Nabble - WikiMedia Foundation

Strategic Planning Office Hours

2009-12-21T16:30:11Z

The next strategic planning office hours are:
Wednesday from 04:00-05:00 UTC, which is:
Tuesday, 8-9pm PST
Tuesday, 11pm-12am EST

As always, You can access the chat by going to https://webchat.freenode.net
and filling in a username and the channel name (#wikimedia-
strategy). You may be prompted to click through a security warning.
It's fine.

Hope to see you there!

____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Facilitator, Strategy Project
Wikimedia Foundation

philippe@...

mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454)

Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Wikimania 2011 Jury announcement

2009-12-21T16:23:07Z

Dear all,

I am pleased to announce (a day late) the members of the jury for the
2011 Wikimania bids. The complete page with links can be found at
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2011/Jury>:

Voting members of the jury

* Delphine Ménard (Wikimania 2005, 2006 & 2008 organisation, chapters,
Wikimédia France)
* Austin Hair (Wikimania 2005 & 2006 organisation, chapters)
* Mariano Cecowski (Wikimania 2009 organisation, Wikimedia Argentina)
* Joseph Seddon (Wikimedia UK & Wikimania 2010 Oxford bid team)
* James Owen (Wikimedia Foundation Executive assistant to Sue Gardner &
Wikimania 2010 planning)
* Stuart West (Wikimedia Foundation Board)
* Teemu Leinonen (Advisory Board)
* Benjamin Mako Hill (Advisory Board)

Advisors
* Michael Snow (Wikimedia Foundation Board Chairperson)
* Sue Gardner (Wikimedia Foundation - executive)

Moderator
Note that Moderators are neutral aides and will not act as representatives.
* James Forrester (Perennial Wikimania attendee)
* Phoebe Ayers (Programme and Wikimania 2006 organisation)

Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

OSTP Request for Comment on Open Access to Federally Funded Research

2009-12-21T10:11:43Z

Possibly of interest to Wikimedians: the U.S. Office of Science and
Technology Policy is requesting public comment on making federally
funded scientific research open access. The deadline is Jan. 7.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Charles W. Bailey, Jr." <cwbailey@...>
To: sts-l@...
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:50:30 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [STS-L] OSTP Request for Comment on Open Access to Federally
Funded Research

The Office of Science and Technology Policy is requesting
input regarding enhanced access to federally funded science
and technology research results, including the possibility
of open access to them. Comments can be e-mailed to
publicaccess@.... The deadline for comments is January
7, 2010.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement
(http://bit.ly/5J1ZAp):

Input is welcome on any aspect of expanding public access to
peer reviewed publications arising from federal research.
Questions that individuals may wish to address include, but
are not limited to, the following (please respond to
questions individually):

1. How do authors, primary and secondary publishers,
libraries, universities, and the federal government
contribute to the development and dissemination of peer
reviewed papers arising from federal funds now, and how
might this change under a public access policy?

2. What characteristics of a public access policy would best
accommodate the needs and interests of authors, primary and
secondary publishers, libraries, universities, the federal
government, users of scientific literature, and the public?

3. Who are the users of peer-reviewed publications arising
from federal research? How do they access and use these
papers now, and how might they if these papers were more
accessible? Would others use these papers if they were more
accessible, and for what purpose?

4. How best could federal agencies enhance public access to
the peer-reviewed papers that arise from their research
funds? What measures could agencies use to gauge whether
there is increased return on federal investment gained by
expanded access?

5. What features does a public access policy need to have to
ensure compliance?

6. What version of the paper should be made public under a
public access policy (e.g., the author's peer reviewed
manuscript or the final published version)? What are the
relative advantages and disadvantages to different versions
of a scientific paper?

7. At what point in time should peer-reviewed papers be made
public via a public access policy relative to the date a
publisher releases the final version? Are there empirical
data to support an optimal length of time? Should the delay
period be the same or vary for levels of access (e.g., final
peer reviewed manuscript or final published article, access
under fair use versus alternative license), for federal
agencies and scientific disciplines?

8. How should peer-reviewed papers arising from federal
investment be made publicly available? In what format should
the data be submitted in order to make it easy to search,
find, and retrieve and to make it easy for others to link to
it? Are there existing digital standards for archiving and
interoperability to maximize public benefit? How are these
anticipated to change?

9. Access demands not only availability, but also meaningful
usability. How can the federal government make its
collections of peer- reviewed papers more useful to the
American public? By what metrics (e.g., number of articles
or visitors) should the Federal government measure success
of its public access collections? What are the best examples
of usability in the private sector (both domestic and
international)? And, what makes them exceptional? Should
those who access papers be given the opportunity to comment
or provide feedback?

In "The Obama Administration Wants OA for Federally-Funded
Research" (http://bit.ly/8fZ6Yh), Peter Suber says:

"This is big. We already have important momentum in Congress
for FRPAA. The question here is about separate action from
the White House. What OA policies should President Obama
direct funding agencies to adopt? This is the first major
opening to supplement legislative action with executive
action to advance public access to publicly-funded research.
It's also the first explicit sign that President Obama
supports the OA policy at the NIH and wants something
similar at other federal agencies."

In "Please Comment on Mandate Proposal by President Obama's
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)"
(http://bit.ly/8OQUEF), Stevan Harnad provides his answers
to the OSTP's questions.
--

Best Regards,
Charles

Charles W. Bailey, Jr.
Publisher, Digital Scholarship
http://bit.ly/Z6HFx

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Case Study: Fan History's Proposal For Being Acquired by the WMF

2009-12-20T15:34:54Z

2009/12/20 Tim Starling <tstarling@...>:

> Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>> 2009/12/20 Laura Hale <laura@...>:
>>> This was posted to the Strategy wiki but I don't think I ever mentioned it
>>> on list. The case study itself can be found at
>>> http://www.fanhistory.com/FHproposal.pdf . The blog entry about the case
>>> study can be found at http://blog.fanhistory.com/?p=1103 .
>>>
>>
>> I think the study shows the old problems, which mainly comes from
>> Wikimedia/Wikipedia history.
>>
>> Meta wiki was first created as a place for meta-cross-project
>> discussions including strategy planning as well. Then there was an
>> assumption (IMHO false) that there is some sort of
>> meta-cross-language-cross-projects-community which is allowed to make
>> vital decisions by the system of consensus process mixed with voting
>> system.It was soon found silly and many decisions were moved to
>> Wikimedia committees that theoretically were created just as
>> "advisory bodies" for Wikimedia Board of Trustees, but in fact the
>> advice given by the committees was usually accepted by the Board.
>
> Note that Meta was founded in 2001, so it significantly predates the
> Foundation and the non-Wikipedia projects. So the idea that
> decision-making there was "soon found silly" is a bit of an
> exaggeration. It predates the namespace feature in MediaWiki; it
> originally had a role similar to the Help and Wikipedia namespaces on
> the English Wikipedia today.
>

Well, My "story" is quite obviously just a simplification of the long
history. For me the first contact with meta was in 2002 and it was
about some sort of strategy planning - the discussion of the "second
stage of Wikipedia" - i.e. the idea of cleaning-up the Wikipedia as it
become large enough to be called a real encyclopedia :-) (roughly 100
000 articles). The second contact was at 2003 when we were voting for
"ambassador" of Polish Wikipedia. Anyway - what is my main point is
that the consensus/voting system in meta - was based on an idea that
there is a kind of meta-community, a large group of people interested
to look at Wikimedia movement as a whole, which has their origins in
various Wikimedia project's communities, not only English Wikipedia
and not only Wikipedias. In fact, it was always 90%+ English Wikipedia
community + 9%+ major other languages Wikipedia's communities members
+ less than 1% of minor languages Wikipedia's and other Wikimedia
project's communities. Therefore that system never worked effectively
- as there was never such a real meta-community which could
effectively represent the general Wikimedia projects' editors
community of communities.

--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Case Study: Fan History's Proposal For Being Acquired by the WMF

2009-12-20T14:30:23Z

Tomasz Ganicz wrote:

> 2009/12/20 Laura Hale <laura@...>:
>> This was posted to the Strategy wiki but I don't think I ever mentioned it
>> on list. The case study itself can be found at
>> http://www.fanhistory.com/FHproposal.pdf . The blog entry about the case
>> study can be found at http://blog.fanhistory.com/?p=1103 .
>>
>
> I think the study shows the old problems, which mainly comes from
> Wikimedia/Wikipedia history.
>
> Meta wiki was first created as a place for meta-cross-project
> discussions including strategy planning as well. Then there was an
> assumption (IMHO false) that there is some sort of
> meta-cross-language-cross-projects-community which is allowed to make
> vital decisions by the system of consensus process mixed with voting
> system.It was soon found silly and many decisions were moved to
> Wikimedia committees that theoretically were created just as
> "advisory bodies" for Wikimedia Board of Trustees, but in fact the
> advice given by the committees was usually accepted by the Board.

Note that Meta was founded in 2001, so it significantly predates the
Foundation and the non-Wikipedia projects. So the idea that
decision-making there was "soon found silly" is a bit of an
exaggeration. It predates the namespace feature in MediaWiki; it
originally had a role similar to the Help and Wikipedia namespaces on
the English Wikipedia today.

-- Tim Starling

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Case Study: Fan History’s Proposal For Being Acquired by the WMF

2009-12-20T14:09:47Z

2009/12/20 Laura Hale <laura@...>:
> This was posted to the Strategy wiki but I don't think I ever mentioned it
> on list. The case study itself can be found at
> http://www.fanhistory.com/FHproposal.pdf . The blog entry about the case
> study can be found at http://blog.fanhistory.com/?p=1103 .
>

I think the study shows the old problems, which mainly comes from
Wikimedia/Wikipedia history.

Meta wiki was first created as a place for meta-cross-project
discussions including strategy planning as well. Then there was an
assumption (IMHO false) that there is some sort of
meta-cross-language-cross-projects-community which is allowed to make
vital decisions by the system of consensus process mixed with voting
system.It was soon found silly and many decisions were moved to
Wikimedia committees that theoretically were created just as
"advisory bodies" for Wikimedia Board of Trustees, but in fact the
advice given by the committees was usually accepted by the Board. Than
- when the process of increase of power and size of Foundation's
office started many vital decisions were transferred to the office
from the Board of Trustees, which only is expected to lead the general
Wikimedia Foundation direction and do not interfere with everyday
single issue decision making process. Therefore we have now a kind of
power structure which looks like a square. On one corner (the most
powerful a the moment IMHO) - we have an Office with paid staff, on
the other we have a Board of Trustees, on the third there are a set of
existing committees, and on the fourth there is use to be
meta-cross-language-cross-projects-community and no one knows who
really have a decision power in this or another issue, so if
potentially difficult decision is about to be made all corners of the
square are just playing some sort of table tennis just hitting a ball
with rackets back and forth to each other on a table untill the ball
is broken or end up forgotten in the net or on the floor :-)

--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: LiquidThreads almost ready for deployment

2009-12-20T12:04:40Z

On 12/19/2009 10:36 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> I did not write that, except for the final sentence [...]
>

Sorry; that was my editing error. I was trying to reply while providing
more of the context; specifically the part of my message I thought you
were replying to. That clearly didn't work!

> I was saying that just the most elementary knowledge is enough for
> talk pages. Of all the parts of Wikipedia syntax, it's the easiest.
> The problems for users in learning things is elsewhere.
>

I agree that there are big problems elsewhere; I'm just trying to say
there are also significant usability problems with discussions.

My broad point is that although the talk page may only use the most
elementary parts of Mediawiki, and therefore seem easy to us, it still
has very low usability compared with typical discussion systems on the
Internet. In placing a much smaller burden on the software, we have
placed a much larger burden on the user.

Even if our current discussion system were somehow superior, it's still
very different than other systems, which is in itself a design mistake.
Indeed, it's one of the most common mistakes in web design, appearing at
#8 on Jakob Nielsen's top 10 list of design mistakes:

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html

If we want broad participation, we have to accept it in a way that most
people are familiar with. Whether we want broad participation is a
reasonable question, as is what to do with that participation when we
get it.

William

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: LiquidThreads almost ready for deployment

2009-12-20T12:01:38Z

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 1:36 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...> wrote:
> I did not write that, except for the final sentence--The rest was an
> earlier comment by someone who actually knows programming, not my
> elementary awareness of html and the rudiments of regular expressions.
> The only software I've ever developed is some VBA macros for Excel.
>

David, the part William quoted was his own prior post. I think he was
replying to what you had actually written, but neglected to include it
in his quote.

~Nathan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Case Study: Fan History’s Proposal For Being Acquired by the WMF

2009-12-20T09:00:49Z

This was posted to the Strategy wiki but I don't think I ever mentioned it
on list. The case study itself can be found at
http://www.fanhistory.com/FHproposal.pdf . The blog entry about the case
study can be found at http://blog.fanhistory.com/?p=1103 .

Sincerely,
Laura Hale
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: advertising craigslist

2009-12-20T08:59:43Z

2009/12/18 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:

> 2009/12/17 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>:
>
>> I agree with Bod - most people I know will have heard of Craigslist,
>> but I don't know anyone that has used it. We know about it because it
>> is mentioned quite often on TV imported from the US. However, despite
>> everyone having heard of Craigslist, it seems Britons aren't inspired
>> to donate by its founder telling them to. While the Craig Appeal
>> banner was being shown 20% of the time, Wikimedia UK saw a 20% drop in
>> fundraising income compared to the WMF (I look at the ratios of our
>> income to the WMF's, which usually cancels out any changes due to the
>> different banners). There is plenty of variation day to day, but 20%
>> is a bigger change that is usual.
>
>
> Local celebrities for next time. "Simon Cowell says: Donate to
> Wikipedia or I'll put out *two* X-Factor singles for Christmas. I warn
> you."
>

Eh second choice perhaps. From within the UK we couldn't really miss
the chance to ask Sandy Nairne Director of the National Portrait
Gallery.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: LiquidThreads almost ready for deployment

2009-12-19T22:36:30Z

I did not write that, except for the final sentence--The rest was an
earlier comment by someone who actually knows programming, not my
elementary awareness of html and the rudiments of regular expressions.
The only software I've ever developed is some VBA macros for Excel.

I was saying that just the most elementary knowledge is enough for
talk pages. Of all the parts of Wikipedia syntax, it's the easiest.
The problems for users in learning things is elsewhere. Even things I
do know how to use, like the cite templates or tables, I find too
complicated to bother with. What I think the usability studies show to
be the hardest--and also my own experience teaching raw beginners--,
is figuring just how to edit in the first place. We think we made it
easy, but they still don;t find it.

As for keeping track of discussions generally, the exchanges here show
the difficulties, and this one is as good an example as any for how
easily it is to get confused (in this case I think what did it is
other comments coming between what I was answering and my own
reply--the same problems as caused by edit conflicts. I'm not sure
there is any way to sort it out when a number of people are talking
about the same thing at the same time.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM, William Pietri <william@...> wrote:

> On 12/19/2009 10:54 AM, David Goodman wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:17 PM, William Pietri<william@...> wrote:
>>
>>> As a software developer, I'm perfectly comfortable dealing with its dark
>>> mysteries. I've spent tens of thousands of hours typing mysterious codes
>>> into giant files interpreted by unforgiving machines. But for the 98% of
>>> humanity that doesn't have much technical background, our discussion
>>> system comes across as somewhere between perplexing and actively hostile.
>> mysterious codes? All that is needed is knowing how to indent and sign.
>>
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>>
>
> For a person with a PhD in molecular biology, a master's degree in
> Library Science, and 3 years experience on Wikipedia, I'm sure it all
> seems pretty transparent. As somebody who played with punch card
> machines in kindergarten and was coding well before my voice changed, it
> sure looks that way to me. But we're pretty far out on a few different
> bell curves.
>
> I haven't seen an actual usability study on our current discussion
> system, but I have seen and done plenty of other usability studies, and
> my guess is that you'd get a combined drop-out plus failure rate of over
> 80% for first-time users. Followed by predictable reactions:
> discouragement, feeling dumb, and taking both the system and our
> community as hostile or unwelcoming.
>
> Whether we want to attract less technical and/or less persistent users
> is a reasonable question. (My view: we should.) But from the usability
> experts I've worked with, I think the nicest reaction they'd give to our
> current discussion system is politely disguised horror. If people are
> skeptical of that, I'd encourage them to reach out to our very sharp
> usability team; I'm sure they have opinions on this, and possibly some data.
>
>
> William
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: LiquidThreads almost ready for deployment

2009-12-19T13:24:56Z

On 12/19/2009 10:54 AM, David Goodman wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:17 PM, William Pietri<william@...> wrote:
>
>> As a software developer, I'm perfectly comfortable dealing with its dark
>> mysteries. I've spent tens of thousands of hours typing mysterious codes
>> into giant files interpreted by unforgiving machines. But for the 98% of
>> humanity that doesn't have much technical background, our discussion
>> system comes across as somewhere between perplexing and actively hostile.
> mysterious codes? All that is needed is knowing how to indent and sign.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>

For a person with a PhD in molecular biology, a master's degree in
Library Science, and 3 years experience on Wikipedia, I'm sure it all
seems pretty transparent. As somebody who played with punch card
machines in kindergarten and was coding well before my voice changed, it
sure looks that way to me. But we're pretty far out on a few different
bell curves.

I haven't seen an actual usability study on our current discussion
system, but I have seen and done plenty of other usability studies, and
my guess is that you'd get a combined drop-out plus failure rate of over
80% for first-time users. Followed by predictable reactions:
discouragement, feeling dumb, and taking both the system and our
community as hostile or unwelcoming.

Whether we want to attract less technical and/or less persistent users
is a reasonable question. (My view: we should.) But from the usability
experts I've worked with, I think the nicest reaction they'd give to our
current discussion system is politely disguised horror. If people are
skeptical of that, I'd encourage them to reach out to our very sharp
usability team; I'm sure they have opinions on this, and possibly some data.

William

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: LiquidThreads almost ready for deployment

2009-12-19T11:36:15Z

Indeed. I am aware of the usability problems, but the talk pages are
hardly the biggest problem. How much more complicated is
LiquidThreads. There is the concept of a thread as such, I see a
"first page" and so on, a roll down menu that hides a lot of
mysterious functions...
I find it especially annoying that the columns of a thread are so
extremely large:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_messages_-_Strategic_Planning.png
I must say that it is a very bad idea to confront people with such a
change without asking them, and even with a beta version that is
obviously not working yet.
Is there a decent turorial, anyway? Sorry, but I am not a software specialist.
Kind regards
Ziko

2009/12/19 David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...>:
> mysterious codes? All that is needed is knowing how to indent and sign.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>

--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: LiquidThreads almost ready for deployment

2009-12-19T10:54:20Z

mysterious codes? All that is needed is knowing how to indent and sign.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:17 PM, William Pietri <william@...> wrote:

> On 12/19/2009 09:25 AM, Teofilo wrote:
>> Wiki talk pages as they are now are good. Don't kill them.
>>
>
> Having not used LiquidThreads yet, I can't speak to your experience with
> it. But the existing discussion system is a usability nightmare.
>
> As a software developer, I'm perfectly comfortable dealing with its dark
> mysteries. I've spent tens of thousands of hours typing mysterious codes
> into giant files interpreted by unforgiving machines. But for the 98% of
> humanity that doesn't have much technical background, our discussion
> system comes across as somewhere between perplexing and actively hostile.
>
> For proof, just look at how many software packages have copied our
> approach to discussions. As far as I know, the number is zero. The
> common solutions seen in forums, blogs, and community sites across the
> internet have a lot in common with one another, and are rightly nothing
> like what we have.
>
> I have no idea whether LiquidThreads is the right solution, but if we
> want to broaden participation, increase the number of active editors,
> and improve our image, we definitely need something better than what we
> have. Hopefully we can do that in a way that keeps the benefits of the
> current system, but I think it's vital to mitigate the many and glaring
> current flaws.
>
> William
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: LiquidThreads almost ready for deployment

2009-12-19T10:53:45Z

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Teofilo <teofilowiki@...> wrote:
> This is an alternative wording for saying that the Strategy wiki's
> users have been used as guinea pigs for software experiments without
> their consent. Being treated as a guinea pig means in my case that my
> computer freezes. I want apologies for this and that the software is
> removed from the strategy wiki.

I'm very sorry that you've had trouble with LiquidThreads. If we want
participation, then the software has to work, and when it doesn't
work, that defeats our purpose.

I made the decision to use LiquidThreads on the strategy wiki, knowing
full well that it was beta software and that it would have warts. For
those of you who have found LiquidThreads to be a barrier, I take full
responsibility for that, and I'm doing everything I can to address
that. For the rest of you, I thank you. Andrew Garrett, the author of
LiquidThreads, has been incredibly diligent in fixing problems and
improving the software since installation. Everyone who has
contributed to strategy has been very patient in reporting problems,
learning the nuances of the tool, and most importantly, using the tool
to engage in strategic discussion, which is ultimately what this whole
thing is about.

To take this discussion onto a more constructive path, I think there
are two interesting followup threads:

1. If our goal was to broaden and improve participation on strategy,
was LiquidThreads the right decision?
2. How should the decisions to try new things be made?

I'm going to make a few points here, and I encourage people to
continue the discussion at:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/LiquidThreads

First, was LiquidThreads the right decision? The goal was to broaden
and improve participation. There have been hiccups, as Teofilo and
Ziko have noted here, and as others have noted on the wiki.

On the other hand, in the two months LiquidThreads has been running,
there have been almost 200 unique contributors to the discussion, many
of whom were new to strategy wiki and some of whom were entirely new
to wikis period. There have been 2,000 total posts, for an average of
about 30 a day. Additionally, overall contributions to strategy wiki
continues to rise.

Most importantly, the quality of the discourse overall has been
outstanding. Contributors have been doing productive work with the
help of voices that may otherwise have not participated.

Participation on strategy has been very good since LiquidThreads was
installed. It's impossible to be scientific about the causal role that
LiquidThreads has played in this, but the notion that LiquidThreads is
disastrous, as some have attempted to paint it, is completely
ludicrous. Based on actual experience, we can make a strong case that
LiquidThreads has been beneficial to this process.

Second, how should the decisions to try new things be made?

One of the themes that has emerged from the strategic planning process
is that there seems to be a community-wide paralysis when it comes to
trying new things. People fear backlash. Some have espoused the view
that every decision should be put up to vote before being made.

I find this ironic and sad and scary, because what makes wikis
wonderful is that they are empowering, and the enemy of ongoing
success is stagnation.

Ours is the first and best example of doacracy-at-scale. Why is this?
Wikis are permissive. (Has there ever been anything more empowering
than, "Edit this page"?) Wikis are also forgiving. (They have this
beautiful feature called, "Revert.") Permission and forgiveness are
what allow innovation to happen and beautiful things to emerge.

If we want to retain this original spirit (which seems to be waning),
we first need to acknowledge and honor it. We then need to think about
how we can support it. What social and technical infrastructure could
be put into place to better support experimentation? Who should be
empowered to make these kinds of decisions? How can we as a community
learn how to build up rather than tear down?

The Movement Roles Task Force is exploring questions like this, and I
would strongly encourage everyone to post their thoughts there:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Task_force/Movement_Roles

That discussion is using LiquidThreads, so if you haven't tried it
yet, that would be an excellent place to start. :-)

=Eugene

--
======================================================================
Eugene Eric Kim ................................ http://xri.net/=eekim
Blue Oxen Associates ........................ http://www.blueoxen.com/
======================================================================

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: LiquidThreads almost ready for deployment

2009-12-19T10:17:40Z

On 12/19/2009 09:25 AM, Teofilo wrote:
> Wiki talk pages as they are now are good. Don't kill them.
>

Having not used LiquidThreads yet, I can't speak to your experience with
it. But the existing discussion system is a usability nightmare.

As a software developer, I'm perfectly comfortable dealing with its dark
mysteries. I've spent tens of thousands of hours typing mysterious codes
into giant files interpreted by unforgiving machines. But for the 98% of
humanity that doesn't have much technical background, our discussion
system comes across as somewhere between perplexing and actively hostile.

For proof, just look at how many software packages have copied our
approach to discussions. As far as I know, the number is zero. The
common solutions seen in forums, blogs, and community sites across the
internet have a lot in common with one another, and are rightly nothing
like what we have.

I have no idea whether LiquidThreads is the right solution, but if we
want to broaden participation, increase the number of active editors,
and improve our image, we definitely need something better than what we
have. Hopefully we can do that in a way that keeps the benefits of the
current system, but I think it's vital to mitigate the many and glaring
current flaws.

William

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: LiquidThreads almost ready for deployment

2009-12-19T10:03:21Z

Hello,
The appraisal of LT is not quite universal; I have my problems with
this feature and actually it prevents me from contributing to the
strategy wiki. I would have preferred a discussion before forcing
people to use that kind of tools/toys.
Kind regards
Ziko

2009/12/16 Andrew Garrett <agarrett@...>:
> Hi all,
>
> LiquidThreads has been in alpha testing on Wikimedia Labs [2] for
> several months, and, more recently, it's been used in a production
> context on the strategy wiki, where it has been quite well-received.

--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: LiquidThreads almost ready for deployment

2009-12-19T09:25:08Z

"With the Foundation's support"

Is there a board resolution on this matter ? I think the question of
how we talk to each other is a question even more important than the
license problems. As there was a referendum on the license change, I
think there should be a referendum on the talk pages' software change.

"it's been used in a production context on the strategy wiki,"

This is an alternative wording for saying that the Strategy wiki's
users have been used as guinea pigs for software experiments without
their consent. Being treated as a guinea pig means in my case that my
computer freezes. I want apologies for this and that the software is
removed from the strategy wiki.

This software should be called "Liquidthreat" because it is a threat
to community life. For example the disparition of fixed tables of
contents and archiving numbers, preventing to memorize where a talk
page you have contributed to or enjoyed reading is located. For
example the "protecting individual discussion threads" feature which
is an invitation to censorship. For example the "summary" feature
which is an invitation to gross misinterpretations of other people's
opinions. For example the possibility to reactivate old talks from two
years ago, instead of linking to their location in their archive as a
reference and starting a new fresh talk, contributing to a prospect of
never-ending "monster talks"...

The worst is probably the waste of screen space which prevents people
with a small screen to "understand" the structucture of the talks, and
to find quickly which message an answer is supposed to be answering,
and who is the last person who talked. Even finding the edit box in
the middle of a long page, playing with the vertical scroll bar, is
not easy.

Wiki talk pages are dense, and this enables to quickly discriminate
between what is important and what is not.

Wiki talk pages are easily turned into archives and can subsequently
be used as references.

Wiki talk pages as they are now are good. Don't kill them.

2009/12/16, Andrew Garrett <agarrett@...>:
> Hi all,
>
> With the Foundation's support, I've spent the last few months churning
> away at LiquidThreads [1], a new discussion system that is proposed for
> use on Wikimedia projects.
>
> LiquidThreads has been in alpha testing on Wikimedia Labs [2] for
> several months, and, more recently, it's been used in a production
> context on the strategy wiki, where it has been quite well-received.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Language codes to rename, 1 year passed, nothing happened

2009-12-19T08:33:58Z

On Wed Nov 26 01:04:12 UTC 2008 a strategy about subdomains rename was made
public
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/047554.html
But to our regret, nothing happened until now, just to make sure you do not
forget, I want to reiterate how *IMPORTANT that you rename that
mo.wikipedia.org -> mo-cyrl.wikipedia.org domain.*

If you have IT staff shortage, *I **volunteer* to rename the subdomains dns
entries.
And better, just remove it altogether this bullshit since this is just
romanian written with cyrillic alphabet, search on google for latin to
cyrillic transliteration, and stop wasting your database space and time.

Happy holidays to you.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Open Wiki Blog Planet

2009-12-18T15:23:42Z

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Casey Brown <lists@...> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Anthony <wikimail@...> wrote:
> >> and if it did conflict, as David suggested,
> >> the way to resolve it would be to move the page to another wiki rather
> >> than censor bloggers.
> >>
> >
> > Another wiki not run by the Wikimedia Foundation, fine.
>
> That's not necessarily needed -- we could just do it on Meta-Wiki.
>

You could, but I wouldn't call that "the way to resolve it". David's crap
shouldn't be promoted on Meta-Wiki either.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Open Wiki Blog Planet

2009-12-18T14:56:15Z

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Anthony <wikimail@...> wrote:
>> and if it did conflict, as David suggested,
>> the way to resolve it would be to move the page to another wiki rather
>> than censor bloggers.
>>
>
> Another wiki not run by the Wikimedia Foundation, fine.

That's not necessarily needed -- we could just do it on Meta-Wiki.

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Chapters reports - Overview mid september mid december

2009-12-18T09:35:47Z

Hi all,

several Wikimedia chapters produce monthly (or bimonthly) reports for the
other chapters, the foundation and the community at large. These reports are
posted publicly, and give an overview of what the chapters are doing. I
would like to start giving a bit of attention to these reports on this list,
and send every now and then an overview of some of these reports - mainly
links. You can always find the whole archive on
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/chapters-reports/ . If you want to
subscribe to this list, please visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/chapters-reports . If you are
from a chapter board, and would like to post a report too, please send it to
chapters-reports-l at lists.wikimedia.org
There are several Wiki-versions available through:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports

Some of my favorite pieces of information:

* Wikimedia Polska organized a strategic Planning meeting in September with
40 participants
* Wikimedia France organized the Multimedia Workshop in Paris in November
* Wikimedia France created a week-calender with photos from Wikimedia
Commons and is hiring its first staff member.
* Wikimedia CZ started a Wikimedium magazine, which is published online four
times a year.

Best regards,
Lodewijk Gelauff

====
Overview

Wikimedia Czech Republic
July - November -
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/chapters-reports/2009-November/000052.html

Wikimedia France
July - October -
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/chapters-reports/2009-November/000051.html

Wikimedia Nederland
September -
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/chapters-reports/2009-October/000050.html
October/November -
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/chapters-reports/2009-December/000053.html

Wikimedia Polska
July - September -
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/chapters-reports/2009-October/000049.html

Wikimedia UK
September -
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/chapters-reports/2009-September/000048.html
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: advertising craigslist

2009-12-17T18:09:37Z

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc@...> wrote:

> Local celebrities for next time. "Simon Cowell says: Donate to
>> Wikipedia or I'll put out *two* X-Factor singles for Christmas. I warn
>> you."
>>
>
>
> There has been two X-factor singles. One from the winner, and one from all
> the finalist earlier for charity. ;-)
>

Apparently someone out there didn't donate, and Simon's angry. I don't know
who it was, but if you're reading this, on behalf of the rest of the world,
look what you've done! Look what we have to put up with, thanks to you!

--
[[User:Ral315]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: advertising craigslist

2009-12-17T17:29:44Z

David Gerard wrote:

There has been two X-factor singles. One from the winner, and one from
all the finalist earlier for charity. ;-)

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

PGP.sig (201 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: advertising craigslist

2009-12-17T16:27:13Z

2009/12/17 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>:

> I agree with Bod - most people I know will have heard of Craigslist,
> but I don't know anyone that has used it. We know about it because it
> is mentioned quite often on TV imported from the US. However, despite
> everyone having heard of Craigslist, it seems Britons aren't inspired
> to donate by its founder telling them to. While the Craig Appeal
> banner was being shown 20% of the time, Wikimedia UK saw a 20% drop in
> fundraising income compared to the WMF (I look at the ratios of our
> income to the WMF's, which usually cancels out any changes due to the
> different banners). There is plenty of variation day to day, but 20%
> is a bigger change that is usual.

Local celebrities for next time. "Simon Cowell says: Donate to
Wikipedia or I'll put out *two* X-Factor singles for Christmas. I warn
you."

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Wikimedia Secret Santa!

2009-12-17T14:31:10Z

A reminder to sign up by Sat. if you want to participate. -- phoebe

-------

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:51 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> wrote:

> Hello Wikimedians,
>
> Austin and I thought it might be fun to have a Secret Santa New Year's
> drawing among Wikimedia friends! We're basing it on the MetaFilter
> community Secret Santa drawing, which has 256 participants and uses a
> website called Elfster.
>
> Totally optional of course, but totally fun to get random things in
> the mail from other community members.
>
> Here's the link to sign up and join the group, if you want to participate:
> http://www.elfster.com/apps/exchange/Join.aspx?euid=D78EF055-CF27-4E8F-8E29-205AE28927F6
>
> How it works:
>
> * Sign up at Elfster by Saturday, December 19 if you want to
> participate. This part is important -- we'll do the automagical
> drawing that day. Don't forget to add your address! (address settings
> are under "you" on the site; only the person who draws your name will
> be able to see your mailing address. But do remember that if you want
> to participate, you'll have to make your postal address available to
> at least one other person. The name you register with is visible to
> other group members, but not email.)
>
> * Elfster sends you the name of your secret santa recipient (from
> "santa@...")
>
> * buy, make or find a gift -- price guideline $10ish or less
> (+postage); it's just a guideline but don't go crazy. Small gifts are
> fine.
>
> * the deadline to get your present to your recipient is Saturday,
> January 16th (since we're starting so late -- and yes, the
> international mail will have delays).
>
> Happy New Years!
> -- Phoebe and Austin
>

--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: advertising craigslist

2009-12-17T11:55:10Z

Bod Notbod <bodnotbod@...> wrote:

>> If we put a quote from Nelson Mandela there, for example, it isn't very likely that he will get any money
>> or website traffic or any quantifiable benefit from our banner.

> I'm not against the Craig banner but you do raise an interesting
> point, in that I think we could do better.

> Who would people's ideal banner person be?

> I think our aims are noble enough to attract someone truly great.

> Nelson Mandela would be amazing, wouldn't he? I think we could
> genuinely aim that high, especially if we can access him via the One
> Laptop Per Child initiative.

Apparently, he has written quite a few books that a banner
could be construed advertizing for.

Tim

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: advertising craigslist

2009-12-17T11:46:40Z

2009/12/17 Philippe Beaudette <pbeaudette@...>:

>
> On Dec 17, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Bod Notbod wrote:
>
>> Craigslist is certainly well known. But entirely
>> unused.
>
>
> That's fascinating, actually - anthropologically, I'm intrigued at a
> site that's a household name in that demographic while being unused.
> Globalization adds interesting twists to all of this, doesn't it?

I agree with Bod - most people I know will have heard of Craigslist,
but I don't know anyone that has used it. We know about it because it
is mentioned quite often on TV imported from the US. However, despite
everyone having heard of Craigslist, it seems Britons aren't inspired
to donate by its founder telling them to. While the Craig Appeal
banner was being shown 20% of the time, Wikimedia UK saw a 20% drop in
fundraising income compared to the WMF (I look at the ratios of our
income to the WMF's, which usually cancels out any changes due to the
different banners). There is plenty of variation day to day, but 20%
is a bigger change that is usual.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Open Wiki Blog Planet

2009-12-17T11:40:28Z

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Sage Ross
<ragesoss+wikipedia@...<ragesoss%2Bwikipedia@...>
> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Anthony <wikimail@...> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Sage Ross
> > <ragesoss+wikipedia@... <ragesoss%2Bwikipedia@...><
> ragesoss%2Bwikipedia@... <ragesoss%252Bwikipedia@...>>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> For what it's worth, I agree with David Gerard that Open Wiki Blog
> >> Planet is not properly subject to Wikipedia policies;
> >
> >
> > Not even the policies at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page ?
> > How's that going to work?
>
> I don't see anything there that applies to the way the Open Wiki Blog
> Planet feed list is done,

"there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space
material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute" I guess it
doesn't say anything about what you can include in someone else's user
space, but I think that can be assumed.

> and if it did conflict, as David suggested,
> the way to resolve it would be to move the page to another wiki rather
> than censor bloggers.
>

Another wiki not run by the Wikimedia Foundation, fine. Of course, it's up
to Nick whether he'd prefer to do that. Personally I see no point in having
Open Wiki Blog Planet host personal attacks (nor for it to host posts having
nothing to do with Wikimedia projects), so if I were Nick I'd choose not to
do so.

> But as John Vandenberg points out in the other thread, the removal had
> nothing to do with ArbCom, and we are of course free to decide which
> blogs we as a community do and don't want as part of the feed.

Whoever runs Open Wiki Blog Planet (I assume it's Nick) is free to decide
which blogs he does and doesn't want as part of the feed.

> It's
> my view, though, that we shouldn't feel compelled to remove a blog
> because of the policies of English Wikipedia.
>

On that, I agree. Though I assume the policies of English Wikipedia most
likely will overlap with the policies of Open Wiki Blog Planet.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: advertising craigslist

2009-12-17T11:37:41Z

On Dec 17, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Bod Notbod wrote:

> Craigslist is certainly well known. But entirely
> unused.

That's fascinating, actually - anthropologically, I'm intrigued at a
site that's a household name in that demographic while being unused.
Globalization adds interesting twists to all of this, doesn't it?

____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Facilitator, Strategy Project
Wikimedia Foundation

philippe@...

mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454)

Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: advertising craigslist

2009-12-17T11:36:04Z

With regard to whether Craigslist is too parochial, I can give some
insight into the UK view.

Amongst my online friends (young, 20-40 year old, IT literate,
affluent consumers) Craigslist is certainly well known. But entirely
unused. I haven't heard of a single person using the site from this
country.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: advertising craigslist

2009-12-17T11:20:07Z

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@...> wrote:

> If we put a quote from Nelson Mandela there, for example, it isn't very likely that he will get any money
> or website traffic or any quantifiable benefit from our banner.

I'm not against the Craig banner but you do raise an interesting
point, in that I think we could do better.

Who would people's ideal banner person be?

I think our aims are noble enough to attract someone truly great.

Nelson Mandela would be amazing, wouldn't he? I think we could
genuinely aim that high, especially if we can access him via the One
Laptop Per Child initiative.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: advertising craigslist

2009-12-17T11:18:59Z

2009/12/17 Mark Williamson <node.ue@...>:

> This is great publicity for Craigslist and it would be silly to measure the
> impact by the number of pageviews for our own page on Craigslist. I think
> the point Geni was trying to make is that it has indeed raised some interest
> in Craigslist, rather than just helping WMF.

This implies it's zero-sum.

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: advertising craigslist

2009-12-17T11:15:51Z

Overly simplifying, indeed. How did you arrive at the $40 estimate? Are you
trying to convert the 15K pageviews in 1 day into a dollar value?

Do you think that when people see advertisements on TV, they all immediately
flock to websites to look up the product? No, of course not, only a minority
of them will, but the web traffic isn't what the advertisers are paying for.
It is the message, they are paying to get their name out there in a certain
context.

This is great publicity for Craigslist and it would be silly to measure the
impact by the number of pageviews for our own page on Craigslist. I think
the point Geni was trying to make is that it has indeed raised some interest
in Craigslist, rather than just helping WMF.

Mark

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:58 AM, William Pietri <william@...>wrote:

> Interesting! If I read that right, the Craigslist page on Wikipedia got
> an extra 15k pageviews or so. As a comparison, my rough guess is that
> Craigslist gets 100m pageviews/day. I base that on these numbers:
>
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOrigins.htm
> http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/craigslist.org+wikipedia.org
>
> Assuming the estimate of circa $100m in annual revenues, and making a
> number of other overly simplifying assumptions, the ballpark financial
> advantage to Craigslist for Craig Newmark's appearance here is about
> $40, or 13 seconds worth of revenues.
>
> William
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: advertising craigslist

2009-12-17T10:58:52Z

On 12/16/2009 05:05 AM, geni wrote:
> There is one point left. We can't measure the change in traffic to
> Craigslist but we can measure this:
>
> http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/Craigslist
>

Interesting! If I read that right, the Craigslist page on Wikipedia got
an extra 15k pageviews or so. As a comparison, my rough guess is that
Craigslist gets 100m pageviews/day. I base that on these numbers:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOrigins.htm
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/craigslist.org+wikipedia.org

Assuming the estimate of circa $100m in annual revenues, and making a
number of other overly simplifying assumptions, the ballpark financial
advantage to Craigslist for Craig Newmark's appearance here is about
$40, or 13 seconds worth of revenues.

William

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l