On 10/5/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Using the self-selected and inherently bogus Alexa
numbers, Wikipedia
is still slowly climbing in page rank and steadily increasing in page
views per million. Are you quite sure about that slowing? Is it the
first derivative or the second derivative that's going down?
Alexa rank is staying pretty steady though. We are growing but not at
the rate we once were.
It feels like the press are only just getting their
heads around our existence.
I beg to differ. In any case we have not for the most part relied on
the press for growth.
In stock photos: Commons has I understand plans for much better
categorisation. The plans to make categories in MediaWiki work more
like tags will help (if they can ever work around MySQL being
basically crap at it without reworking the entire wiki engine).
So is everyone else. The results so far have been indiferent. A lot of
people out there are looking for an effective way of searching images.
Whoever finds it is going to be able to cash in big time.
You
describe Commons to a journalist and they go "oh, like Getty Images?"
and you answer "yep, we're nothing like there yet but we want
something that good." Where "good" means an editor in a hurry can
search Commons, find a pic and slap it in the paper labeled "(c)
Photographer, reusable under cc-by-sa."
If you want that you are going to have to remove GFDL as one of the
standard image upload options.
You would, with a moment's
thought, see just *how much* press editors would love something like
that they don't have to pay Getty Images rates for.
They are one user certianly
--
geni