This page was sent to you by: rose.parks@att.net.
Hi, Is it possible that no one saw this yesterday in the Times? As Ever, Ruth Ifcher
TECHNOLOGY | February 11, 2005
Google may host encyclopedia project Matt Hines, Staff Writer, CNET News.com
The group behind the Wikipedia online effort says the search giant offered to host some of its content on company servers.
http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1038_3-5572744.html?ex=1108789200&...
----------------- Advertisement --------------------------
<TABLE WIDTH="100%" BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="5" CELLSPACING="0" BGCOLOR="#F8F5EC"> <tr><TD><font size="2"> /--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight Pictures ------------<br><br>
ONLY ONE COMEDY HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE <br><br> SIDEWAYS has been nominated for 5 OSCARS including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress. Critics across America agree... SIDEWAYS is the BEST PICTURE of the year. SIDEWAYS stars Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Sandra Oh and Virginia Madsen. Now playing in theaters everywhere. Watch the trailer at:<br><br> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/cnet&pos=Center1A&camp=foxsearch-emailtools03-nyt5&ad=center1a-text&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sideways/index_nyt.html"> http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sideways/index_nyt.html</a> </font></td> </tr></table>
----------------- Advertisement --------------------------
0
----------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT THIS E-MAIL This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@nytimes.com.
NYTimes.com 500 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Check out http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting and its talk page. The best line in talk is the first post: "I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords".
:-)
Stan
rose.parks@att.net wrote:
This page was sent to you by: rose.parks@att.net.
Hi, Is it possible that no one saw this yesterday in the Times? As Ever, Ruth Ifcher
TECHNOLOGY | February 11, 2005
Google may host encyclopedia project Matt Hines, Staff Writer, CNET News.com
The group behind the Wikipedia online effort says the search giant offered to host some of its content on company servers.
http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1038_3-5572744.html?ex=1108789200&...
----------------- Advertisement --------------------------
<TABLE WIDTH="100%" BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="5" CELLSPACING="0" BGCOLOR="#F8F5EC"> <tr><TD><font size="2"> /--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight Pictures ------------\<br><br>
ONLY ONE COMEDY HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE <br><br> SIDEWAYS has been nominated for 5 OSCARS including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress. Critics across America agree... SIDEWAYS is the BEST PICTURE of the year. SIDEWAYS stars Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Sandra Oh and Virginia Madsen. Now playing in theaters everywhere. Watch the trailer at:<br><br>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/cnet&pos=Center1A&camp=foxsearch-emailtools03-nyt5&ad=center1a-text&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sideways/index_nyt.html"> http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sideways/index_nyt.html</a> </font></td> </tr></table>
----------------- Advertisement --------------------------
0
ABOUT THIS E-MAIL This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@nytimes.com.
NYTimes.com 500 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
As Avriette said,
"Since the entire content of the wikipedia is available for download already, there's no reason they couldn't host their own wikipedia content, pull it from us, and do whatever indexing they want to do with it. If they have some altruistic goal, they should instead just donate money. They've certainly got the spare cash."
If Google has no ulterior motives, they can donate $$$.
I somehow doubt that Google, a publicly-traded company with very secretive management, wants to do this because they feel it's their duty.
What worries me is that the final say rests with a small-but-trusted group of individuals, not with the community. This is the trouble of our switch from a complete democracy to a not-so-representative democracy (only two of the board members were elected) - we have to trust that these people will be gentle with our future.
Not that I don't trust these people. It's just that this is a very big thing here, and even some of the best people have been swayed by the power of the almighty monetary unit.
Mark
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:05:27 -0800, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Check out http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_hosting and its talk page. The best line in talk is the first post: "I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords".
:-)
Stan
rose.parks@att.net wrote:
This page was sent to you by: rose.parks@att.net.
Hi, Is it possible that no one saw this yesterday in the Times? As Ever, Ruth Ifcher
TECHNOLOGY | February 11, 2005
Google may host encyclopedia project Matt Hines, Staff Writer, CNET News.com
The group behind the Wikipedia online effort says the search giant offered to host some of its content on company servers.
http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1038_3-5572744.html?ex=1108789200&...
----------------- Advertisement --------------------------
<TABLE WIDTH="100%" BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="5" CELLSPACING="0" BGCOLOR="#F8F5EC"> <tr><TD><font size="2"> /--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight Pictures ------------\<br><br>
ONLY ONE COMEDY HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE <br><br> SIDEWAYS has been nominated for 5 OSCARS including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress. Critics across America agree... SIDEWAYS is the BEST PICTURE of the year. SIDEWAYS stars Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Sandra Oh and Virginia Madsen. Now playing in theaters everywhere. Watch the trailer at:<br><br>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/cnet&pos=Center1A&camp=foxsearch-emailtools03-nyt5&ad=center1a-text&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sideways/index_nyt.html"> http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sideways/index_nyt.html</a> </font></td> </tr></table>
----------------- Advertisement --------------------------
0
ABOUT THIS E-MAIL This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@nytimes.com.
NYTimes.com 500 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
As Avriette said,
"Since the entire content of the wikipedia is available for download already, there's no reason they couldn't host their own wikipedia content, pull it from us, and do whatever indexing they want to do with it. If they have some altruistic goal, they should instead just donate money. They've certainly got the spare cash."
If Google has no ulterior motives, they can donate $$$.
I somehow doubt that Google, a publicly-traded company with very secretive management, wants to do this because they feel it's their duty.
What worries me is that the final say rests with a small-but-trusted group of individuals, not with the community. This is the trouble of our switch from a complete democracy to a not-so-representative democracy (only two of the board members were elected) - we have to trust that these people will be gentle with our future.
Not that I don't trust these people. It's just that this is a very big thing here, and even some of the best people have been swayed by the power of the almighty monetary unit.
Mark
While I'm not precisely a part of the "inner circle", or anything like that, I believe I have some idea what I'm talking about when I say that it is highly unlikely the almighty dollar is going to sway the board on grounds of personal gain. Seriously. It just doesn't fit with the circumstances of the Foundation, though I'm not sure I know how to articulate my feelings in the matter.
I guess I'll just say this, for now: I have faith that whether the decision that is made is right or wrong, it will be made for the right reasons in this case.
-- Chad
Mark Williamson wrote:
I somehow doubt that Google, a publicly-traded company with very secretive management, wants to do this because they feel it's their duty.
It's good publicity, and if that helps get people to use their search engine and other services they make money from extra ad hits on their search engine and other services. Not exactly rocket science here, folks.
What worries me is that the final say rests with a small-but-trusted group of individuals, not with the community. This is the trouble of our switch from a complete democracy to a not-so-representative democracy (only two of the board members were elected) - we have to trust that these people will be gentle with our future.
Prior to the board elections, there were *ZERO* community-elected people with direct, legal say in the actual operation of the project. None at all. Now there are two. Two is more than zero, not less.
Perhaps you don't remember, but before there was a legally incorporated, not-for-profit Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia and related projects were in fact a side project operated purely at the whim of Jimmy Wales and his for-profit company, Bomis, Inc.
Are you a shareholder in Bomis, Mark? I know I'm not. We didn't have "complete democracy" in any imaginable way; all we had was the fact that Jimmy is a nice guy and Bomis was never taken over by evil people in the meantime who might have decided that Bomis' resources would be better spent in a different way.
Wikimedia's charter tasks it with maintaining a free encyclopedia, and presently two-fifths of its board of directors is elected from the user community. That's a much greater reassurance, and much closer to "democracy", than relying solely on the whim of one nice guy with no legal responsibility to keep the project going in the way 'we' like.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Perhaps you don't remember, but before there was a legally incorporated, not-for-profit Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia and related projects were in fact a side project operated purely at the whim of Jimmy Wales and his for-profit company, Bomis, Inc.
While that's true from a legal perspective, it's never been the case that the project was *completely* at the whim of Jimmy and Bomis, because it relies mostly on volunteer labor---Bomis has never employed a significant share of the article writers. So many things that would have been legally permissible---like making a unilateral decision to put in pop-up ads or making certain features subscription-only---were in practice not possible.
(The current situation is largely similar, really. Most of the community's impact on decisions isn't in the once-every-year-or-two votes for representatives, but in the constant involvement and oversight.)
-Mark
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
What worries me is that the final say rests with a small-but-trusted group of individuals, not with the community. This is the trouble of our switch from a complete democracy to a not-so-representative democracy (only two of the board members were elected) - we have to trust that these people will be gentle with our future.
I think you're idealizing the 'primeval' state of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as a web site (with its attendant collection of computers, DNS registrations, and other unique features) was never owned or operated by some sort of collective you could describe as a 'complete democracy'. It was run by Jimbo Wales, and he had the final say in everything- he was just nice enough to defer to the community in most matters. If Google had proposed a deal with Wikipedia before the WMF was founded, then the final say would rest with him just as much as it currently rests with the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia foundation.
Of course.
But a more complete democracy would've been better.
Mark
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:45:27 -0500 (EST), Thomas Whaples tom@eh.net wrote:
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
What worries me is that the final say rests with a small-but-trusted group of individuals, not with the community. This is the trouble of our switch from a complete democracy to a not-so-representative democracy (only two of the board members were elected) - we have to trust that these people will be gentle with our future.
I think you're idealizing the 'primeval' state of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as a web site (with its attendant collection of computers, DNS registrations, and other unique features) was never owned or operated by some sort of collective you could describe as a 'complete democracy'. It was run by Jimbo Wales, and he had the final say in everything- he was just nice enough to defer to the community in most matters. If Google had proposed a deal with Wikipedia before the WMF was founded, then the final say would rest with him just as much as it currently rests with the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia foundation. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Sean Barrett wrote:
Mark Williamson stated for the record:
Of course.
But a more complete democracy would've been better.
An interesting opinion. One that is not universal.
In the long run there is no question that we will go in this direction in some fashion, i.e. less and less dependence on me as a person. But in the short run (for several years) there will be transition with more and more community involvement on the board.
We have to guard against a lot of different kinds of dangers to our mission, and slow institutional transition is a good way to make sure we don't have any sudden huge shifts in policy.
--Jimbo
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
We have to guard against a lot of different kinds of dangers to our mission, and slow institutional transition is a good way to make sure we don't have any sudden huge shifts in policy.
<aol>Ditto</aol>
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Mark Williamson wrote:
Of course.
But a more complete democracy would've been better.
This touches, somewhat, on political philosophy, both in theory and in practice. As such, and because I pay probably more attention to political philosophy than many people would consider healthy, I have a fair number of strong opinions on such matters as this.
In this particular case, I have to say that I disagree that "a more complete democracy" would necessarily be "better". In my opinion, democracy should be used to allow consensus to have influence in administrative matters, and not to allow consensus to CONTROL administrative matters. If "democracy" were "complete" in the running of Wikipedia, it may well end up being voted out of "wiki" status and become a hierarchically managed academic project.
That sort of risk of rampant popular whim having direct control over something is precisely the reason the early US government ratified the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights. There is a set of rules for the organization of the effort that are largely inaccessible to the public, democratic will, precisely to protect the ideals of the organization from the whims of its constituency. While Wikipedia isn't a government, it too needs (in my opinion, at least) a separation between the democratically expressed will of its "public" and the Big Decisions, though probably with a strong set of rules in place to limit the liberties that can be taken within the range of whatever mechanism is implemented to maintain that separation.
Pure democracy can be viewed in as unflattering a light as pure authoritarianism. If the most important part of the endeavor is its ideals, we should aim to support those ideals over any superficial methodologies of implementation.
-- Chad
(PS: prior statements quoted below for context)
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
What worries me is that the final say rests with a small-but-trusted group of individuals, not with the community. This is the trouble of our switch from a complete democracy to a not-so-representative democracy (only two of the board members were elected) - we have to trust that these people will be gentle with our future.
I think you're idealizing the 'primeval' state of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as a web site (with its attendant collection of computers, DNS registrations, and other unique features) was never owned or operated by some sort of collective you could describe as a 'complete democracy'. It was run by Jimbo Wales, and he had the final say in everything- he was just nice enough to defer to the community in most matters. If Google had proposed a deal with Wikipedia before the WMF was founded, then the final say would rest with him just as much as it currently rests with the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia foundation.
So, you think it's good that the majority of the board members were not voted in but rather chosen silently by Jimbo? I said "more complete democracy", not "completely direct democracy".
Mark
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:47:59 -0500, Chad Perrin perrin@apotheon.com wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Of course.
But a more complete democracy would've been better.
This touches, somewhat, on political philosophy, both in theory and in practice. As such, and because I pay probably more attention to political philosophy than many people would consider healthy, I have a fair number of strong opinions on such matters as this.
In this particular case, I have to say that I disagree that "a more complete democracy" would necessarily be "better". In my opinion, democracy should be used to allow consensus to have influence in administrative matters, and not to allow consensus to CONTROL administrative matters. If "democracy" were "complete" in the running of Wikipedia, it may well end up being voted out of "wiki" status and become a hierarchically managed academic project.
That sort of risk of rampant popular whim having direct control over something is precisely the reason the early US government ratified the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights. There is a set of rules for the organization of the effort that are largely inaccessible to the public, democratic will, precisely to protect the ideals of the organization from the whims of its constituency. While Wikipedia isn't a government, it too needs (in my opinion, at least) a separation between the democratically expressed will of its "public" and the Big Decisions, though probably with a strong set of rules in place to limit the liberties that can be taken within the range of whatever mechanism is implemented to maintain that separation.
Pure democracy can be viewed in as unflattering a light as pure authoritarianism. If the most important part of the endeavor is its ideals, we should aim to support those ideals over any superficial methodologies of implementation.
-- Chad
(PS: prior statements quoted below for context)
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
What worries me is that the final say rests with a small-but-trusted group of individuals, not with the community. This is the trouble of our switch from a complete democracy to a not-so-representative democracy (only two of the board members were elected) - we have to trust that these people will be gentle with our future.
I think you're idealizing the 'primeval' state of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as a web site (with its attendant collection of computers, DNS registrations, and other unique features) was never owned or operated by some sort of collective you could describe as a 'complete democracy'. It was run by Jimbo Wales, and he had the final say in everything- he was just nice enough to defer to the community in most matters. If Google had proposed a deal with Wikipedia before the WMF was founded, then the final say would rest with him just as much as it currently rests with the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia foundation.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
So, you think it's good that the majority of the board members were not voted in but rather chosen silently by Jimbo? I said "more complete democracy", not "completely direct democracy".
I think that how they were chosen is immaterial, actually, except in terms of public perception. The important bits are how they'll be chosen in the future, and what decisions they'll make. Choosing them by democratic process hasn't been proven, or even indicated logically, to have a better chance of providing "better" board members than any other method, as far as I'm aware. Please let me know if I'm wrong, but expect that I'll want some kind of logical support for your disagreement.
-- Chad
Mark Williamson wrote:
So, you think it's good that the majority of the board members were not voted in but rather chosen silently by Jimbo? I said "more complete democracy", not "completely direct democracy".
I think it was very good. Transition in a responsible manner takes time.
Angela and Anthere are unbelievably good as board members, and we have a casual agreement between us that if the two of them ever vote in one direction, I will defer to them, so that it does not matter how Tim and Michael vote. The only exception I would make to this is if they wanted something that I felt endangered us in some very extreme way -- but this is basically impossible because they are so good at what they do.
--Jimbo
On Feb 14, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
So, you think it's good that the majority of the board members were not voted in but rather chosen silently by Jimbo? I said "more complete democracy", not "completely direct democracy".
I think it was very good. Transition in a responsible manner takes time.
It is indeed very important to prevent "capsizing" of projects that reach a certain critical mass - they have things of value, and attract people who want to take control of them. For examples, take a look at what happened to the reform party. There will be more democracy when, paradoxically, there are more people.
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
So, you think it's good that the majority of the board members
were
not voted in but rather chosen silently by Jimbo? I said "more complete democracy", not "completely direct democracy".
I think it was very good. Transition in a responsible manner takes time.
Angela and Anthere are unbelievably good as board members, and we have a casual agreement between us that if the two of them ever vote in one direction, I will defer to them, so that it does not matter how Tim and Michael vote. The only exception I would make to this is if they wanted something that I felt endangered us in some very extreme way -- but this is basically impossible because they are so good at what they do.
Is the re-election campain on already? ;)
I agree as well. I think Angela and Anthere are doing an amazing job.
(See, the British and the French _can_ work with each other)
Since most people don't know how Tim and Michael think, I wouldn't be surprised if they too would have the Wikipedia's best interest at heart when voting. I am not worried about the Jimbo+2 bloc.
Finally, on moving slow; an old Italian proverb goes something like this: "He who travels slowest travels safest."
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Christopher Mahan a écrit:
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
So, you think it's good that the majority of the board members
were
not voted in but rather chosen silently by Jimbo? I said "more complete democracy", not "completely direct democracy".
I think it was very good. Transition in a responsible manner takes time.
Angela and Anthere are unbelievably good as board members, and we have a casual agreement between us that if the two of them ever vote in one direction, I will defer to them, so that it does not matter how Tim and Michael vote. The only exception I would make to this is if they wanted something that I felt endangered us in some very extreme way -- but this is basically impossible because they are so good at what they do.
Is the re-election campain on already? ;)
I agree as well. I think Angela and Anthere are doing an amazing job.
(See, the British and the French _can_ work with each other)
Since most people don't know how Tim and Michael think, I wouldn't be surprised if they too would have the Wikipedia's best interest at heart when voting. I am not worried about the Jimbo+2 bloc.
Finally, on moving slow; an old Italian proverb goes something like this: "He who travels slowest travels safest."
Ah, a second compliment, this is really a good day :-) Merci Christopher.
I think that what is especially empowering is the leadership type of Jimbo. Jimbo is not coaching at all, and rather little directing (though hints are sometimes quite clear), as well as rather little delegating (I think the foundation would sometimes benefit from more delegation from Jimbo). His type is essentially supportive. Very low direction but very high support. This leaves basically as much opportunity to work in certain directions as one would dream of. However, one moves in a direction supported by Jimbo much more quickly than in a direction not supported by Jimbo. I can take a long time to find a satisfactory decision, but prevents from travelling in an unsafe direction.
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a écrit:
Mark Williamson wrote:
So, you think it's good that the majority of the board members were not voted in but rather chosen silently by Jimbo? I said "more complete democracy", not "completely direct democracy".
I think it was very good. Transition in a responsible manner takes time.
Angela and Anthere are unbelievably good as board members, and we have a casual agreement between us that if the two of them ever vote in one direction, I will defer to them, so that it does not matter how Tim and Michael vote. The only exception I would make to this is if they wanted something that I felt endangered us in some very extreme way -- but this is basically impossible because they are so good at what they do.
--Jimbo
I love Valentine's day :-) Could it be everyday please ?
/me looking for a good old compliment for Jimbo as well, but failing to succeed to select only one in the crowd.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org