http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8051262.stm
Google has an hour of slow service and it's headline news. Imagine the donations we could get if our downtime (which, as David is fond of saying, is our most profitable product) got into the headlines! Perhaps we should take to issuing press releases following server problems.
It could possibly be a strategy to increase the number of donations.
Is it ethical?
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Karun Dambiec karun@fastmail.fm wrote:
It could possibly be a strategy to increase the number of donations.
Karun Dambiec karun@fastmail.fm
On Fri, 15 May 2009 12:59 +0100, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8051262.stm
Google has an hour of slow service and it's headline news. Imagine the donations we could get if our downtime (which, as David is fond of saying, is our most profitable product) got into the headlines! Perhaps we should take to issuing press releases following server problems.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
No, and it's stupid. It's not like this is a covert discussion.
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Bilal Abdul Kader bilalak@gmail.comwrote:
Is it ethical?
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Karun Dambiec karun@fastmail.fm wrote:
It could possibly be a strategy to increase the number of donations.
Karun Dambiec karun@fastmail.fm
On Fri, 15 May 2009 12:59 +0100, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8051262.stm
Google has an hour of slow service and it's headline news. Imagine the donations we could get if our downtime (which, as David is fond of saying, is our most profitable product) got into the headlines! Perhaps we should take to issuing press releases following server problems.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
2009/5/15 The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com:
No, and it's stupid. It's not like this is a covert discussion.
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Bilal Abdul Kader bilalak@gmail.comwrote:
Is it ethical?
How is it unethical? We take advantage of downtime to explain to our readers that we rely on donations to keep the site running, there is nothing dishonest about that.
Sorry I missed the point in a previous post then. The wordings looked like using the downtime as a strategy.
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/5/15 The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com:
No, and it's stupid. It's not like this is a covert discussion.
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Bilal Abdul Kader <bilalak@gmail.com wrote:
Is it ethical?
How is it unethical? We take advantage of downtime to explain to our readers that we rely on donations to keep the site running, there is nothing dishonest about that.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
2009/5/15 Bilal Abdul Kader bilalak@gmail.com:
Sorry I missed the point in a previous post then. The wordings looked like using the downtime as a strategy.
Oh, no, I certainly wasn't proposing we fake downtime, that would be seriously unethical, I agree. We have plenty of natural downtime we can exploit. (The Google story was about their sites running slowly, so we probably don't even need anything to go down completely.)
We should definitely highlight real downtime as a reason for funding, especially in a way that discusses practical steps that would be taken to reduce the problem and how much those steps would cost.
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/5/15 Bilal Abdul Kader bilalak@gmail.com:
Sorry I missed the point in a previous post then. The wordings looked
like
using the downtime as a strategy.
Oh, no, I certainly wasn't proposing we fake downtime, that would be seriously unethical, I agree. We have plenty of natural downtime we can exploit. (The Google story was about their sites running slowly, so we probably don't even need anything to go down completely.)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 2:58 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
We should definitely highlight real downtime as a reason for funding, especially in a way that discusses practical steps that would be taken to reduce the problem and how much those steps would cost.
And highlight how much previous donations have allowed performance to be improved already.
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 2:58 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
We should definitely highlight real downtime as a reason for funding, especially in a way that discusses practical steps that would be taken to reduce the problem and how much those steps would cost.
Interesting point. Commercial organisations would never issue a press release highlighting poor performance, because they want people to think they're getting good value for money. A charity on the other hand...what does wikipedia have to lose from people thinking its servers are unreliable due to lack of funding?
2009/5/22 Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com:
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 2:58 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
We should definitely highlight real downtime as a reason for funding, especially in a way that discusses practical steps that would be taken to reduce the problem and how much those steps would cost.
Interesting point. Commercial organisations would never issue a press release highlighting poor performance, because they want people to think they're getting good value for money. A charity on the other hand...what does wikipedia have to lose from people thinking its servers are unreliable due to lack of funding?
The thing that prompted me to start this thread was Google, a commercial organisation (although not one people pay for at the point of use), issuing just such a press release.
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The thing that prompted me to start this thread was Google, a commercial organisation (although not one people pay for at the point of use), issuing just such a press release.
Err, yes. But people had already noticed, and been blogging rampantly about it. So it's not like they were promoting their failure so much as avoiding being silent on the issue. Whereas we would be actively promoting it.
Steve
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org