Re: [Foundation-l] preferences statistics
On 02/11/10 15:03, Andrew Garrett wrote: > If you wrote it before I rewrote the preferences system in 2009, then > it is out of date. Since it use the internal abstraction layer, I would expect it to still be working. -- Ashar Voultoiz ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 09/11/2010 01:33, Fred Bauder wrote: > >>> Everything that is done incorrectly because of funding is also done by >>> those who have an intellectual or emotional stake in the outcome > >> Yes, and that's where we fall down. Many of us are editors with >> purpose. >> They many be noble purposes, but often we ourselves have an agenda, of >> some sort, even if only to highlight neglected truths. > > I'm trying to understand precisely what you mean here. Could you > elaborate ? I edit articles I'm interested in. That interest has a reason: it varies from subject to subject. For example this article: "Louisiana barrier island plan" is a debunking operation. If it weren't so ridiculous that setting forth the facts about it is hardly believable I wouldn't have bothered to write it. How does one express the point of view of a state playing in the sand? Another article I did most of, "Fort Robinson tragedy", clearly shows an agenda to recite a tragic tale. Not NPOV at all. Nothing there about the only good Indian is a dead Indian. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/11/2010 01:33, Fred Bauder wrote: >> Everything that is done incorrectly because of funding is also done by >> those who have an intellectual or emotional stake in the outcome > Yes, and that's where we fall down. Many of us are editors with purpose. > They many be noble purposes, but often we ourselves have an agenda, of > some sort, even if only to highlight neglected truths. I'm trying to understand precisely what you mean here. Could you elaborate ? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2NKYAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LRx8IAI9I0CaYL0uGwXgpq1H16RpB 37Dd8Cfv/nV+7Ue4LP1n5j0QdILDUtk/BaBxuI1FVEVSid9h3MDM1oMX4nvm2ADk iyY7+iVx/KZWv7C2c79b+bU6PeElaFwQpxqlS9dtzA9X3CJdlYXXSMofTkKFB2Nn CVzgfX+eRgr3RzjXShweLK3qLfYfaJwJM7auUGiCv3GMKaAI8lk3H1fnuhTTHUIy kHACpStCxbYHEdbdD92Ob3j2Txvm7sYiJcL0+2C62560KRv/lJdFbVH0GvXSBhbl K7fMNXZmAZYGqweFXWxy3MmxpejdI14cB2iB75XjALdIbtzHQgmIchb9P/jQJrc= =hAGp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
> Most journals do make their abstracts visible, so if funding is > included there, one can see it without logging in. > > But there are two serious ethical problems, one of them is what > people who are funded by a commercial or POV entity do incorrectly > because of that funding. > The worse is the concealment of one's funding in order to avoid > suspicion of the bias. > > Everything that is done incorrectly because of funding is also done by > those who have an intellectual or emotional stake in the outcome Yes, and that's where we fall down. Many of us are editors with purpose. They many be noble purposes, but often we ourselves have an agenda, of some sort, even if only to highlight neglected truths. Somehow though, the evil of exposing the gulag pales beside the evil of selling drugs with serious unreported side effects. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of >> wikipedia that really tried their utmost to make the product >> visually appealing, and used the generated money from the >> advertisements purely to fund ever more timely database dumps >> >> It would be interesting to see how frequent database dumping could be >> financed by advertisement on such a >> site; the synergy should be obvious -- the more money they generate >> from adverts, the more resources they can devote to making ever more >> frequent dumps, so the more timely is the content, which will again >> make therir product more attractive, and so on >> >> >> -- >> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] >> > > Whether this is great idea or not I don't know, but this is the kind of > out of the box thinking that is potentially productive. We could produce > periodic "polished" editions. Not likely to work as long as the regular site is in the search engines, due to the duplicate content penalty. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
Most journals do make their abstracts visible, so if funding is included there, one can see it without logging in. But there are two serious ethical problems, one of them is what people who are funded by a commercial or POV entity do incorrectly because of that funding. The worse is the concealment of one's funding in order to avoid suspicion of the bias. Everything that is done incorrectly because of funding is also done by those who have an intellectual or emotional stake in the outcome On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:37 PM, geni wrote: > On 8 November 2010 05:54, Andreas Kolbe wrote: >>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was >>> Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing... >>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" >>> Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22 >>> On 7 November 2010 12:26, David >>> Gerard >>> wrote: >>> > That naming funding sources is in fact *standard in >>> the field* is, >>> > however, something that strongly suggests we should >>> not deliberately >>> > withhold such information from the reader. >>> >>> Err we don't. They are free to consult the source. >>> >>> However the field in question has long established >>> standards when it >>> comes to citation. >>> >>> So for example when "Anti-HIV-1 activity of salivary MUC5B >>> and MUC7 >>> mucins from HIV patients with different CD4 counts" cites >>> "Interaction >>> of HIV-1 and human salivary mucin" they do so in the form >>> of: >>> >>> "Bergey EJ, Cho MI, Blumberg BM, Hammarskjold ML, Rekosh D, >>> Epstein >>> LG, Levine MJ. Interaction of HIV-1 and human salivary >>> mucins. J >>> Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994;7:995–1002." >>> >>> And do not mention it's funding source >>> >>> (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2967540/). >> >> >> This is a valid argument. >> >> However, mentioning the funding source is not unheard of in medical >> citations. See the first example given here: >> >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=citmed&part=A32352#A32755 > > It's extremely uncommon though as any random perusal of pubmed will show. > >> Funding is consistently included on abstract pages. Examples: >> >> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013614 >> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010548 >> >> Here, funding is included along with the publication data. It is a standard >> format. >> > > Sure but not for references. The references in your examples do not > include funding sources. > >> Where references are hyperlinked, as in your counterexample, professionals >> can view the article. Our readers cannot, unless they have access to the >> relevant academic database. > > We have a long standing principle that we don't worry about things > like paywalls when it comes to sources. Eh your averaged paywalled > journal is highly assessable compared to some of the stuff I've cited > over the years. > > > > -- > geni > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
C'mon - we've been promising "no ads" for as long as anyone can remember. People have given their money because of it... On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > > An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of > > wikipedia that really tried their utmost to make the product > > visually appealing, and used the generated money from the > > advertisements purely to fund ever more timely database dumps > > > > It would be interesting to see how frequent database dumping could be > > financed by advertisement on such a > > site; the synergy should be obvious -- the more money they generate > > from adverts, the more resources they can devote to making ever more > > frequent dumps, so the more timely is the content, which will again > > make therir product more attractive, and so on > > > > > > -- > > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] > > > > Whether this is great idea or not I don't know, but this is the kind of > out of the box thinking that is potentially productive. We could produce > periodic "polished" editions. > > Fred > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
> An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of > wikipedia that really tried their utmost to make the product > visually appealing, and used the generated money from the > advertisements purely to fund ever more timely database dumps > > It would be interesting to see how frequent database dumping could be > financed by advertisement on such a > site; the synergy should be obvious -- the more money they generate > from adverts, the more resources they can devote to making ever more > frequent dumps, so the more timely is the content, which will again > make therir product more attractive, and so on > > > -- > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] > Whether this is great idea or not I don't know, but this is the kind of out of the box thinking that is potentially productive. We could produce periodic "polished" editions. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
On 8 November 2010 05:54, Andreas Kolbe wrote: >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was >> Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing... >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" >> Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22 >> On 7 November 2010 12:26, David >> Gerard >> wrote: >> > That naming funding sources is in fact *standard in >> the field* is, >> > however, something that strongly suggests we should >> not deliberately >> > withhold such information from the reader. >> >> Err we don't. They are free to consult the source. >> >> However the field in question has long established >> standards when it >> comes to citation. >> >> So for example when "Anti-HIV-1 activity of salivary MUC5B >> and MUC7 >> mucins from HIV patients with different CD4 counts" cites >> "Interaction >> of HIV-1 and human salivary mucin" they do so in the form >> of: >> >> "Bergey EJ, Cho MI, Blumberg BM, Hammarskjold ML, Rekosh D, >> Epstein >> LG, Levine MJ. Interaction of HIV-1 and human salivary >> mucins. J >> Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994;7:995–1002." >> >> And do not mention it's funding source >> >> (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2967540/). > > > This is a valid argument. > > However, mentioning the funding source is not unheard of in medical > citations. See the first example given here: > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=citmed&part=A32352#A32755 It's extremely uncommon though as any random perusal of pubmed will show. > Funding is consistently included on abstract pages. Examples: > > http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013614 > http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010548 > > Here, funding is included along with the publication data. It is a standard > format. > Sure but not for references. The references in your examples do not include funding sources. > Where references are hyperlinked, as in your counterexample, professionals > can view the article. Our readers cannot, unless they have access to the > relevant academic database. We have a long standing principle that we don't worry about things like paywalls when it comes to sources. Eh your averaged paywalled journal is highly assessable compared to some of the stuff I've cited over the years. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/11/2010 18:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of > wikipedia that really tried their utmost to make the product > visually appealing, and used the generated money from the > advertisements purely to fund ever more timely database dumps > > It would be interesting to see how frequent database dumping could be > financed by advertisement on such a > site; the synergy should be obvious -- the more money they generate > from adverts, the more resources they can devote to making ever more > frequent dumps, so the more timely is the content, which will again > make therir product more attractive, and so on This is clever. But let me expose the flaw with wikinews: wikinews would thus get a financing for a printable version with ads. Huge success! We then recruit an editorial team of 30 paid people to keep with the production, formatting, checking. But then the we discover that if the news are not to the liking of our advertisers, they punish us. On the contrary, they could reward us. Our editorial team start fearing for their job. They have a wife and two kids to feed. They got used to having a job. They are dependent on money, and now money will start deciding what should be the news. After all, what is the value of a fact? 0. The value of displeasing our sponsors? A big, significant lump of money. So, I think that if there is money to be made, it should be without intermediaries. If we need financing it must be coming directly from the community and controlled and used directly by it. Anything else is injecting corruption. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2HKnAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LLUQH/jnhBYLG+y1c8bMx+2e5Iinl 4I6NEFt2cXKzESq/GPrcLjrJALJ8iHFiJdH5+sQ/51GFR8IaJDaaLeHOqb0lPMAs TBGg6OF7FO4k35/cIwYEEykjUgNk6ztSy6hpY+1D52zZvxcOozYaHkx4QsoTcnac ge3Yx64H2LMX81Qwq5B3+O0/826x6MK6ugol4yjwUOwa7FeVz2PpCBda2dAAZJWN WMmUJ4O1LaF9e+3SzprSMYy+NQAGn7IYJI5VF9RT+EvcsXh/3oqciBLHaitoJcUQ s3c6LxiwMFa+/bYx0K76dVpsW7M8LOL8g4Iu0Sf5Z8u56Rxf+tnwhibyPauujPg= =w7e/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/11/2010 19:44, Fred Bauder wrote: > How many billions in potential advertising revenue do we leave on the > table each year? Please don't take this as any personal attack, but did we reach such a philosophical and wise government in the foundation that we now wish to talk about opening the dams of money? The day that the community at large (that is, a massive consensus, not representatives) agrees completely about a very specific project with crystal-clear intentions and critical-trusted [*] agents, THEN and only then should we start talking about founding *directly*, not through intermediate organizations. [*]: once again, critical trust is the kind of trust one obtains after having access to all the necessary data to make a judgment in complete liberty of thought. On 08/11/2010 18:10, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Another hard word.. cupidity: "avarice: extreme greed for material wealth". > > I appreciate the sentiment. However, the material gain from advertisements > is not going to make us personally rich. Since I was born I have only found a handful of saints who handle millions of dollar without getting rich themselves. Let's say that my lack of luck has put a sense of rightful distrust towards projects of power and money. I'd like a complete understanding of who would be doing what with Wikipedia if it were to become a source of income, because we're talking about an incredible sum of good willed efforts, of people who believed in an ideal, versus an incredible source of corruption. I'd like to be sure that the monstrous altar we're building since 2001 will not end as a making money machine. Id' like to be doing the right choice about this. I would require such conditions to vote with a full awareness of the topic: First show me the need for this money. Then show me a huge consensus about this need. Then I would accept, and I think I'm speaking the community's mind, to discuss about how we want the financing done. > It will enable us to do more and > different things. Of course it will. Money can do everything, the best and the worst. But it won't be our money, it will the money of advertisers, who will threaten and reward us endlessly with their coins according to THEIR goals, until the first cedes. It's letting the wolf into the sheep pen, says a french saying. [*] [*]: "enfermer le loup dans la bergerie". > Things that are currently outside of our reach. When we > use such monies frugally, the benefits will be enormous and, this is quite > the opposite of your sentiment. This ideal outcome is beautiful, really. But it won't happen the ways things are currently. That's precisely because I believe in Wikipedia's vision that I must advocate for financial freedom from third parties and reject your proposal. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2G+5AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L8KoIAN6RK47WxfeBqWM99Awk1oZI 2RJBXZw2t6DhfgVR4Z/EgcWgpxyEHbfTyGT/pVBf0gYcRJv56aijmGov2wQgCZ4P RZb3Wm9O95pLfai36tpTvyClf+dFj+2RkF+F1g0I7zaEuHcg9CQYxpIQVnkw4qYJ 8PBO3iJpHC26gJV8cXumhkWZ/9ZOKrrI9iQO5dOMIDl3C85inRH+3f2WbqsHNim6 ujIeY4IqgAlPbN5Q2wMR6GFpx85tJ0nzAbJjHHkE6zx5vHP8UCXAiv4YwmlgjvaG 6ehtuhz3ay7l6pUo+EH/5k86vSFMsBurs8DwQ6mbaxAHhihMlvZstM/SMnA7eIA= =wWU3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:22 PM, James Heilman wrote: > Does Wikimedia currently have a financial problem? It does not appear too. > So if the funding model is not broken what are we trying to fix / accomplish > with advertising? Wikipedia currently gets hundreds of millions of dollars > worth of content from its volunteer editors. Many of us would be a little > turned off to say the least if ads starting appearing on the pages we were > working on. It is not worth risking our contributors if at this point these > finances are not needed. BTW it is enough work already keeping advertising > off of Wikipedia pages the last thing we should do is legitimize it. > > I guess one trial would be to start a separate mirror that allows > advertising on Wiki content. A few of these already exist. Moving to > something more would require unanimous approval of our editing body IMO. > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. > ___ An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of wikipedia that really tried their utmost to make the product visually appealing, and used the generated money from the advertisements purely to fund ever more timely database dumps It would be interesting to see how frequent database dumping could be financed by advertisement on such a site; the synergy should be obvious -- the more money they generate from adverts, the more resources they can devote to making ever more frequent dumps, so the more timely is the content, which will again make therir product more attractive, and so on -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
Does Wikimedia currently have a financial problem? It does not appear too. So if the funding model is not broken what are we trying to fix / accomplish with advertising? Wikipedia currently gets hundreds of millions of dollars worth of content from its volunteer editors. Many of us would be a little turned off to say the least if ads starting appearing on the pages we were working on. It is not worth risking our contributors if at this point these finances are not needed. BTW it is enough work already keeping advertising off of Wikipedia pages the last thing we should do is legitimize it. I guess one trial would be to start a separate mirror that allows advertising on Wiki content. A few of these already exist. Moving to something more would require unanimous approval of our editing body IMO. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 22:17, David Gerard wrote: > On 8 November 2010 06:41, Milos Rancic wrote: > >> One reason more why not to depend on ad providers, like Google is: >> "The popular wiki TV Tropes, a site dedicated to the discussion of > > > *cough* That would be the reason I started this thread with ;-p Ah, I see that now :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
On 8 November 2010 06:41, Milos Rancic wrote: > One reason more why not to depend on ad providers, like Google is: > "The popular wiki TV Tropes, a site dedicated to the discussion of *cough* That would be the reason I started this thread with ;-p - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion
Hoi, Another hard word.. cupidity: "avarice: extreme greed for material wealth". I appreciate the sentiment. However, the material gain from advertisements is not going to make us personally rich. It will enable us to do more and different things. Things that are currently outside of our reach. When we use such monies frugally, the benefits will be enormous and, this is quite the opposite of your sentiment. Thanks, GerardM On 8 November 2010 21:51, Noein wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/11/2010 17:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > I care more about realising our ambitions, I > > care about getting our message out. > > > Personally, I care also about the means. I wouldn't like cupidity as the > core of wikipedia. Money, thus, should not become the fuel we use. > > > > In my opinion we can improve our > > messaging a lot. When people say that the WMF is transparent, they are > > right. We fail however in having our message heard. When we hire new > people, > > people like Alolita for instance, we hire someone who we should be proud > > of. Proud that she wants to work with us. > > > > Many great activities are happening in our chapters. Learning about these > > activities is inspiring. When we know what fun can be had, we can learn > from > > each other and reduce the amount of overhead and concentrate on where we > > make a difference. > > > > Another aspect that is missing in annual advertisement discussion is what > we > > should do with the money.. Assuming that we make a huge amount of money, > I > > have blogged about that as well. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/11/effect-of-100m-in-advertisement-money.html > > > > On 6 November 2010 22:20, Fred Bauder wrote: > > > >>> Hoi, > >>> As the "A" word has been mentioned again as is tradition, I want us to > >>> talk > >>> instead about how we can advertise / market our strategy, I want us to > >>> discuss how this helps us to reach out. How we can realise the goals > that > >>> we > >>> so beautifully formulated in our strategy.. > >>> > >>> To start it off, I have blogged some of my sentiments. > >>> Thanks, > >>> GerardM > >>> > >>> > >> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/11/annual-wikipedia-argument-about.html > >> > >> Nice sentiments, but you don't address the question of why someone else > >> needs the potential advertising revenue more than we do. Google does > many > >> good things, including providing substantial support to Wikipedia, but > >> what good does money in the pockets of their shareholders do us? > >> > >> Fred > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> foundation-l mailing list > >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >> > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2GLQAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LB1oH/0WryvXb/91J9PVUK3kW7S88 > LN0zjeVOpaV6WJ2DDPqZ1fBfwd6NH0rbbSeU88RsM0Q8zmBLiJxd+Lhmb+XXiRCO > Rro7I0wwbRnHEF+PY2xk3EcUe/HZx3ho6gWQkadHwdGPhFEjRoYX4qKKeq8Ldx60 > Mbx6QSavtXInMuNJ9iGQpgJZaklX9Rvt143H8YfxIQtO3Jq9V85chuDHud9GF37l > 0tmqQvYj/bUnNvi1PSfYJmZf1DJE2i1ipLBCsXOmRm1D48nsnnv6iFvB0Y92AhfJ > jnXoUzuya2cKC3aK3c2VhCrgO8nj0fRzvaph7Tvj51p/BdbmtNW3NVR9SUjSu3w= > =viC4 > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 There are strong economic interests to cheat about medical research, so we should be extremely fair, transparent and informative about those articles. Mentioning the funding source of any research is the building base of critical trust.[1] [1]: critical trust is the kind of trust one obtains after having access to all the necessary data to make a judgment in complete liberty of thought. On 08/11/2010 02:54, Andreas Kolbe wrote: >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was >> Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing... >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" >> Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22 >> On 7 November 2010 12:26, David >> Gerard >> wrote: >>> That naming funding sources is in fact *standard in >> the field* is, >>> however, something that strongly suggests we should >> not deliberately >>> withhold such information from the reader. >> >> Err we don't. They are free to consult the source. >> >> However the field in question has long established >> standards when it >> comes to citation. >> >> So for example when "Anti-HIV-1 activity of salivary MUC5B >> and MUC7 >> mucins from HIV patients with different CD4 counts" cites >> "Interaction >> of HIV-1 and human salivary mucin" they do so in the form >> of: >> >> "Bergey EJ, Cho MI, Blumberg BM, Hammarskjold ML, Rekosh D, >> Epstein >> LG, Levine MJ. Interaction of HIV-1 and human salivary >> mucins. J >> Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994;7:995–1002." >> >> And do not mention it's funding source >> >> (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2967540/). > > > This is a valid argument. > > However, mentioning the funding source is not unheard of in medical > citations. See the first example given here: > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=citmed&part=A32352#A32755 > > Funding is consistently included on abstract pages. Examples: > > http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013614 > http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010548 > > Here, funding is included along with the publication data. It is a standard > format. > > Where references are hyperlinked, as in your counterexample, professionals > can view the article. Our readers cannot, unless they have access to the > relevant academic database. > > A. > > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2GTYAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LaQEIAOC+EhMgBURRQLynNGfim/Hi hWjY2K00jNTFwzJCvULXMz922PEOGQMSHWACI5McJXHn0QbRm5eifY3VhZG6L4la b1ZWeXagbwp9Of2JagXA7Nb9ilWga4MbEg0hNoyuk1FsTAFBV4HVSSn3/gnZOM/Y JAvHLepDH5b7xeQrAGA//4gYzDxSMZKIKFjtERhGg0Ghb8eauMO6oItk+pNyvHH8 CDmq//VRcK5l5OKTaJe4IaNIIIvFkBRg8Am3TB2p/cRqM96OS8NJcWKycgQ9lOTL CDq3iLdCkc2N83iHGmlcTf0lkuBWu1J3m6G6td3v6f6NpnabmlIt5WmSJ5u814s= =ELkK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/11/2010 17:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > I care more about realising our ambitions, I > care about getting our message out. Personally, I care also about the means. I wouldn't like cupidity as the core of wikipedia. Money, thus, should not become the fuel we use. In my opinion we can improve our > messaging a lot. When people say that the WMF is transparent, they are > right. We fail however in having our message heard. When we hire new people, > people like Alolita for instance, we hire someone who we should be proud > of. Proud that she wants to work with us. > > Many great activities are happening in our chapters. Learning about these > activities is inspiring. When we know what fun can be had, we can learn from > each other and reduce the amount of overhead and concentrate on where we > make a difference. > > Another aspect that is missing in annual advertisement discussion is what we > should do with the money.. Assuming that we make a huge amount of money, I > have blogged about that as well. > Thanks, > GerardM > > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/11/effect-of-100m-in-advertisement-money.html > > On 6 November 2010 22:20, Fred Bauder wrote: > >>> Hoi, >>> As the "A" word has been mentioned again as is tradition, I want us to >>> talk >>> instead about how we can advertise / market our strategy, I want us to >>> discuss how this helps us to reach out. How we can realise the goals that >>> we >>> so beautifully formulated in our strategy.. >>> >>> To start it off, I have blogged some of my sentiments. >>> Thanks, >>> GerardM >>> >>> >> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/11/annual-wikipedia-argument-about.html >> >> Nice sentiments, but you don't address the question of why someone else >> needs the potential advertising revenue more than we do. Google does many >> good things, including providing substantial support to Wikipedia, but >> what good does money in the pockets of their shareholders do us? >> >> Fred >> >> >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2GLQAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LB1oH/0WryvXb/91J9PVUK3kW7S88 LN0zjeVOpaV6WJ2DDPqZ1fBfwd6NH0rbbSeU88RsM0Q8zmBLiJxd+Lhmb+XXiRCO Rro7I0wwbRnHEF+PY2xk3EcUe/HZx3ho6gWQkadHwdGPhFEjRoYX4qKKeq8Ldx60 Mbx6QSavtXInMuNJ9iGQpgJZaklX9Rvt143H8YfxIQtO3Jq9V85chuDHud9GF37l 0tmqQvYj/bUnNvi1PSfYJmZf1DJE2i1ipLBCsXOmRm1D48nsnnv6iFvB0Y92AhfJ jnXoUzuya2cKC3aK3c2VhCrgO8nj0fRzvaph7Tvj51p/BdbmtNW3NVR9SUjSu3w= =viC4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion
Hoi, My bad it is indeed CC-by-nd.. The question why we do not advertise is what is rehashed every year. For me there is little mileage in it. I care more about realising our ambitions, I care about getting our message out. In my opinion we can improve our messaging a lot. When people say that the WMF is transparent, they are right. We fail however in having our message heard. When we hire new people, people like Alolita for instance, we hire someone who we should be proud of. Proud that she wants to work with us. Many great activities are happening in our chapters. Learning about these activities is inspiring. When we know what fun can be had, we can learn from each other and reduce the amount of overhead and concentrate on where we make a difference. Another aspect that is missing in annual advertisement discussion is what we should do with the money.. Assuming that we make a huge amount of money, I have blogged about that as well. Thanks, GerardM http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/11/effect-of-100m-in-advertisement-money.html On 6 November 2010 22:20, Fred Bauder wrote: > > Hoi, > > As the "A" word has been mentioned again as is tradition, I want us to > > talk > > instead about how we can advertise / market our strategy, I want us to > > discuss how this helps us to reach out. How we can realise the goals that > > we > > so beautifully formulated in our strategy.. > > > > To start it off, I have blogged some of my sentiments. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/11/annual-wikipedia-argument-about.html > > Nice sentiments, but you don't address the question of why someone else > needs the potential advertising revenue more than we do. Google does many > good things, including providing substantial support to Wikipedia, but > what good does money in the pockets of their shareholders do us? > > Fred > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion
> On 8 November 2010 13:34, Arlen Beiler wrote: >> I thought someone was saying that Wikia gets all kinds of special >> treatment, >> or something like that. > > People say all kinds of things. > They were complaining about links to Wikia, and to The New York Times. There was even a brief witch hunt for links to Wikia. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion
On 8 November 2010 13:34, Arlen Beiler wrote: > I thought someone was saying that Wikia gets all kinds of special treatment, > or something like that. People say all kinds of things. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion
Hoi, The accountant states that there are no financial ties between Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation clearly develops for its own purposes. Wika does develop MediaWiki and MW extensions. Their software is licensed GPL as well and their code is available. They are much more sophisticated in fostering communities then we are in the WMF. If we choose to, we can use the functionality that Wikia developed. PS as it is open source, Wikia software is localised at translatewiki.netjust like MediaWiki itself. Thanks, GerardM On 8 November 2010 14:34, Arlen Beiler wrote: > I thought someone was saying that Wikia gets all kinds of special > treatment, > or something like that. > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Thomas Dalton >wrote: > > > On 8 November 2010 13:03, Arlen Beiler wrote: > > > For one thing, we have always been proud of how Wikipedia and its > sister > > > sites have been ad-free. Why don't we get those half-breeds with their > > ads > > > and everything to do the revenue making? I mean, of course, Wikia. > Having > > > ads on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) would be awful. > > > > Wikia is doing lots of revenue making (I believe it is even turning a > > profit now, which is impressive given its age). That doesn't really > > benefit us, though. It benefits the shareholders of Wikia (although > > Wikia has donated to the WMF in the past and probably will the future, > > so we get a little out of it, I suppose). Wikia has nothing to do with > > Wikipedia except for running on the same software and sharing a board > > member. It certainly doesn't exist to raise money for the Wikimedia > > movement. > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Left on the Table, vs. Google's serving portion
Thank you, Michael, for your critical note on the assertations concerning the huge sums of money. I didn't stand still at the fact that most of our Wikipedia pages have very low click rates. - Recently I read that 4% of our pages cause 50% of our traffic. The idea of Liam is interesting that we could have adverts on Special pages because those are genereated automatically. In Germany there was a discussion about adverts on www.wikipedia.de (which is owned by WMDE, unlike de.wikipedia.org). But even then, I am afraid, people will say anyway that there are "ads on Wikipedia" with the negative consequences for our reputation. And people might think that they don't have to donate anymore because Wikimedia makes money otherwise. The biggest danger remains the repercussions on our editing community. A loss of even "only" 10-20% of our power users would be very negative, especially in the smaller language communities. Personally, I am not such an opponent of adverts in general, and I would not mind to have a Wikimedia large voting on the subject. This should be only undertaken, nonetheless, if there is a substantial group of Wikimedians who really wants to go the advertising way. Kind regards Ziko 2010/11/8 Michael Snow : > On 11/7/2010 4:09 PM, geni wrote: >> As for tweak algorithmic factors firstly it's already happened at >> least once (there was a noticeable drop in wikipedia's Google SERPS >> positions a few years back). Secondly since both bing and yahoo rank >> wikipedia highly (in fact while I haven't checked recently for a long >> time google ranked wikipedia lower than those two) it seems unlikely >> that any reasonable algorithmic change would kill off wikipedia's >> traffic. > I don't think there's any point in checking Bing and Yahoo separately > anymore. I'm not sure what effect that might have on Wikipedia traffic > in and of itself, but it means there are fewer algorithms to tweak, for > good or ill. > > --Michael Snow > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Ziko van Dijk Niederlande ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion
I thought someone was saying that Wikia gets all kinds of special treatment, or something like that. On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 8 November 2010 13:03, Arlen Beiler wrote: > > For one thing, we have always been proud of how Wikipedia and its sister > > sites have been ad-free. Why don't we get those half-breeds with their > ads > > and everything to do the revenue making? I mean, of course, Wikia. Having > > ads on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) would be awful. > > Wikia is doing lots of revenue making (I believe it is even turning a > profit now, which is impressive given its age). That doesn't really > benefit us, though. It benefits the shareholders of Wikia (although > Wikia has donated to the WMF in the past and probably will the future, > so we get a little out of it, I suppose). Wikia has nothing to do with > Wikipedia except for running on the same software and sharing a board > member. It certainly doesn't exist to raise money for the Wikimedia > movement. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion
On 8 November 2010 13:03, Arlen Beiler wrote: > For one thing, we have always been proud of how Wikipedia and its sister > sites have been ad-free. Why don't we get those half-breeds with their ads > and everything to do the revenue making? I mean, of course, Wikia. Having > ads on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) would be awful. Wikia is doing lots of revenue making (I believe it is even turning a profit now, which is impressive given its age). That doesn't really benefit us, though. It benefits the shareholders of Wikia (although Wikia has donated to the WMF in the past and probably will the future, so we get a little out of it, I suppose). Wikia has nothing to do with Wikipedia except for running on the same software and sharing a board member. It certainly doesn't exist to raise money for the Wikimedia movement. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion
For one thing, we have always been proud of how Wikipedia and its sister sites have been ad-free. Why don't we get those half-breeds with their ads and everything to do the revenue making? I mean, of course, Wikia. Having ads on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) would be awful. On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > Hoi, > > As the "A" word has been mentioned again as is tradition, I want us to > > talk > > instead about how we can advertise / market our strategy, I want us to > > discuss how this helps us to reach out. How we can realise the goals that > > we > > so beautifully formulated in our strategy.. > > > > To start it off, I have blogged some of my sentiments. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/11/annual-wikipedia-argument-about.html > > Nice sentiments, but you don't address the question of why someone else > needs the potential advertising revenue more than we do. Google does many > good things, including providing substantial support to Wikipedia, but > what good does money in the pockets of their shareholders do us? > > Fred > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
On 7 November 2010 22:42, Fred Bauder wrote: > Why have advertising anywhere when "you can just google for things you > want to buy?" Consumers don't put advertising anywhere and it is consumers that can just google for things. Advertising is done by companies to attract consumers they wouldn't otherwise get. People who already want to buy from them don't need adverts in order to do that. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
