[Commons-l] The disastrous popularity of Commons

[Brianna Laugher]

On 08/04/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a somewhat-related question: I have ideas for press releases to
> drag the general public to Commons at a *fantastic* rate. But do we
> want that?

I don't work on Commons because I like it to be my own little secret
project. I work on it because I want it to be a worldwide success, as
well known as Flickr and Getty Images... and English Wikipedia. :)

What is the point of working on a project if not to lead it to greater success?

...And yet, none of us can deny the major holes in technical functions
that hamper our maintenance work (proper search, proper image
workflow, proper usage tools). None of us can deny the major problems
from the outset that make using a wiki unintuitive and painful (think
categories/galleries, aliases, t10n [1]).

Of course, we have backlogs now. But we probably always will have. (If
not visible ones, then invisible: check everything chronologically...)
An important question is: if we're not ready now (for explosive
growth), when will we be ready? How will we know? What are the
visible, measurable markers that will tell us?

Otherwise you just live in fear of popularity which is... stupid. The
Wikimedia mission is about sharing free knowledge with the world. See
below.

> - stratospheric bandwidth bills. You think it's bad now.

Goodness. The ultimate conclusion of such a view is that we should
shut all the sites down. then 0 bandwidth costs. :)
I guess it depends how we measure our success. 99% certified copyvio
free, or household brandname recognition? or something in between.
they are not incompatible, exactly.

IMO this should not be our concern. or if it our concern, it is only a
secondary one, NOT a primary one. otherwise there is some conflict,
why do we ask people to upload hi-res originals?

> I still think Wikipedia got way too popular way too quickly and I
> would be much happier if it were a Top 100 site rather than a Top 10
> site. It would also be cheaper in bandwidth.

That is an interesting idea. But I wonder if it would really make a
difference, or just be delaying the inevitable.

cheers,
Brianna

[1] Shouldn't it be t9n? *confused*