[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

[Mark Williamson]

Again, Stirling, I am going to tell you: quit whinging about the
lopsidedness of the discussion and f'ing fix it yourself. If you think
we need to talk about something, post a message about it. Nobody's
holding you back. We talk about things that are at least a little bit
relevant to Wikipedia as a whole on this ml, and we have been doing
exactly that. We are not restricted to talking about "major" issues.

But if you feel we should talk more about these issues, YOU are
welcome to start discussions on these issues. Go ahead. Nobody's
stopping you.

Now, please quit whinging about this and either post the messages you
think we need, or go and pout.

Mark

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:20:09 -0500, Stirling Newberry
<stirling.newberry at xigenics.net> wrote:
> 
> On Mar 10, 2005, at 3:10 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 
> > Stirling Newberry wrote:
> >
> >> There have been hundreds of messages about small language wikipedias,
> >> and a handful about the social structure and credibility of
> >> wikipedai. Starting a wikipedia in (fill in the blank language) is
> >> far less important than dealing with credibility issues, and with the
> >> interaction problems in wikipedia, and with ideas to promote
> >> wikipedia to the larger world.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps when we can deal with our *current* status as a Top 200
> > website,
> > with peaks yesterday at No. 71. For a site popular purely through word
> > of mouth, I think we're having problems coping with the amount of
> > credibility we already have.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> 
> More than you are aware of, in that so far wikipedia has only had to
> deal with "natural" challenges of software, social organization and
> server load factor. Wait until you start having to deal with the
> problems of organized attempts to extract value from wikipedia, it will
> generate server loads and social problems which are, if the experience
> of e-tailers like EBay and Amazon are any indication two to four orders
> of magnitude above current peak loads. And I am not kidding.
> 
> More over, the current size is based on link equity, not merely "word
> of mouth". That link equity is something that people pay money for, and
> therefore exploiting wikipedia's link equity is already happening, and
> doing so on a systematic basis is a matter of time.
> 
> As well, the problems of retention and wider recruitment need to be
> dealt with now, otherwise by the time people realize there is a problem
> it will be too late.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>