+ We set an example to proof that Free Content works.
2007/12/16, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 16/12/2007, Ayelie <ayelie.at.large(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 8:23 AM, Jon Harald Søby
<jhsoby(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The Foundation has repeatedly stated that it
can not and will not
reveal
> details about this. What, then, is the use
of this speculation? As
I've
> said
> to others, it accomplishes nothing. We have encyclopædias to write,
let's
> focus on that instead.
... and a freely-licensed image collection to
build, libraries to
collect,
books to write, dictionaries to work on, quote
collections to gather,
species data references to create, news articles to publish, learning
materials to prepare... ;)
To change the subject:
This gets to the point of what we're doing this for. WMF's job is not
in fact to run a hideously popular and expensive web site - it's to
generate a body of work that's freely reusable by all.
So. Plus and minus points of popularity?
+ Proves we're doing something of value.
+ We get attention and hence contributors.
+ We have power to comment in the press to further our mission.
+ We get an income to get staff to help further our mission.
- Immediatism is the enemy of considered working, and being top-10
means we have to do far too many things really fast.
- Costs a fortune to run the site.
- We're a target for attacks from ad-banner trolls.
- Mass popularity reruits volunteers from closer to the bottom of the
barrel.
Please add more. Is there a case for trying to make ourselves less
popular so we can get on with work?
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l