On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:55 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
snip
Better to re-focus attention on those projects which are successful, than
have ten non-successful projects dragging off any resources at all.
What resources? With only ~1.5M hits per month, EN Wikinews' share of
the tech /
2009/11/5 wjhon...@aol.com:
By failing I mean that it never achieved any sort of siginificant presence.
When Wikinews was started it was, imho, to shunt news off the main project
into its own space.
In your opinion? i.e., not necessarily in anyone else's.
Better to re-focus attention on
By failing I mean that it never achieved any sort of siginificant presence.
When Wikinews was started it was, imho, to shunt news off the main project
into its own space. News by it's nature is far more verbose then
encyclopedic material. News inundates you constantly, while encyclopedic
In a message dated 11/5/2009 11:29:32 AM Pacific Standard Time,
raro...@gmail.com writes:
In a $6 million budget, I'd honestly be disappointed if the Foundation
wasn't spending at least $100k on development projects that might some
day take off,
But that's exactly my point. Wikinews has
According to the Wikinews stats page ( http://wmf4.me/3229 ), the English
Wikinews received 7.9 million page views in October 2009. Compare that to
52 million page views for English Wiktionary ( http://wmf4.me/f8E57 ) or
12.8 million for English Wikisource ( http://wmf4.me/7a12c ) in the same
2009/11/5 Peter Coombe thewub.w...@googlemail.com:
Wikinews has it's problems, and is often overshadowed by it's bigger
brother Wikipedia. But it certainly hasn't failed. There's a
respectable amount of content being produced, including original
reporting that just would not fit on Wikipedia.
Robert Rohde wrote:
What resources? With only ~1.5M hits per month, EN Wikinews' share of
the tech / internet services budget probably only comes to a couple
thousand dollars per year, in other words basically a rounding error
in the budget.
I'd guess it's less than that. I just calculated
2009/11/5 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/11/5 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
We did astonishingly, staggeringly, unbelievably, improbably well with
Wikipedia. Failing to replicate that is to be expected; it's unlikely
we could deliberately manage such a success without a
- wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
... Few to no Wikipedia articles
point at Wikinews even when there is a Wikinews article.
How about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Treaty#Signing
Is it possible that sometimes Wikipedia steals Wikinews' thunder?
You get something like that kid (not) in a balloon and it
struggles/fails to get on Wikipedia but I assume did OK on Wikinews.
Sometimes a current event is big enough that Wikipedia can cover it
without fear of deletion (I think
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible that sometimes Wikipedia steals Wikinews' thunder?
You get something like that kid (not) in a balloon and it
struggles/fails to get on Wikipedia but I assume did OK on Wikinews.
Sometimes a current event is
] Wikinews has not failed
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible that sometimes Wikipedia steals Wikinews' thunder?
You get something like that kid (not) in a balloon and it
struggles/fails to get on Wikipedia but I assume did OK on Wikinews
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
How do you determine the number of views a particular Wikipedia page has
received?
http://stats.grok.se/en/200910/Colorado%20Balloon%20Incident
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
13 matches
Mail list logo
