGES.
Anyone can still see Wikipedia for free, but you should make your point that
hey, it costs money, and you're asking for a friggin penny a hit, so come
on.
How many articles do you serve a day? a buck a hundred will add up fast.
And it is an ongoing source of funding, permanent really, as long as people
are willing to do it. So you have to sell them on it, but i think it could
work. It's technically easy to implement, i would think, you'd need a login
and then just track session hits. You'd want to make real sure to avoid
double-charges or other BS that could piss people off, and you'd need to be
careful that people couldn't get in and force payments from the wrong
account, although there's not much incentive to do that, since you can still
see if free if you want to.
what do you all think?
--
== -- == -- == -- == -- ==
Colin Maroney
cjmaroney01(a)gmail.com
-- == -- == -- == -- == --
On 20/11/2007, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear community,
> >
> > Few days ago a pretty neat idea was proposed, an idea which could
> > involves all of the community members, all of you: the "Edit Wikipedia
> > Week". That week will take place from December 3 to 8, 2007 and the
> > concept is pretty simple: you, as a community member, will have the
> > chance to spread the word about how to edit Wikipedia or learn how to
> > work on one of the other sister projects.
>
Yeah you might want to think about your wording there. We built this
wiki and yet only now do we have the chance to tell other people how
to edit? What do you think we have been doing for the last few years?
> >We want it to be a worldwide
> > event, and why not, transforming it into an annual event.
>
Because either it will have minimal impact or you didn't budget for
enough database servers.
> > Everyone can be involved in helping to stage a bunch of "Edit
> > Wikipedia Week" events during that week.
>
That's nice of you.
> > The events can be practically anything ? big or small.
>
That's nice of you.
> >It doesn't
> > matter how simple they seem to be, everything counts.
>
Um you are talking to wikipedians here please respect their intelligence.
> > discuss the different uses of the WikiPolicies to a
> > group of regular users you know in your place,
>
You said you wanted this to be an annual event.
> > Spread knowledge. Spread the Wiki love. :)
>
Oh dear.
> > Please translate this mail as much as you can, and spread it all
> > around you.
>
Would that include "which could involves"? If the signpost can find
someone to turn my writing into conventional English I'm sure you can
find someone you could run your email past.
There are many ways to motivate the community. Sugar coated
condescension isn't one of them.
-- geni
>
Thanks for your very constructive behaviour, geni. That's probably
the best way to make the projects go forward.
Benji(sm89)
On 20/11/2007, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Absolutely. You're quite right. This is why Wikipedia doesn't work, though.
> At least, not really. Not in providing information anyone can trust, so the
> bigger bibliographies people include, the better. All we can really hope to
> be at the moment is a starting point for people to find lists of reliable
> sources.
Even if this were the case (I don't buy that we have 95% actively
detrimental articles, but let's presume we do) there's no indication
that encouraging more contributors will automatically make things
worse.
It's not as though our existing volunteers are abnormally intelligent,
or particularly gifted at writing an encyclopedia; they're just some
people who wound up helping. Why does this indicate the population at
large is going to be worse? We *are* the population at large, we just
want to get a bigger slice of it.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Thank you for the feedback on where to post this proposal. We were told
by our contacts at Wikipedia.org to post here, but will inquire about
re-posting to the Village Pump or the wikipedia-l list.
Regarding the encyclopaedic merit of the community-generated stock
ratings, we view this data as first and foremost a community sentiment
measure. We think the community approach that we are taking to
accumulate this statistical measure could add value to Wikipedia, as a
measurement of community sentiment and as a point of comparison for
publicly traded companies.
Thanks again,
Chris
heya everyone!
We are currently working on a wikimedia census. There will be three sections - a section which will be asked to the public, a section relating to the specific project a user is working on and a section to the wikimedia community on their opinion of projects they do not work on. Could you please add your questions to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Census. Please only ask questions which are useful. Add as many as you want - don't worry about the limit of questions. Please help since we are trying to get this done as soon as possible. Also, if you have an idea on how to incorporate a php survey into mediawiki or, have an idea about how to send the census out to the users of wikimedia projects, please add your idea to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Census#Ways_to_send_out_census
thanks
Deni
[[meta:User:Symode09]]
Hello, my name is Chris Harris, and I am an employee of The Motley Fool.
For the past year, we have worked with our community to create
community-generated stock ratings and analysis with the objective of
providing greater breadth of coverage than can be generated by
professional analysts. We would like to propose to the Wikipedia
community that we include our stock rating data on Wiki pages about
publicly traded companies.
Our stock analyzing community, CAPS (http://caps.fool.com), uses the
collaborative intelligence of our users to rate more than 5,000
companies (more than double the size of many proprietary and
subscription-based rating services). Open to the public at
caps.fool.com, CAPS collects and weighs the opinions of individual
members of our community based on a variety of criteria - how long ago
the user voiced their opinion, how accurate their opinions have been in
the past, and by how much they beat (or lost to) the market. Each stock
in our database that meets our minimum threshold of community coverage
is then given a rating based on those factors and the relative
comparison of community sentiment across all rated stocks. Each stock
is assigned a CAPS Star Rating. 5-Star stocks are the highest rated
stocks and 1-Star stocks are the lowest. CAPS stock ratings are updated
every 15 minutes during market trading hours based on the latest measure
of community sentiment and a weighted averaging of the influence of each
community member based on their up-to-the-minute track record of
performance. We have a variety of security measures to prevent attempts
to manipulate our stock ratings.
We feel that the community intelligence that is expressed in each CAPS
stock rating would be a great pairing with the community intelligence of
Company Wikis. Through this integration we believe that the Foolish
community, which is interested in finance and financial education, would
be encouraged to become involved in the financial pages on Wikipedia,
and the Wiki community would gain a continuous feed of up-to-the-minute
relevant financial data to enhance the pages of publicly traded
companies. And not only do CAPS ratings provide a solid measure of
current financial thinking regarding a broader range of stocks than
covered by professional analysts on Wall Street, but they may be
predictive indicators as well.
While it is too early to make definitive calls about whether or not Star
Ratings are predictive, we've found that during the first year since the
launch of CAPS, a simulated portfolio that uses the highest rated stocks
has outperformed the market by ~66%, and a portfolio of the lowest rated
stocks has underperformed by ~110%. You can see these results here:
http://g.fool.com/art/ratings/5_AND_1_STAR_Nav.gif
In short, we feel like the opportunity to integrate CAPS ratings onto
Company Wikis helps both The Motley Fool and Wikipedia to further their
mission to provide breadth, depth, and quality of information via
community intelligence.
We have reviewed with Wikipedia a method for receiving our CAPS stock
ratings feed. Ultimately, we would propose to implement this by adding
the star rating and a link to "Rate this stock" in the bottom of the
Info box on each page. There are several ways in which this could be
done; I here are two examples:
http://g.fool.com/art/ratings/wikipediaBasic.jpg, and
http://g.fool.com/art/ratings/wikipediaEnhanced.jpg
<http://g.fool.com/art/ratings/wikipediaEnhanced.jpg> .
I look forward to any insight you can offer on the strengths or
weaknesses of including ratings in Wikipedia.
Thank you,
Chris
> Hello dear Wikipedia foundation !
>
> Please allow me to briefly present my project and please feel free to post your suggestions.
> I was discussing ecology with a friend and I was supporting the argument : the consumer has the power.
> His daily choices direct industries towards ecology or not. Towards fair trade. Towards quality.
>
> Then I thought : wouldn't it be great if a website enabled each user to rate companies and products.
> I imagined an ecology rate, a fair trade rate, a quality rate, a "workman's rights" rate.
>
> I have programming skills in PHP, ASP.Net and am currently looking for advice (technical, GUI, ...) and suggestions about this idea.
> Any colloboration would be of course welcome.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Peace ,
>
> Michael.
>
>
> * <http://www.alamut.com/images/2003_misc/treeFace.jpg> Avant d'imprimer, pensez à l'environnement. <http://www.alamut.com/images/2003_misc/treeFace.jpg>
>
>
***********************************************************************************************
Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive
de son ou ses destinataires. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, merci d'en avertir
immédiatement l'émetteur et de détruire le message. Toute modification, édition, utilisation ou
diffusion non autorisée est interdite. L'émetteur décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce
message s'il a été modifié, déformé, falsifié, infecté par un virus ou encore édité ou diffusé
sans autorisation.
This message and any attachments are confidential and intended for the named addressee(s) only.
If you have received this message in error, please notify immediately the sender, then delete
the message. Any unauthorized modification, edition, use or dissemination is prohibited.
The sender does not be liable for this message if it has been modified, altered, falsified,
infected by a virus or even edited or disseminated without authorization.
***********************************************************************************************
There is a regular question on en.wikibooks that we have yet to find a satisfactory answer on. I would like to know if some people here could give us some insight on the issue.
The question is whether an individual book, or even an individual page can be cross-licensed under the GFDL and another license (such as CC-BY-SA-x.x). I know that individual contributors can release their content under a plethora of licensing schemes, but can we say that a single book is released under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5, for example? And even if we say that the book is licensed in that way, can we say that all future wikibooks editors MUST also agree to release their contributions to that book under that same licensing scheme?
The question arose earlier as to whether an individual book could be entirely released into the PD, although we've already decided that this isn't really possible.
Would it be more reasonable to say that "XX version of this page, when uploaded originally, was cross-licensed under GFDL and YY. Future revisions of this page are only GFDL, but it is possible to copy, distribute, and fork XX version under an alternate license as well, just not on this server."?
Also, so long as we are talking alternate licensing schemes, how much of a pain in the ass would it be to try and change the licensing scheme for an entire site, such as en.wikibooks? Would it even be possible, or is it something that should have been dealt with at the very beginning and cannot now be changed? Is it something that we could say "all pages are released under the GFDL, but all pages after XX date are also released under YY license"?
--Andrew Whitworth
_________________________________________________________________
Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC…
