Steven Walling wrote:
>It's really great to see Wikipedia highlighted as a source for news and
>current events. It's rare that people fully recognize the degree to which
>the "encyclopedia" is actually very good at trending news information.
>That said, the report paints a rosy picture that, strategically speaking,
>may not be cause for celebration.

Does the Knight Foundation disclose somewhere in this report that it's a
donor to the Wikimedia Foundation?

Comparing Wikipedia to sites like BuzzFeed and CNN seems to be a pretty
classic case of comparing apples to oranges.

>Neglecting to show people the value of the apps will help grow mobile web
>traffic in the short term, but in the long run may leave us entirely
>dependent on search (i.e. Google) or simply not growing readers, despite
>millions of people still coming online via mobile.

Can you elaborate on the value of the apps? HTTP is a free and open
standard with very wide support. iOS is closed and proprietary. Maybe you
can explain how investing resources into the latter aligns with
Wikimedia's values?

Personally, I say hasten the day that we abolish the horrible "m." from
our URLs and MobileFrontend from our servers.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to