[Foundation-l] Is popularity a good thing for us?

[effe iets anders]

+ We set an example to proof that Free Content works.

2007/12/16, David Gerard <dgerard op gmail.com>:
>
> On 16/12/2007, Ayelie <ayelie.at.large op gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 2007 8:23 AM, Jon Harald Søby <jhsoby op gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Foundation has repeatedly stated that it can not and will not
> reveal
> > > details about this. What, then, is the use of this speculation? As
> I've
> > > said
> > > to others, it accomplishes nothing. We have encyclopædias to write,
> let's
> > > focus on that instead.
>
> > ... and a freely-licensed image collection to build, libraries to
> collect,
> > books to write, dictionaries to work on, quote collections to gather,
> > species data references to create, news articles to publish, learning
> > materials to prepare...  ;)
>
>
> To change the subject:
>
> This gets to the point of what we're doing this for. WMF's job is not
> in fact to run a hideously popular and expensive web site - it's to
> generate a body of work that's freely reusable by all.
>
> So. Plus and minus points of popularity?
>
> + Proves we're doing something of value.
> + We get attention and hence contributors.
> + We have power to comment in the press to further our mission.
> + We get an income to get staff to help further our mission.
>
> - Immediatism is the enemy of considered working, and being top-10
> means we have to do far too many things really fast.
> - Costs a fortune to run the site.
> - We're a target for attacks from ad-banner trolls.
> - Mass popularity reruits volunteers from closer to the bottom of the
> barrel.
>
> Please add more. Is there a case for trying to make ourselves less
> popular so we can get on with work?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>