With the resignation of Larry, there is a much less pressing need for funds. Therefore, all plans to put advertising of any kind on the wikipedia is called off for now.
We will move forward with plans for a nonprofit foundation to own wikipedia, and possibly to solicit donations and grants to help us carry out our mission. (Ironically, I think that grant money would come with many annoying strings attached, which we could not accept, comparted to advertising money, which is virtually 100% string-free.)
Just as the National Geographic Society is supported in large part by advertisments in the National Geographic Magazine, I expect this to be a potentially necessary thing at some point in the future, if we wish to have an impact beyond our own little corner of the Internet. (And, I think we all do.)
But for now, there's no pressing need unless and until we find chaos descending on us from the lack of constant oversight.
The hosting of Wikipedia I can continue to do for no charge for the foreseeable future. Even if Wikipedia traffic were to grow by a factor of 10, I would be willing to absorb all the bandwidth and hardware costs. If it grows beyond a factor of 100 or 1000, obviously, alternative solutions would have to be found.
But for now, there's no pressing need unless and until we find chaos
descending on us from the lack of constant oversight.
Which really means that its important for all of us, every contributor, to feel vested with responsibility. We are all responsible for oversight.
Chaos will come if a) we are unable to work together to provide that oversight or b) if too many of us don't feel that responsibility (the equivalent of a representative democracy where only 40% vote and only 2% ever run for office).
The hosting of Wikipedia I can continue to do for no charge for the foreseeable future. Even if Wikipedia traffic were to grow by a factor of 10, I would be willing to absorb all the bandwidth and hardware costs. If it grows beyond a factor of 100 or 1000, obviously, alternative solutions would have to be found.
Speaking of which, I think it would be great if we started thinking about mechanisms for distributing the hosting of Wikipedia. Does anyone have any thoughts on how a (to some degre) distributed solution could work?
--tc
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 kband@www.llamacom.com wrote:
But for now, there's no pressing need unless and until we find chaos
descending on us from the lack of constant oversight.
Which really means that its important for all of us, every contributor, to feel vested with responsibility. We are all responsible for oversight.
I agree. I think that the Cunctator is one person you have to watch like a hawk, however, and he of all people has no moral right to say what he is saying here.
The hosting of Wikipedia I can continue to do for no charge for the foreseeable future. Even if Wikipedia traffic were to grow by a factor of 10, I would be willing to absorb all the bandwidth and hardware costs. If it grows beyond a factor of 100 or 1000, obviously, alternative solutions would have to be found.
Speaking of which, I think it would be great if we started thinking about mechanisms for distributing the hosting of Wikipedia. Does anyone have any thoughts on how a (to some degre) distributed solution could work?
Frankly, this is hardly the time to bring this up. You have a lot more pressing issues before you.
Larry
Speaking of which, I think it would be great if we started thinking about mechanisms for distributing the hosting of Wikipedia. Does anyone have any thoughts on how a (to some degre) distributed solution could work?
It strikes me, from a technical point of view, as very unlikely that distributed hosting will ever be the right solution. Distributed funding, maybe, but distributed hosting just really doesn't make sense.
--Jimbo
Speaking of which, I think it would be great if we started thinking about mechanisms for distributing the hosting of Wikipedia. Does anyone have any thoughts on how a (to some degre) distributed solution could work?
It strikes me, from a technical point of view, as very unlikely that distributed hosting will ever be the right solution. Distributed funding, maybe, but distributed hosting just really doesn't make sense.
I know it's rather complicated, but vast amounts of comp sci research are going into the development of all kinds of distributed networks (under the buzzword p2p), and it makes perfect sense for a project like this, *if* the tech actually existed. I know it's pretty blue sky now, but it does make sense if you ignore the fact that it would be freaking difficult to implement.
'Swhy I prefer theoretical physics to engineering. Let someone else work out the fussy details.
:)
-tc
An article about wikipedia was posted at kuro5hin:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/1/163730/6996
Joao
See http://www.sciam.com/2002/0302issue/0302anderson.html (The Worldwide Computer)
<rant> yea.. this can be done with a freenet wikipedia fork. I think for now is not needed.... USA freedom is good </rant>
At 23:07 3/03/02 -0600, you wrote:
See http://www.sciam.com/2002/0302issue/0302anderson.html (The Worldwide Computer) [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
tc wrote:
Speaking of which, I think it would be great if we started thinking about mechanisms for distributing the hosting of Wikipedia. Does anyone have any thoughts on how a (to some degre) distributed solution could work?
I think the hosting of the server should be left to Jimbo to decide. But what I'd really like to see is something like groove.net, where I can keep an offline copy on my own computer, edit articles locally, and sync the changes with the server the next time I'm online. I'm not on a modem connection, but I'm moving with my laptop and wireless LAN between home, workplaces and cafes. This of course would be a major software change. Some two-way synchronization protocol (like unison) would be needed.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org