This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential than a large
proportion of the peer reviewed literature:

On a related note, I tried to reply off-list to the Foundation official who
recently claimed that my assertion that systemic bias in the English
Wikipedia's economics articles has deleterious real-world implications was,
"framed with a leading question," and "filled with a good deal of
speculation," by asking what she thought of the evidence I presented on how
the "Fair Tax" article and the other Mises-influenced walled garden
articles had been successfully gamed into appearing first in the
automatically generated set of "related articles" on articles with an
opposite economic perspective, such as "Making Work Pay tax credit," but
there was no reply.

Do you think this topic is something that the Foundation should study? I've
asked the Chair of the Board of Trustees to do so, but there hasn't been a
reply to that either.

Best regards,

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:57 PM Chris Keating <>

Hi all,

For a while now I've been thinking about different ways to define and
measure the Wikimedia movement's impact. This started for me with various
conversations about different iterations of the WMF's Global Metrics and
different rounds of FDC bids, but it turns out to be wider than that.

This is a big and thorny topic and one where we seem to have come up with a
lot of implicit answers without spending much time thinking about in any
detail, so I've written up my thoughts as a meta-essay here:

I'd be really interested to hear other peoples' views!


(User:The Land)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to