[WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - Mark Twain Since Citizendium is all the rage on this mailing list, a review and comparison of Alexa stats seemed like a good idea. Here's how things stack up: TRAFFIC RANK: Citizendium: 63,929 Wikipedia: 7 REACH: (Percent of global Internet users who visit the site, 3 month average) Citizendium: 0.00155% Wikipedia: 8.711% Of course, the numbers vary a bit depending on what ranking service one selects. But not by all that much. It's been two and a half years since Citizendium's launch. The project has 10,500 articles and slightly over 100 approved articles. English Wikipedia topped 100,000 articles in January 2003, just about two years after launch. In January 2004 English Wikipedia reached 200,000 articles. Arguably, Citizendium both gains and loses by launching later: the site can draw upon a large pool of existing free content at Wikipedia, but Wikipedia had already become a prominent website by the time Citizendium started. With respect extended toward Larry Sanger and his undertaking, a few questions are worth asking: 1. Is Citizendium a snapshot of what Wikipedia's growth would have been, if Larry Sanger had remained with the project? 2. Will Citizendium become a top 1000 website within the next five years? 3. Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder claims regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor? -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
2009/4/16 Durova : > 1. Is Citizendium a snapshot of what Wikipedia's growth would have been, if > Larry Sanger had remained with the project? No. Wikipedia changes the online landscape for that to be the case. > 2. Will Citizendium become a top 1000 website within the next five years? I wouldn't expect it to but if it finds a market wikipedia has missed it might. > 3. Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder claims > regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor? In some respects. The problem is the community has effectively already settled the issues as can be seen by the content of the relevant articles. Larry's other targets appear to be jimbo, the board and the media. This list has only a very limited impact on all three. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
2009/4/16 Durova : > 3. Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder claims > regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor? Not here. It doesn't help us develop and improve the English Wikipedia. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, James Farrar wrote: > > 3. Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder claims > > regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor? > Not here. It doesn't help us develop and improve the English Wikipedia. I've found the "to improve Wikipedia" clause in various rules to be an odd loophole. Usually it gets abused in BLP and privacy discussions: "that helps the individual named in the BLP but doesn't improve the encyclopedia". The idea that we must improve the encyclopedia is *not* a blanket excuse to avoid our responsibilities to get things correct or not to cause harm. In fact, this is almost the same as the BLP and privacy abuses. Sanger is a particular named individual that Wikipedia is making claims about. He says the claims are wrong. It's up to us to get them right, whether it "improves the encyclopedia" or not--and if getting them right doesn't improve the encyclopedia, what are we doing making *any* claims about *anyone's* founder status? (Moreover, Sanger has pointed to particular things he claims aren't true, above and beyond the founder/cofounder issue.) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
-Original Message- From: Ken Arromdee To: English Wikipedia Sent: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:24 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics I've found the "to improve Wikipedia" clause in various rules to be an odd loophole. Usually it gets abused in BLP and privacy discussions: "that helps the individual named in the BLP but doesn't improve the encyclopedia". The idea that we must improve the encyclopedia is *not* a blanket excuse to avoid our responsibilities to get things correct or not to cause harm. In fact, this is almost the same as the BLP and privacy abuses. Sanger is a particular named individual that Wikipedia is making claims about. He says the claims are wrong. It's up to us to get them right, whether it "improves the encyclopedia" or not--and if getting them right doesn't improve the encyclopedia, what are we doing making *any* claims about *anyone's* founder status? (Moreover, Sanger has pointed to particular things he claims aren't true, above and beyond the founder/cofounder issue.) --- I didn't get the impression that he was complaining here about Wikipedia, but rather just about Jimmy. I looked at the article and it seemed to present them both as co-founders. I think Larry was just complaining that Jimmy, as an individual person, has been saying this or that about him or about the early history of the project that Larry didn't like. Not that those things have been incorporated into the project. Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
2009/4/16 Ken Arromdee : > In fact, this is almost the same as the BLP and privacy abuses. Sanger is a > particular named individual that Wikipedia is making claims about. He says > the claims are wrong. It's up to us to get them right, whether it "improves > the encyclopedia" or not--and if getting them right doesn't improve the > encyclopedia, what are we doing making *any* claims about *anyone's* > founder status? Oh, I'd agree. But (a) we won't settle the truth of the matter in yet another discussion here, and (b) Sanger didn't post to the list to improve Wikipedia; he posted here to bitch about Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales, not necessarily in that order. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
He hasn't been complaining about the presentation of the issue in the encyclopedia, but about the stances and conduct of individuals (as he views it) outside the editorial realm. The reason many here are dismissive is not that these claims are or aren't without merit, but that they are irrelevant to the aim or the project, which is not to resolve who gets how much glory or criticism, but to write neutral encyclopedic content pages in a collaborative manner and leave other issues outside the door - a goal which renders the entire issue largely pointless to many experienced editors, unless some actual mis-balancing of an actual encyclopedia article is in the frame. FT2 On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, James Farrar wrote: > > > 3. Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder > claims > > > regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor? > > Not here. It doesn't help us develop and improve the English Wikipedia. > > I've found the "to improve Wikipedia" clause in various rules to be an odd > loophole. Usually it gets abused in BLP and privacy discussions: "that > helps > the individual named in the BLP but doesn't improve the encyclopedia". The > idea that we must improve the encyclopedia is *not* a blanket excuse to > avoid > our responsibilities to get things correct or not to cause harm. > > In fact, this is almost the same as the BLP and privacy abuses. Sanger is > a > particular named individual that Wikipedia is making claims about. He says > the claims are wrong. It's up to us to get them right, whether it > "improves > the encyclopedia" or not--and if getting them right doesn't improve the > encyclopedia, what are we doing making *any* claims about *anyone's* > founder status? > > (Moreover, Sanger has pointed to particular things he claims aren't true, > above and beyond the founder/cofounder issue.) > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, James Farrar wrote: > >> It doesn't help us develop and improve the English Wikipedia. >> > I've found the "to improve Wikipedia" clause in various rules to be an odd > loophole. Usually it gets abused in BLP and privacy discussions: "that helps > the individual named in the BLP but doesn't improve the encyclopedia". The > idea that we must improve the encyclopedia is *not* a blanket excuse to avoid > our responsibilities to get things correct or not to cause harm. "To improve Wikipedia" is usually a catch-phrase utilized by those evangelizing on behalf of their personal vision. It is on a par with statements made by various nations who go into battle with "God on their side." Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, James Farrar wrote: > (b) Sanger didn't post to the list to > improve Wikipedia; he posted here to bitch about Wikipedia and Jimbo > Wales, not necessarily in that order. The same can be said of an ordinary BLP question. Most people who want to correct BLPs about themselves don't want to improve the encyclopedia; they just want to protect their own interests. We listen to them anyway. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
2009/4/16 Ken Arromdee : > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, James Farrar wrote: >> (b) Sanger didn't post to the list to >> improve Wikipedia; he posted here to bitch about Wikipedia and Jimbo >> Wales, not necessarily in that order. > > The same can be said of an ordinary BLP question. Most people who want to > correct BLPs about themselves don't want to improve the encyclopedia; they > just want to protect their own interests. We listen to them anyway. But correcting a falsehood does improve the encyclopedia (even if that's not the "ordinary BLP" complainant's motivation). I don't believe Sanger truly cares how Wikipedia describes him with respect to its foundation. He just wants to bitch. There's a big difference between your "ordinary BLP question" and this case. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
2009/4/16 Durova : > "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - Mark > Twain > > Since Citizendium is all the rage on this mailing list, a review and > comparison of Alexa stats seemed like a good idea. Here's how things stack > up: > > TRAFFIC RANK: > Citizendium: 63,929 > Wikipedia: 7 > > REACH: > (Percent of global Internet users who visit the site, 3 month average) > Citizendium: 0.00155% > Wikipedia: 8.711% I don't think those are the relevant statistics. Take a look at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics - the article growth is linear and has been from the start. Citizendium will never become significant without exponential growth, and I see nothing to suggest that is going to happen. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, James Farrar wrote: > >> (b) Sanger didn't post to the list to > >> improve Wikipedia; he posted here to bitch about Wikipedia and Jimbo > >> Wales, not necessarily in that order. > > The same can be said of an ordinary BLP question. Most people who want to > > correct BLPs about themselves don't want to improve the encyclopedia; they > > just want to protect their own interests. We listen to them anyway. > But correcting a falsehood does improve the encyclopedia (even if > that's not the "ordinary BLP" complainant's motivation). That's true if the BLP complaint is factual, but there are BLP rules beyond that (like the one about not disparaging our subjects). Of course, you can say that anything which follows a Wikipedia rule must of necessity improve the encyclopedia, or else we wouldn't have the rule, but that makes the phrase merely a tautology. > I don't believe Sanger truly cares how Wikipedia describes him with > respect to its foundation. He just wants to bitch. There's a big > difference between your "ordinary BLP question" and this case. He obviously is claiming that things which we say are true, aren't. Even in the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of proclamations by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay attention to. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
In a message dated 4/16/2009 9:49:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, arrom...@rahul.net writes: > He obviously is claiming that things which we say are true, aren't. Even > in > the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of > proclamations > by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay attention > to.>> Proclamations by Jimmy, not by anyone else. I don't see anything to tell me that Larry was complaining about anything or anyone except something Jimmy said. Will ** Great deals on Dell’s most popular laptops – Starting at $479 (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220029082x1201385915/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B213969145%3B35701480%3Bh) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
>> He obviously is claiming that things which we say are true, aren't. Even >> in >> the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of >> proclamations >> by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay attention >> to.>> >Proclamations by Jimmy, not by anyone else. Is it clear that the proclamations from him don't necessarily represent our opinion and should not be taken as such (particularly by reporters)? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
In a message dated 4/16/2009 11:15:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, arrom...@rahul.net writes: > Is it clear that the proclamations from him don't necessarily represent > our > opinion and should not be taken as such (particularly by reporters)?>> > To my mind yes. Any reporter who quotes Jimmy and then implies that this is the opinion of "Wikipedia" should not only be fired, but also taken out behind the barn and shot. Then we can cut off their nose and ears, drag them through the street and throw their corpse into the Tiber. Will Johnson ** Great deals on Dell’s most popular laptops – Starting at $479 (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220029082x1201385915/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B213969145%3B35701480%3Bh) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Ken Arromdee wrote: >>> He obviously is claiming that things which we say are true, aren't. Even >>> in >>> the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of >>> proclamations >>> by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay attention >>> to.>> >>> >> Proclamations by Jimmy, not by anyone else. >> > > Is it clear that the proclamations from him don't necessarily represent our > opinion and should not be taken as such (particularly by reporters)? > > > Yes it actually was. The context in which the *interpretations* of the historical events by Jimbo which got up Mr. Sanger's nose were expressed, was clearly one in which Jimbo was speaking in a personal faculty, and not as a representative of the foundation, and in my view fell squarely on freedom of opinion. There are issues of fact which support a different interpretation than the one Jimbo appears to uphold, but in the final analysis it all hinges on what ones definition of the term "co-founder" is, and is it something formal that is inalienable; call somebody a co-founder once and you can't correct the record later. A favorable gloss on the interpretation Jimbo holds is that the early mentions of Mr. Sanger as a co-founder were symbolic and as a courtesy and as such not to be taken as a comment on his role in terms of historical fact. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
In the long run--ten and thirty years from now--the merit of Sanger's claim to coufoundership of Wikipedia is likely to be measured by the success of Citizendium. On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ken Arromdee wrote: > >>> He obviously is claiming that things which we say are true, aren't. > Even > >>> in > >>> the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of > >>> proclamations > >>> by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay > attention > >>> to.>> > >>> > >> Proclamations by Jimmy, not by anyone else. > >> > > > > Is it clear that the proclamations from him don't necessarily represent > our > > opinion and should not be taken as such (particularly by reporters)? > > > > > > > > Yes it actually was. The context in which the *interpretations* > of the historical events by Jimbo which got up Mr. Sanger's nose > were expressed, was clearly one in which Jimbo was speaking in > a personal faculty, and not as a representative of the foundation, > and in my view fell squarely on freedom of opinion. > > There are issues of fact which support a different interpretation > than the one Jimbo appears to uphold, but in the final analysis > it all hinges on what ones definition of the term "co-founder" is, > and is it something formal that is inalienable; call somebody a > co-founder once and you can't correct the record later. A favorable > gloss on the interpretation Jimbo holds is that the early mentions > of Mr. Sanger as a co-founder were symbolic and as a courtesy and > as such not to be taken as a comment on his role in terms of > historical fact. > > > Yours, > > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Durova wrote: > In the long run--ten and thirty years from now--the merit of Sanger's claim > to coufoundership of Wikipedia is likely to be measured by the success of > Citizendium. > A bit like Einstein, then: his claim to have founded quantum theory (about which he was a skeptic, and in fact wrong as fas as we know) being judged by the success of his unified field theory? No, something a bit amiss there. I like the first part, though: light as quanta was a big deal and worth his Nobel; and then he couldn't take the ultimate consequences for physics. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Sanger's claim of cofoundership is implicitly a claim of credit for Wikipedia's success. The idea of applying a wiki editing environment outside the sphere of software development was a radical one and a powerful one, but as anyone who has worked on other wikis knows that concept alone is no guarantee of success. Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia's structure and dynamics are well reasoned. One of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, though, is how easy it is to kid oneself into thinking one understands it better than one does. By the time Citizendium launched Wikipedia was resolving elements of Sanger's most salient criticisms through other means than he envisioned. The disruptive editing guideline is an example. That's not particular to Sanger: Wikipedia is just too big and fast-moving for any one person to keep pace. Last fall when Jimbo withdrew an old affirmation about having an article for every episode of *The Simpsons*, the obvious response was to link the title of every *Simpsons* episode FA (Wikipedia has quite a few). Sanger's outlook could be characterized as a belief that the way to achieve quality is to pursue it. Wikipedia has gotten where it is by allowing quality to overrun it. Take an average article today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_tree Compare to where it was in fall 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yucca_brevifolia&oldid=79111365 Cats can be taught to play 'Fetch'; the secret is to let the cat teach you to play 'Throw'. -Durova the Cat Herder On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Durova wrote: > > In the long run--ten and thirty years from now--the merit of Sanger's > claim > > to coufoundership of Wikipedia is likely to be measured by the success of > > Citizendium. > > > A bit like Einstein, then: his claim to have founded quantum theory > (about which he was a skeptic, and in fact wrong as fas as we know) > being judged by the success of his unified field theory? No, something a > bit amiss there. I like the first part, though: light as quanta was a > big deal and worth his Nobel; and then he couldn't take the ultimate > consequences for physics. > > Charles > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
In a message dated 4/17/2009 11:35:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com writes: > Sanger's outlook could be characterized as a belief that the way to > achieve > quality is to pursue it. Wikipedia has gotten where it is by allowing > quality to overrun it.>> - Would this be the same expression: "On Wikipedia, we have the full spectrum of articles, from very good to sorta crappy." Is that what you mean? We don't enforce highest quality on all articles. We simply pick those articles of highest quality to enthusiastically promote. Is this what you mean? Will Johnson ** Join ChristianMingle.com® FREE! Meet Christian Singles in your area. Start now! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221246370x1201421635/aol?redir=http://www.christianmingle.com/campaign.html?cat=adbuy&; src=platforma&adid=aolfooter&newurl=reg_path.html) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
My grandmother's favorite joke was about the Lone Ranger and Tonto. Riding through the wilderness they got surrounded by a hostile indigenous tribe. The Lone Ranger turned to his companion. "We're really in trouble." Tonto replied, "We?" There's a useful feature on the left edge of the page called the 'random article' tab. ;) On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:45 AM, wrote: > In a message dated 4/17/2009 11:35:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com writes: > > > > Sanger's outlook could be characterized as a belief that the way to > > achieve > > quality is to pursue it. Wikipedia has gotten where it is by allowing > > quality to overrun it.>> > > - > Would this be the same expression: "On Wikipedia, we have the full spectrum > of articles, from very good to sorta crappy." > > Is that what you mean? We don't enforce highest quality on all articles. > We simply pick those articles of highest quality to enthusiastically > promote. Is this what you mean? > > Will Johnson > > > > > > ** > Join ChristianMingle.com® FREE! Meet Christian Singles in > your area. Start now! > ( > http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221246370x1201421635/aol?redir=http://www.christianmingle.com/campaign.html?cat=adbuy& > ; > src=platforma&adid=aolfooter&newurl=reg_path.html) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
It's is funny that you mentioned the Wild West (etc), as I was just thinking yesterday of a new way to describe the difference between Wikipedia and Knol. Wikipedia is like moving into a city where all the inhabitants are helping to build all of the buildings, and you have some organized and disorganized crime elements like in any city. Knol is like living on the vast prairies, where you rarely encounter your neighbors, but you are free to build your own barn, town or city as you choose. See my stab at building my first city here. http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/chairpotato-presents-full-movies-on/4h mquk6fx4gu/45# Will Johnson ** Join ChristianMingle.com® FREE! Meet Christian Singles in your area. Start now! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221246370x1201421635/aol?redir=http://www.christianmingle.com/campaign.html?cat=adbuy&; src=platforma&adid=aolfooter&newurl=reg_path.html) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
2009/4/17 : > Wikipedia is like moving into a city where all the inhabitants are helping > to build all of the buildings, and you have some organized and disorganized > crime elements like in any city. > Knol is like living on the vast prairies, where you rarely encounter your > neighbors, but you are free to build your own barn, town or city as you > choose. So Citizendium is Milton Keynes? - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
In a message dated 4/17/2009 12:24:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dger...@gmail.com writes: > So Citizendium is Milton Keynes?>> Hmmm Citizendium.. I'm thinking somewhere between self-appointed snobs like the Blue Book or Social Register crowd (now since defunct evidently), or else a University Committee deciding on whether to grant you tenure. Either case it's a very rareified group. Scientific journals are read by only the smallest minority of persons except for popularized magazines written to the eighth grade level, and *even they* have perhaps one tenth of one percent infiltration in the general populace. Will Johnson ** Join ChristianMingle.com® FREE! Meet Christian Singles in your area. Start now! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221246370x1201421635/aol?redir=http://www.christianmingle.com/campaign.html?cat=adbuy&; src=platforma&adid=aolfooter&newurl=reg_path.html) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/4/17 : > >> Wikipedia is like moving into a city where all the inhabitants are helping >> to build all of the buildings, and you have some organized and disorganized >> crime elements like in any city. >> Knol is like living on the vast prairies, where you rarely encounter your >> neighbors, but you are free to build your own barn, town or city as you >> choose. > > > So Citizendium is Milton Keynes? Let's hope it doesn't see the same suicide rate spike... Magnus ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
> Durova
> 1. Is Citizendium a snapshot of what Wikipedia's growth would have
> been, if Larry Sanger had remained with the project?
Not a testable question, since Wikipedia already dominates the
niche. One might also ask "Is Wikia what Wikipedia would have looked
like (entertainment, sports, toys) if Larry Sanger had never been with
the project?". Note in a certain way Wikia looks a lot like Bomis.
(granted, it's missing the aspect of soft-core porn, err,
"glamour photography", but that's likely an artifact of
Google Adsense's policy restrictions)
There's many situations where a business/marketing type and
an academic/creative type produce something in collaboration which
is far more successful than what either ever does on their own.
It's also pretty common for those two type to have conflicts,
and that usually ends with the business/marketing type working-over
the academic/creative type. Wikipedia is NOT an original story there :-(.
> 2. Will Citizendium become a top 1000 website within the next five years?
Depends on if Google does something to boost that sort of site.
(I think the *real*, crucial, irreplaceable, founder of Wikipedia, is Google)
> 3. Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder
> claims regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor?
Speaking here just as a very interested observer, apart from
matters of personal injustice or formal relevance, there's many issues
at the bottom of this about Wikipedia itself. To note just one, either
way there's a pretty scary implication - that is, EITHER:
1) One of the most prominent and highest-ranking Wikipedia people is
claiming his biography is being kept wrong, by a group favoring
"a disgruntled former employee building himself a nice career on this lie"
OR
2) One of the most prominent and highest-ranking Wikipedia people is
attempting to use Wikipedia to rewrite history for his own self-promotion,
with only the threat of outside scandal limiting his attempts to do so
"I can't {{sofixit}} without creating a media firestorm"
[I assume the infamous IRC transcripts I'm quoting are accurate]
[I'm of course for case #2, but I acknowledge there's belief in case #1,
which after all does include that prominent and high-ranking Wikipedian]
Though case #2 is better for Wikipedia itself than case #1,
again, either way, there's something profound there.
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer
Web site - http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Durova wrote: > In the long run--ten and thirty years from now--the merit of Sanger's claim > to coufoundership of Wikipedia is likely to be measured by the success of > Citizendium. Not by anyone with a clue. The merit of Sanger's claim to co-foundership of Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with the success of Citizendium. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > There are issues of fact which support a different interpretation > than the one Jimbo appears to uphold, but in the final analysis > it all hinges on what ones definition of the term "co-founder" is, > and is it something formal that is inalienable; call somebody a > co-founder once and you can't correct the record later. A favorable > gloss on the interpretation Jimbo holds is that the early mentions > of Mr. Sanger as a co-founder were symbolic and as a courtesy and > as such not to be taken as a comment on his role in terms of > historical fact. Did Wales ever directly call Sanger a co-founder? I don't think he did. In any case, I don't think the question of semantics as to whether or not Sanger is "co-founder" is interesting (though I do think a description of Jimbo as "sole founder" cannot possibly be sustained). What is interesting is the role that Sanger played in the creation of Wikipedia (which I've recently seen that Wales admitted that his role was one of direct causation), and the role that Sanger played in the policy formation of Wikipedia during the early years (which I'm personally not yet sure of). Is Wales "sole founder"? I don't think you can come up with a reasonable definition of "founder" by which that is true. Is Sanger a "co-founder" of Wikipedia? I think that's harder to answer, and I'm not even sure it's just the definition of "co-founder" that's problematic, but the definition of "Wikipedia" as well. Were Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross "co-founders" of Firefox? I'd call Sanger a "co-creator" of Wikipedia, not a "co-founder" of it. I suppose the term "founder" could be used as a synonym for "creator", but for some reason I don't feel comfortable using it that way, and I think it's the same reason I wouldn't feel comfortable calling Hyatt and Ross "co-founders" of Firefox. Firefox, like Wikipedia, was a side project sponsored by a for-profit company which eventually supplanted the main project, and a non-profit organization was later formed to take ownership of it (sort of, in the sense that one can "own" an open source project in the first place). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:29:56 -0400, cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: > and I think it's the same reason I wouldn't > feel comfortable calling Hyatt and Ross "co-founders" of Firefox. Firefox, > like Wikipedia, was a side project sponsored by a for-profit company which > eventually supplanted the main project, and a non-profit organization was > later formed to take ownership of it (sort of, in the sense that one can > "own" an open source project in the first place). >From my own (admittedly limited) knowledge of the history of the Mozilla project, I don't think the above is a correct description. Netscape (presumably the "for-profit company" you're talking about here) spun off the Mozilla Foundation as a nonprofit entity way back when they first open-sourced what was originally the partly-completed Netscape 5 version of their browser. Development then proceeded as an independent open-source project with both volunteers and Netscape employees doing it as a side project, first to try to finish "Netscape 5", then to scrap that and rewrite the rendering engine as "Gecko" and make it part of a new "Mozilla suite". Ultimately, the Mozilla suite was released by the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation, and Netscape also made it the basis for its own Netscape 6 version (they skipped Netscape 5 for marketing reasons, though the "5.0" is stuck apparently permanently in the user agent string, while M$IE has *its* user agent string stuck permanently at 4.0, because everybody's afraid to change it due to ignorant browser-sniffing sites... but I digress). Then, later on, a side project spun off of Mozilla to create a "leaner, cleaner" browser without all the application-suite stuff; this was first called Phoenix, then Firebird, then (after name conflicts with both of those names) Firefox. At some point the Mozilla foundation (which pre-existed Firefox) decided to make this the primary browser of their project, so that's the point where a "side project" became the "main project" for them. But that's within the context of a nonprofit operation. Still later, the Mozilla Foundation decided to launch a wholly-owned, for-profit Mozilla Corporation that's in charge of actually releasing and marketing products based on what is developed by the project, and trying to make money on it to fund the project. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
>> 2. Will Citizendium become a top 1000 website within the next five years?
>>
>
> Depends on if Google does something to boost that sort of site.
> (I think the *real*, crucial, irreplaceable, founder of Wikipedia, is Google)
>
I think you left out "inadvertent". And in any case, let's look at the
proposition. Google could turn off Wikipedia's high hits tomorrow if
they wanted to. So far they haven't wanted to. They could privilege CZ
pages tomorrow, also, if they wanted to. They might actually lose money
on the first? They would then gain money on the second? (Really?)
Assuming the reality is that WP's high page ranking is because that is
not an artefact but a situation of compatibility of Wikipedia's content
model and Google's business model, you're not really expressing it the
best way. It is more like symbiosis.
>
>> 3. Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder
>> claims regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor?
>>
>
> Speaking here just as a very interested observer, apart from
> matters of personal injustice or formal relevance, there's many issues
> at the bottom of this about Wikipedia itself. To note just one, either
> way there's a pretty scary implication - that is, EITHER:
>
> 1) One of the most prominent and highest-ranking Wikipedia people is
> claiming his biography is being kept wrong, by a group favoring
> "a disgruntled former employee building himself a nice career on this lie"
>
> OR
>
> 2) One of the most prominent and highest-ranking Wikipedia people is
> attempting to use Wikipedia to rewrite history for his own self-promotion,
> with only the threat of outside scandal limiting his attempts to do so
> "I can't {{sofixit}} without creating a media firestorm"
>
> [I assume the infamous IRC transcripts I'm quoting are accurate]
> [I'm of course for case #2, but I acknowledge there's belief in case #1,
> which after all does include that prominent and high-ranking Wikipedian]
>
> Though case #2 is better for Wikipedia itself than case #1,
> again, either way, there's something profound there.
>
>
Not really original to me, but "Matthews's Zeroth Law of Wikipedia" is
that "everyone has some misconceptions about how Wikipedia works". (My
own would be another thread.) This sort of dichotomy swiftly falls foul
of the Law. Not to be too cryptic, but I think it was Manin who
explained that a gyroscope seems like a messenger from another planet,
because you prod it one way, it turns another. In other words if anyone
tries to manipulate Wikipedia, you get a kind of "squirming in your
hands" reaction.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
2009/4/19 Daniel R. Tobias : > From my own (admittedly limited) knowledge of the history of the > Mozilla project, I don't think the above is a correct description. > Netscape (presumably the "for-profit company" you're talking about > here) spun off the Mozilla Foundation as a nonprofit entity way back > when they first open-sourced what was originally the partly-completed > Netscape 5 version of their browser. No, they started using "mozilla.org" as a domain name, but it wasn't a nonprofit until AOL dumped it in 2003 and supplied $2m for them to form the Mozilla Foundation. > Development then proceeded as > an independent open-source project with both volunteers and Netscape > employees doing it as a side project, first to try to finish > "Netscape 5", then to scrap that and rewrite the rendering engine as > "Gecko" and make it part of a new "Mozilla suite". No, Netscape heavily directed the development. Being a good independent developer was a good way to get hired by Netscape, too. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
2009/4/17 Seth Finkelstein :
>It's also pretty common for those two type to have conflicts,
> and that usually ends with the business/marketing type working-over
> the academic/creative type. Wikipedia is NOT an original story there :-(.
Of course the problem with that description was that Larry was
involved in conflicts with other wikipedians.
Larry's position was never long term stable. If you look at how the
foundation interacts with the community these days it's either through
pronouncements or through indirect social networks.
>> 2. Will Citizendium become a top 1000 website within the next five years?
>
>Depends on if Google does something to boost that sort of site.
> (I think the *real*, crucial, irreplaceable, founder of Wikipedia, is Google)
No. Looking at yahoo and MSN it's pretty clear that anything close to
a normal search algorithm will tend to favor wikipedia for certain
types of searches.
>> 3. Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder
>> claims regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor?
>
>Speaking here just as a very interested observer, apart from
> matters of personal injustice or formal relevance, there's many issues
> at the bottom of this about Wikipedia itself. To note just one, either
> way there's a pretty scary implication - that is, EITHER:
>
> 1) One of the most prominent and highest-ranking Wikipedia people is
> claiming his biography is being kept wrong, by a group favoring
> "a disgruntled former employee building himself a nice career on this lie"
>
> OR
>
> 2) One of the most prominent and highest-ranking Wikipedia people is
> attempting to use Wikipedia to rewrite history for his own self-promotion,
> with only the threat of outside scandal limiting his attempts to do so
> "I can't {{sofixit}} without creating a media firestorm"
>
> [I assume the infamous IRC transcripts I'm quoting are accurate]
> [I'm of course for case #2, but I acknowledge there's belief in case #1,
> which after all does include that prominent and high-ranking Wikipedian]
>
>Though case #2 is better for Wikipedia itself than case #1,
> again, either way, there's something profound there.
>
Except several years behind the times. The community has dealt with
the issue and from what I've seen Jimbo has been back peddling of
late.
--
geni
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
> geni >> Seth Finkelstein wrote: >> It's also pretty common for those two type to have conflicts, >> and that usually ends with the business/marketing type working-over >> the academic/creative type. Wikipedia is NOT an original story there :-(. > > Of course the problem with that description was that Larry was > involved in conflicts with other wikipedians. And Jimbo has been involved in conflicts too (note I'm not talking about V-wag stuff, but higher-level matters). Don't think the present is somehow inevitable. If Sanger had stayed on, those early conflicts would be minimized or forgotten. >>Depends on if Google does something to boost that sort of site. >>(I think the *real*, crucial, irreplaceable, founder of Wikipedia, is Google) > > No. Looking at yahoo and MSN it's pretty clear that anything close to > a normal search algorithm will tend to favor wikipedia for certain > types of searches. Yahoo and Microsoft have copied Google's weighting and factors somewhat, in what seems to be a deliberate strategy that people have been trained by Google to "expect" that sort of result, and it would be too risky to deviate radically. But this does not prove any "normal" search algorithm will do that. Many sites - Open Directory, technorati, blog aggregators - have found themselves ranked highly for a time ... and then not. One reason I think projects such as _Citizendium_ are important is that they provide at least some practical counter-argument to the monopolistic tendencies of Wikipedia-hype. Which comes back to the original question about the success of _Citizendium_, and that being bound up in some very subtle decisions about Google's algorithm. >> Speaking here just as a very interested observer, apart from >> matters of personal injustice or formal relevance, there's many issues >> at the bottom of this about Wikipedia itself. ... > > Except several years behind the times. The community has dealt with > the issue and from what I've seen Jimbo has been back peddling of late. Well, let's see if this issue has indeed been "dealt with". It's only been a few days from the most recent skirmish. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer Web site - http://sethf.com/ Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote: > Netscape (presumably the "for-profit company" you're talking about > here) spun off the Mozilla Foundation as a nonprofit entity way back > when they first open-sourced what was originally the partly-completed > Netscape 5 version of their browser. Netscape formed the "Mozilla Organization", which was an unincorporated entity (if you want to call it an entity at all, it was more an open source project than an entity) much like Nupedia/Wikipedia when it was before the WMF was formed. The Mozilla Foundation was incorporated much later, after Firefox was already started. I just recently read a great story about the birth of Firefox (by Ben Goodger, one of the lead developers), which unfortunately seems to be the only insider perspective in existence: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009698.html Good reading if you are interested in the history of the Mozilla project (it only covers a narrow portion of the topic, but it does so well). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote: > >> Netscape (presumably the "for-profit company" you're talking about >> here) spun off the Mozilla Foundation as a nonprofit entity way back >> when they first open-sourced what was originally the partly-completed >> Netscape 5 version of their browser. > > > Netscape formed the "Mozilla Organization", which was an unincorporated > entity (if you want to call it an entity at all, it was more an open source > project than an entity) much like Nupedia/Wikipedia when it was before the > WMF was formed. The Mozilla Foundation was incorporated much later, after > Firefox was already started. > By the way, Blake Ross was an intern at AOL/Netscape, and David Hyatt was an employee at AOL/Netscape, when Firefox was born. They didn't work for the Mozilla Foundation, which didn't yet exist, and they didn't work for the Mozilla Organization, which probably didn't even have a bank account. Moreover, I bet they had a boss, and I bet they worked under the direction of that boss. Should we call that boss the "sole founder" of Firefox? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Seth Finkelstein wrote: > >> 2. Will Citizendium become a top 1000 website within the next five > years? > >> > > > > Depends on if Google does something to boost that sort of site. > > (I think the *real*, crucial, irreplaceable, founder of Wikipedia, is > Google) > > > I think you left out "inadvertent". And in any case, let's look at the > proposition. Google could turn off Wikipedia's high hits tomorrow if > they wanted to. So far they haven't wanted to. They could privilege CZ > pages tomorrow, also, if they wanted to. They might actually lose money > on the first? They would then gain money on the second? (Really?) > > Assuming the reality is that WP's high page ranking is because that is > not an artefact but a situation of compatibility of Wikipedia's content > model and Google's business model, you're not really expressing it the > best way. It is more like symbiosis. I think you were better off characterizing it as "inadvertent", though "inadvertent" only on the part of Google. Wales is no stranger to SEO, many of the early Wikipedians engaged in intentional google-bombing during the early years, and the strong suggestion at Wikipedia:Copyrights to provide a link back was quite intentionally meant to boost pagerank (and rank in other search engines). Furthermore in my opinion, Google far overvalues internal links (and did so even more during the exponential growth phase of Wikipedia), which is another factor which caused, and, to a much lesser extent continues to cause, Wikipedia to be so highly ranked. I think Google would be a better company, and make more money, if they could fix these problems, but 1) they're difficult problems to fix without introducing other problems; and 2) it's unlikely to significantly effect Wikipedia anyway - the cat's already out of the bag there. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
2009/4/19 Anthony : > I think you were better off characterizing it as "inadvertent", though > "inadvertent" only on the part of Google. Wales is no stranger to SEO, many > of the early Wikipedians engaged in intentional google-bombing during the > early years, and the strong suggestion at Wikipedia:Copyrights to provide a > link back was quite intentionally meant to boost pagerank (and rank in other > search engines). Furthermore in my opinion, Google far overvalues internal > links (and did so even more during the exponential growth phase of > Wikipedia), which is another factor which caused, and, to a much lesser > extent continues to cause, Wikipedia to be so highly ranked. I think Google > would be a better company, and make more money, if they could fix these > problems, but 1) they're difficult problems to fix without introducing other > problems; and 2) it's unlikely to significantly effect Wikipedia anyway - > the cat's already out of the bag there. Whuh? Wikipedia's Google ranking was ridiculously bad through 2004-2005. A search on a piece of text from Wikipedia would typically list three pages of mirror sites before it listed Wikipedia itself. It's dubious that Jimbo really caused such fantastic SEO, or that he could effectively apply it so late. I know some Wikipedians were asking Google "wtf? Could you at least not rank us three pages behind our own mirrors?" But the thing is: huge popularity for the wikipedia.org website isn't necessarily a win for Wikipedia and writing an encyclopedia. Mostly it's been an expensive pain in the arse. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Seth Finkelstein wrote: > One reason I think projects such as _Citizendium_ are > important is that they provide at least some practical > counter-argument to the monopolistic tendencies of Wikipedia-hype. > Which comes back to the original question about the success of > _Citizendium_, and that being bound up in some very subtle decisions > about Google's algorithm. > > Certainly CZ is potentially important: if it manages a "proof of concept" success for a somewhat different model of encyclopedia-wiki writing, then the whole debate moves on a notch. And you could say the same thing about Google knols: these things are field-tests of ideas that differ in some significant ways from the WP model. CZ ducked the issue of forking WP, which remains a major possibility that has not been tried. I'm not really following you, though, in that "counter-argument" I see (plenty enough of it in the archives of this list), and "practical" as in field-test I also see as just stated. If you think of Sanger as producing a "practical counter-argument" over at Citizendium, then I guess you buy his whole side of the story. In our (WP) terms we would wonder: is there not a CZ community that has a mind of its own? Where are the Citizens in this discussion? Do they see the Wales-Sanger foundation spat as something fundamental (as you seem to)? Or would they see it as something quite aside from the main reason CZ is there? In this light, if I may quote from Wikipedia article [[founder syndrome]]: "Without an effective decentralized decision making process there will be growing conflict between the newcomers, who want a say in how the organization develops and the founder who continues to dominate the decision making process." Interesting to ponder where this hits home harder. I wouldn't know about the more subtle aspects of PageRank, and I suppose Google doesn't want me to. It might be coarse, of course. We learned at Wikipedia to write as hypertext from early on (mav and summary style comes to mind). We had many short articles instead of one big one one. Wikipedia is shrubland rather than a grove of sequoias. I imagine this all matters. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:20 AM, David Gerard wrote: > I know some Wikipedians were asking Google "wtf? Could you at least > not rank us three pages behind our own mirrors?" > And Google complied, implementing a duplicate content penalty which eliminated mirrors and forks alike (and is probably hurting Citizendium right this very moment). My point exactly. But the thing is: huge popularity for the wikipedia.org website isn't > necessarily a win for Wikipedia and writing an encyclopedia. Mostly > it's been an expensive pain in the arse. Agreed, but the question this thread came from was implicitly equating popularity with success: "Will Citizendium become a top 1000 website within the next five years?" ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:20 AM, David Gerard wrote: > >> I know some Wikipedians were asking Google "wtf? Could you at least >> not rank us three pages behind our own mirrors?" >> > > And Google complied, implementing a duplicate content penalty which > eliminated mirrors and forks alike (and is probably hurting Citizendium > right this very moment). My point exactly. I thought Citizendium had declined to copy any Wikipedia content. How then could such a algorithm tweak matter to them? (I will note that things have gotten much better. Back in 2004 or so if I had ran a Google search for [[Medici Bank]], the results would've been all cluttered up by mirrors of WP; but now it's pretty rare to run into a mirror, and I think the last one I found unbidden was Wapedia, which admittedly isn't exactly the same content as WP.) -- gwern ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Anthony wrote: > > Agreed, but the question this thread came from was implicitly equating > popularity with success: "Will Citizendium become a top 1000 website within > the next five years?" > heheh This raises a burning curiosity in my lower cogitative faculties, in finding out who the top websites holding on to placements 9996; 9997; 9998; , and 1000 & 1001 are at present... ( Wednesday, 22. 4. 2009 )? Heehee. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen P.S. ...and does anyone consider those sites parts of the zeitgeist? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
"Durova" quoted Samuel Clemens in message news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcb...@mail.gmail.com... > "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - > Mark > Twain In book called "They never said it!", that is identified as apocryphal, which means that he did not write it (maybe I can find a finer criterion printed in the book). It is a lot of fun to say it, though, so if he said it once, then he probably said it a few times. Einstein said something like it on a sign that hung at his door: " Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that counts can be counted. " ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Anthony wrote: > Is Wales "sole founder"? I don't think you can come up with a reasonable > definition of "founder" by which that is true. I would make the following observations based on my reading: 1) Wales' role in the genesis of Wikipedia is much more significant than Sanger's. "Co-founder" is giving too much credit. The guy that has the idea, the inspiration and the drive to make it happen deserves more credit than the guy who implements it. "Employee" is probably giving too little. 2) Some statements Wales made about Sanger's involvement are demonstrably untrue - Sanger has produced emails that show this. I'm prepared to accept that this is human fallability and vanity rather than some mastermind scheme to diddle Sanger out of his place in history. 3) None of this really matters because we all love Jimbo and we don't like Sanger. I mean, all else aside, Jimbo contributed a huge amount to Wikipedia basically out of a desire to help the human race. Sanger made Citizendium out of a desire to piss off Jimbo. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
<> Uh I wouldn't be so fast to assume who we love and who we don't like. They both seem to have a certain type of personality that doesn't really work well with a consensus approach which is a bit odd. Both are the type that "do and damn the consequences", and slow to apologize or offer constructive solutions. That's my opinion ;) Not that I'm not exactly the same way myself. W.J. -Original Message- From: Steve Bennett To: English Wikipedia Sent: Mon, Aug 10, 2009 10:40 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Anthony wrote: > Is Wales "sole founder"? I don't think you can come up with a reasonable > definition of "founder" by which that is true. I would make the following observations based on my reading: 1) Wales' role in the genesis of Wikipedia is much more significant than Sanger's. "Co-founder" is giving too much credit. The guy that has the idea, the inspiration and the drive to make it happen deserves more credit than the guy who implements it. "Employee" is probably gi ving too little. 2) Some statements Wales made about Sanger's involvement are demonstrably untrue - Sanger has produced emails that show this. I'm prepared to accept that this is human fallability and vanity rather than some mastermind scheme to diddle Sanger out of his place in history. 3) None of this really matters because we all love Jimbo and we don't like Sanger. I mean, all else aside, Jimbo contributed a huge amount to Wikipedia basically out of a desire to help the human race. Sanger made Citizendium out of a desire to piss off Jimbo. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Steve Bennett wrote: > I mean, all else aside, Jimbo contributed a huge amount > to Wikipedia basically out of a desire to help the human race. Sanger > made Citizendium out of a desire to piss off Jimbo. > Debatable. But I think the way Sanger systematically misunderstands the virtues of WP, and has with CZ promoted some other "deadly virtues" like having credentialled people as a better class of 'citizen', is certainly telling. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Jay Litwyn wrote: > "Durova" quoted Samuel Clemens in message > news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcb...@mail.gmail.com... > >> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - >> Mark >> Twain >> > > In book called "They never said it!", that is identified as apocryphal, > which means that he did not write it (maybe I can find a finer criterion > printed in the book). It is a lot of fun to say it, though, so if he said it > once, then he probably said it a few times. Einstein said something like it > on a sign that hung at his door: > " > Not everything that can be counted counts. > Not everything that counts can be counted. > " > My book of quotes (Chambers Dictionary of Quotations) says Clemens attributed it to D'Israeli, citing as source Mark Twain ''Autobiography, vol.1 (1924). So although Clemens may have said it, he wasn't first, or at least didn't think he was first. And it does have the ring of D'Israeli, regardless of whether D'Israeli ever said it. After writing all that, I turned to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics We really aren't half bad, are we? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Jay Litwyn wrote: > "Durova" quoted Samuel Clemens in message > news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcb...@mail.gmail.com... > >> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - >> Mark >> Twain >> > > In book called "They never said it!", that is identified as apocryphal, > which means that he did not write it (maybe I can find a finer criterion > printed in the book). Have just turned up an instance from 1892, in the */Birmingham Daily Post, /*so I'll add that to the article.*/ /* ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Ok, here's a thing. Should that really be in the wikipedia? It's just all about a quote. Shouldn't that be in wikiquote? I must admit, whenever I ask questions like this, I get 'it's dunn enuff' to be in the wikipedia. Could somebody point me to [[WP:DUNNENUFF]] policy because it seems to be a red link whenever I try it. I've been looking for this policy, it's clearly one of the 5 pillars because it's used quite a lot, but I haven't located it yet. ;-) On 11/08/2009, Surreptitiousness wrote: > Jay Litwyn wrote: >> "Durova" quoted Samuel Clemens in message >> news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcb...@mail.gmail.com... >> >>> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - >>> Mark >>> Twain >>> >> >> In book called "They never said it!", that is identified as apocryphal, >> which means that he did not write it (maybe I can find a finer criterion >> printed in the book). > Have just turned up an instance from 1892, in the */Birmingham Daily > Post, /*so I'll add that to the article.*/ > /* > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- -Ian Woollard "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually." ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
The shortcut isn't [[WP:DUNNENUFF]], it's [[WP:IAR]]. You may also find [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] useful. :-P Unless I need to pack my bags and leave for fear my every turn be questioned. What's that Beatles song? "Let It Be"? Ian Woollard wrote: > Ok, here's a thing. > > Should that really be in the wikipedia? It's just all about a quote. > Shouldn't that be in wikiquote? > > I must admit, whenever I ask questions like this, I get 'it's dunn > enuff' to be in the wikipedia. Could somebody point me to > [[WP:DUNNENUFF]] policy because it seems to be a red link whenever I > try it. I've been looking for this policy, it's clearly one of the 5 > pillars because it's used quite a lot, but I haven't located it yet. > > ;-) > > On 11/08/2009, Surreptitiousness > wrote: > >> Jay Litwyn wrote: >> >>> "Durova" quoted Samuel Clemens in message >>> news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcb...@mail.gmail.com... >>> >>> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - Mark Twain >>> In book called "They never said it!", that is identified as apocryphal, >>> which means that he did not write it (maybe I can find a finer criterion >>> printed in the book). >>> >> Have just turned up an instance from 1892, in the */Birmingham Daily >> Post, /*so I'll add that to the article.*/ >> /* >> >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> >> > > > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Anthony wrote: > > Is Wales "sole founder"? I don't think you can come up with a reasonable > > definition of "founder" by which that is true. > > I would make the following observations based on my reading: > > 1) Wales' role in the genesis of Wikipedia is much more significant > than Sanger's. "Co-founder" is giving too much credit. Personally I don't think "founder" or "co-founder" makes sense. Would you call someone a "co-founder" of Firefox? I wouldn't. "Co-creator" seems more accurate. > The guy that > has the idea, the inspiration and the drive to make it happen deserves > more credit than the guy who implements it. What I've read suggests that *both* Sanger *and* Wales had the idea, the inspiration, and the drive to make it happen. And they *both* got the idea from someone else. > "Employee" is probably giving too little. Wales was an employee of Bomis too. "Employee" is irrelevant. Wales was the boss of Sanger, but that's irrelevant too. Just because someone is your boss doesn't mean they get sole credit for your co-creation. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
2009/8/12 Anthony : > Personally I don't think "founder" or "co-founder" makes sense. Would you > call someone a "co-founder" of Firefox? I wouldn't. "Co-creator" seems > more accurate. Jargon per project style. "Project founder" makes sense in terms of Firefox, i.e. Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross, neither of whom has done any coding on it in quite a while. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
