2008/12/5 Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com>om>: Presumably the "Donate" button ... it was obvious to me, but evidently not to you. My suggestion: 2 million images 11 million pages 250 million visitors Educating the world - d.

2008/12/5 Finn Rindahl <finnrindwiki(a)gmail.com>om>: Whatever, pick a number :-D - d.

What about the total number of edits? Does anyone know that number? And I mean for *all* language versions together. Assuming an avg 10 edits/article: 110 million edits to write 11 million articles // 6 million dollar (or the actual current needed number) to keep Wikimedia running Free Access to the sum of knowledge // Donate now (xx pages of) free information you can edit // Donate now Free knowledge No commercials // donate now Lodewijk 2008/12/5 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>

effe iets anders wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics gives 268 million+ for enwiki alone, but I agree that would be a good one. The number of page views per second might also be interesting. I believe the number of total server requests per second average is something like 55,000, though that includes images, stylesheets, etc. I'm not sure how it translates into actual pageviews. Special:Search on enwiki alone gets about 240 hits/s at peak time. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)

2008/12/5 Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com>om>: "268,000,000 contributions" would be fun; probably ~500,000,000 for all wikis put together. (A total aggregate edit counter for all wikis, updating on the fly, would be delightful to watch. But perhaps logistically impractical...) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

"14 articles on famous cows" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famous_cattle That's still gotta be way more than Britannica. Thanks, Pharos On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2008/12/5 effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com>om>: Donate 4 million pictures 11 million pages 10 billion page views Educating the world - d.

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:58 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think this is really fantastic, by the way. The "educating the world" has a lot of resonance for me and people that I talk with about Wikipedia. More can be said along these lines, e.g. presenting Wikipedia as one of the few beacons of light against the force of anti-intellectualism which pervades so much popular media these days. If you asked me a decade ago if I thought an encyclopedia would be one of the worlds most popular websites I might have laughed at the question. Wikipedia improves my faith in humanity.

Chad wrote: 90 free lolcats: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lolcats -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)

Making the internet not suck || Donate now. 2008/12/5 Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>

Andrew Gray wrote: We're now very close to a mathematical definition of the idiom "my two cents", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_two_cents_(idiom) If every one of these 268 million edits was followed by a donation of 2 cents, we'd have the 5.36 million dollars that we need. -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Kul Takanao Wadhwa <kwadhwa(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote: That we're more addictive than fast food? -Chad

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: In recognition of recent events* may I suggest: --- Wikipedia — Educating the World* (*Except persons in the UK or China about materials which are subject to censorship by secret block-lists) --- If you haven't heard: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16569 I tried using proxies behind the great UK firewall to scan Wikipedia to determine what is and isn't blocked, but it seems that the firewalls are already overloaded and are failing a couple percent of requests at random, so it's hard to say. Doesn't bode well if it's already failing on a low traffic day.

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 5:53 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: I've tried the obvious possibilities to the best of my ability. Unfortunately without constantly scanning it's pretty much unknowable. The system is capable of replacing text too (it's a full man-in-the-middle)... so we either have to take it on faith that nothing else is being done, or find a way to scan. I've been told by that the lists used are rife with obvious example of technical incompetence (i.e. including session IDs in URLs, or outright invalid syntax). With that in mind we probably can't expect reasonable application even if we have faith that the intentions are good. For instance, the rule might be change to avoid the currently successful evasion of using the /w/ URL but in the process of doing that every article title with "virgin" as a substring might end up blocked. Our only option is to constantly scan if we don't want Wikipedia to be mysteriously missing content.