10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Erik Moeller-4
I've written a draft of some insights which I think could be helpful
to readers, new editors, and journalists alike:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:10_Things_You_Did_Not_Know_About_Wikipedia

(Shortcut WP:10T)

I'd appreciate comments and (cautious) editing. I've also submitted
this text to our Communications Committee for their use as they see
fit.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

geni
On 3/11/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've written a draft of some insights which I think could be helpful
> to readers, new editors, and journalists alike:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:10_Things_You_Did_Not_Know_About_Wikipedia
>
> (Shortcut WP:10T)
>
> I'd appreciate comments and (cautious) editing. I've also submitted
> this text to our Communications Committee for their use as they see
> fit.

"You cannot actually change anything in Wikipedia."

Is somewhat confusing ("we store all past article versions" would
probably get the point across better)

"We're here to stay."

Is somewhat smug.

No mention of

"we really mean it about the image copyright stuff"

Which rather a lot of our uploaders really don't seem to know.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Erik Moeller-4
On 3/11/07, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> "You cannot actually change anything in Wikipedia."
>
> Is somewhat confusing ("we store all past article versions" would
> probably get the point across better)

Well, the point is to catch the reader by surprise and make them
wonder what is meant by this apparently completely nonsensical
statement. The advantage of tagging this as an essay is that I will
hopefully be able to get away with taking this stylistic liberty. :-)

<places finger on revert button>

> "We're here to stay."
>
> Is somewhat smug.

How about "We're in it for the long haul" or "We're building for the future"?
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Michel Vuijlsteke
In reply to this post by geni
On 3/11/07, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 3/11/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I've written a draft of some insights which I think could be helpful
> > to readers, new editors, and journalists alike:
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:10_Things_You_Did_Not_Know_About_Wikipedia
>
> "You cannot actually change anything in Wikipedia."
>
> Is somewhat confusing ("we store all past article versions" would
> probably get the point across better)


How about "Nothing you write is ever lost?" (or: erased)

Michel
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Steve Bennett-8
In reply to this post by geni
On 3/11/07, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> "You cannot actually change anything in Wikipedia."
>
> Is somewhat confusing ("we store all past article versions" would
> probably get the point across better)

Agree with Geni. The point you're making here is a bit tortured and
explained in a very convoluted way. Something like "No change in
Wikipedia is permanent" would be better, with explanation about how it
can be undone etc.

"5. We are deeply committed to quality. "
Just not true IMHO. "Quality" seems to be a byproduct of a system,
rather than a "commitment" as such. Everyone wants a quality
encyclopaedia. That's just a given. The fact that it happens stems
more from millions of individual actions rather than any top-down
"commitment".

6. "We don't want you to trust us." - could be explained a lot better.
Why not just explain it as "We try and synthesise other information
for you in a useful way. Sometimes we get it wrong, so check the
sources for yourself."

7. "We're not alone" - I don't like equating this "movement for Free
Knowledge" with the Wikimedia Foundation. You could make reference to
"competitors" in this movement. Like MIT recently announcing that it's
putting all its course material online for free.

"9. We're not a dictatorship. " - I dispute this. Jimbo is quite
clearly, explictly, unambiguously the ultimate arch-dictator of
Wikipedia. He has never renounced this right, and occasionally
exercises it. Now, fortunately, some dictators are benevolent... :)


> "We're here to stay."
>
> Is somewhat smug.

Yeah, not so keen on the tone of this one. I can see what you're
getting at, but perhaps the emphasis could be more on the fact that we
tolerate imperfections today while we build towards tomorrow.

> No mention of
>
> "we really mean it about the image copyright stuff"
>
> Which rather a lot of our uploaders really don't seem to know.

Also no mention that the encyclopaedia isn't written by priveleged
"editors" known as "admins". And why not a comment to the effect that
adding nonsense doesn't get you very far (whatever Stephen Colbert
thinks), that vandalism doesn't last long, etc...

All that said, I do like the idea of this list ;)

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Oldak
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On 11/03/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've written a draft of some insights which I think could be helpful
> to readers, new editors, and journalists alike:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:10_Things_You_Did_Not_Know_About_Wikipedia
>
> (Shortcut WP:10T)
>
> I'd appreciate comments and (cautious) editing. I've also submitted
> this text to our Communications Committee for their use as they see
> fit.

Firstly, I agree with geni when it comes to number 4. You do change
Wikipedia by adding a new version of an article and by selecting this
version as default. I think this section should be put more clearly.

Secondly, I think the title is too assertive and doesn't give much
away about what the essay is about. How about "10 Things You May Not
Know About Wikipedia"?

PS. I took the liberty of changing "newbie editors" to "new editors".
Hope you don't mind.

--
Oldak Quill ([hidden email])

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-8
On 3/11/07, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Agree with Geni. The point you're making here is a bit tortured and
> explained in a very convoluted way. Something like "No change in
> Wikipedia is permanent" would be better, with explanation about how it
> can be undone etc.

I have made this point in exactly this way many times in person and
observed the enlightenment on people's faces. Perhaps it is something
that works better from face-to-face, but nevertheless, I'd be cautious
not to rely only on "insider opinion" as to whether this line of
argument "clicks" or not.

> "5. We are deeply committed to quality. "
> Just not true IMHO. "Quality" seems to be a byproduct of a system,
> rather than a "commitment" as such. Everyone wants a quality
> encyclopaedia. That's just a given.

"Byproduct of a system" sounds very tautological to me, kind of like
"effect of a cause." But something about your criticism nevertheless
rang true: "A deep commitment to quality", even if correct, sounds
more like PR than a truly counterintuitive revelation. I've changed it
now to the self-deprecating phrase "We are a bunch of quality-obsessed
policy wonks", which I think conveys the same information. :-)

My main point here is that people are often surprised that we actually
have all those crazy policies & processes; they seem to often think
that Wikipedia is basically operating by some minimal Darwinian
ruleset, with anonymous editors assembling works quietly and truth
occasionally rising to the top unpredictably. In presentations, I see
a lot of surprise when I give people examples of AfD and FAC
discussions, etc.

> 6. "We don't want you to trust us." - could be explained a lot better.
> Why not just explain it as "We try and synthesise other information
> for you in a useful way. Sometimes we get it wrong, so check the
> sources for yourself."

I don't think that entirely captures the reality of the situation.
It's not just about "getting it wrong", it's about our vulnerability
to genuine bad faith editing which, as has been shown, sometimes
_does_ remain undetected for months. It is unfortunately the truth
that any article may be complete crap at the time you view it. There
may be no sources to check, there may just be a 72 pt banner
announcing the alleged sexual preference of a 14 year old high school
student named Josh. Vandalism may, of course, be much more subtle.

We must be completely upfront about this as long as we haven't
addressed it (cf. stable version discussions etc.). This is not a
minor problem, it is _the_ key problem for many people writing about
or using Wikipedia.

> 7. "We're not alone" - I don't like equating this "movement for Free
> Knowledge" with the Wikimedia Foundation. You could make reference to
> "competitors" in this movement. Like MIT recently announcing that it's
> putting all its course material online for free.

There are indeed many non-Wikimedia projects that could be mentioned
here. The list of projects got longer than I expected, making it a bit
hard to fit more mentions in. I'll have to tweak it a bit.

> "9. We're not a dictatorship. " - I dispute this. Jimbo is quite
> clearly, explictly, unambiguously the ultimate arch-dictator of
> Wikipedia. He has never renounced this right, and occasionally
> exercises it. Now, fortunately, some dictators are benevolent... :)

Jimmy has a special community role in the _English_ Wikipedia, which
is however not legally anchored in any way. The only legally anchored
authority is that of the Board of Trustees and anyone it chooses to
delegate legal powers to. Of course, it would be unwise to exercise
that authority unless absolutely necessary.

There is definitely some lingering confusion and some inconsistency
about this, partially due to Jimmy's past double role as Chair and
President of the Wikimedia Foundation (he is neither today). But
that's the present situation.

> Also no mention that the encyclopaedia isn't written by priveleged
> "editors" known as "admins".

The admin misunderstanding is definitely common. There's probably an
equal or greater number of Wikipedia readers who've never heard of
admins in the first place, so I'm not sure it would make sense to
explain it in the context of a list like this one.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Steve Bennett-8
On 3/12/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have made this point in exactly this way many times in person and
> observed the enlightenment on people's faces. Perhaps it is something
> that works better from face-to-face, but nevertheless, I'd be cautious
> not to rely only on "insider opinion" as to whether this line of
> argument "clicks" or not.

If you say so :)

> My main point here is that people are often surprised that we actually
> have all those crazy policies & processes; they seem to often think
> that Wikipedia is basically operating by some minimal Darwinian
> ruleset, with anonymous editors assembling works quietly and truth
> occasionally rising to the top unpredictably. In presentations, I see
> a lot of surprise when I give people examples of AfD and FAC
> discussions, etc.

Heh, sounds like your argument is "We actually do try and get things
right. Honest!" :) But yeah...it would certainly be interesting to
analyse Wikipedia's "approach to quality" compared with an ISO 9000
organisation.

> There is definitely some lingering confusion and some inconsistency
> about this, partially due to Jimmy's past double role as Chair and
> President of the Wikimedia Foundation (he is neither today). But
> that's the present situation.

I am definitely lingeringly confused. To be honest, I don't have the
faintest idea what his role is these days. Perhaps someone would like
to enlighten me. And if he is no longer, benevolent dictator, who is?
And if no one, is that a problem? What does it mean when he tells the
press that we're going to implement a credentials model? Is that the
same as if I told the press that we aren't? Is this a popularity
contest?

> The admin misunderstanding is definitely common. There's probably an
> equal or greater number of Wikipedia readers who've never heard of
> admins in the first place, so I'm not sure it would make sense to
> explain it in the context of a list like this one.

Who's your audience? The admin/editor thing seems to come up so often
in newspaper articles. "Wikipedia editor" seems to be used as a term
of respect or authority.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Steve Summit
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Erik wrote:
> I'd appreciate comments and (cautious) editing.

#4 ("You cannot actually change anything in Wikipedia") is weird.
I see what you're trying to say, but the surface implications
seem misleading.  (I've taken a stab at editing it.)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Andrew Lih
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
First off, kudos to Erik as most of the ten are quite well written and
help to enlighten.

On 3/11/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 3/11/07, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Agree with Geni. The point you're making here is a bit tortured and
> > explained in a very convoluted way. Something like "No change in
> > Wikipedia is permanent" would be better, with explanation about how it
> > can be undone etc.
>
> I have made this point in exactly this way many times in person and
> observed the enlightenment on people's faces. Perhaps it is something
> that works better from face-to-face, but nevertheless, I'd be cautious
> not to rely only on "insider opinion" as to whether this line of
> argument "clicks" or not.

I'd have to agree with the chorus here that #4 is likely too confusing
because it's too technocratic. Read it again:

"What you can do is make a copy of an article, and implicitly
choose this copy to be the one shown to all readers by default. No
existing copy is ever touched again, which allows us to backtrack as
needed and to revert unwanted changes. It also allows you to refer to
Wikipedia articles using something called a "permalink" in the bottom
left corner -- a link to a copy of the article that will never change,
for better or for worse."

You're starting to talk about how a database works. Once you start
talking database details to the layperson, you've lost 90% of your
audience and, hence, the point.

Also, I'm not sure what "the point" the reader should walk away with.
Is it "Everything is preserved" or "Nothing is ever lost"? If so,
change the point to be that.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-8
On 3/11/07, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I am definitely lingeringly confused. To be honest, I don't have the
> faintest idea what his role is these days.

Anything he does which the community permits him to get away with. ;-)

> What does it mean when he tells the
> press that we're going to implement a credentials model?

IIRC, what he said is that the community is discussing it.

> Who's your audience?

People with _very little_ knowledge about Wikipedia. It's a lowest
common denominator list.

Thanks to Planet Wikimedia, I just saw a link to the revamped
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_Kit which goes more into
"common misunderstandings" and includes the admin issue.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Steve Bennett-8
On 3/12/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> IIRC, what he said is that the community is discussing it.

--
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said in interviews by phone and instant
message Wednesday from Japan that contributors still would be able to
remain anonymous. But he said they should only be allowed to cite some
professional expertise in a subject if those credentials have been
verified.
--

Was that personal opinion ("I think they should only be allowed
to...") or an indication of future Wikipedia policy ("They will only
be allowed to..."?

Confusedly lingering,
Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Steve Summit
In reply to this post by Steve Summit
I wrote:
> #4 ("You cannot actually change anything in Wikipedia") is weird.
> I see what you're trying to say, but the surface implications
> seem misleading.  (I've taken a stab at editing it.)

But my edit got reverted, so I submit it here for consideration:

        No one can actually make a permanent change to Wikipedia.

        Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but what that does is to
        create a new copy of an article, which is then implicitly
        chosen to be the one shown to all readers by default.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Charles Matthews
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
"Steve Bennett" wrote

> "5. We are deeply committed to quality. "
> Just not true IMHO. "Quality" seems to be a byproduct of a system,
> rather than a "commitment" as such.

Yeah. Some confusion here, surely.

If you actually want the ladies and gentlemen of the Press to use this thing, you have to edit out of it the mission statement stuff; and edit in more of the things they can borrow as a deadline looms.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Mark
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Erik Moeller wrote:
> I've written a draft of some insights which I think could be helpful
> to readers, new editors, and journalists alike:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:10_Things_You_Did_Not_Know_About_Wikipedia
>  

This may be a matter of judgment and who the target audience is, but in
my experience #1 and #2 aren't really things people don't know about
Wikipedia.  People get lots of things wrong about us, but that Wikipedia
is a free-content encyclopedia run by a non-profit organization is
usually gotten right.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

geni
On 3/11/07, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This may be a matter of judgment and who the target audience is, but in
> my experience #1 and #2 aren't really things people don't know about
> Wikipedia.  People get lots of things wrong about us, but that Wikipedia
> is a free-content encyclopedia run by a non-profit organization is
> usually gotten right.

I've seen rather a lot of "will google buy wikipedia?" blogs and forum threads.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

David Gerard-2
On 11/03/07, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 3/11/07, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > This may be a matter of judgment and who the target audience is, but in
> > my experience #1 and #2 aren't really things people don't know about
> > Wikipedia.  People get lots of things wrong about us, but that Wikipedia
> > is a free-content encyclopedia run by a non-profit organization is
> > usually gotten right.

> I've seen rather a lot of "will google buy wikipedia?" blogs and forum threads.


Yes. And the media *don't* understand it's all written by volunteers.
I use the phrase "It's a volunteer-driven nonprofit charity. There's
about ten staff who run the office and the web servers. But almost all
of it's volunteers all the way down." This actually has to be said!


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by geni
On 3/11/07, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 3/11/07, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > This may be a matter of judgment and who the target audience is, but in
> > my experience #1 and #2 aren't really things people don't know about
> > Wikipedia.  People get lots of things wrong about us, but that Wikipedia
> > is a free-content encyclopedia run by a non-profit organization is
> > usually gotten right.
>
> I've seen rather a lot of "will google buy wikipedia?" blogs and forum threads.

Not to mention that "free content", to most people, means exactly
that: "free content." That is: "Hey, I can download it for free from
the Interweb." I have seen  very few articles about Wikipedia which
get the licensing part right. That said, that's one of those things
you have to hammer into a person's head about 10 times before they
understand it.

Maybe I need to create [[WP:100T]] which repeats {{:WP:10T}} 10 times ...
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

David Gerard-2
On 11/03/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Not to mention that "free content", to most people, means exactly
> that: "free content." That is: "Hey, I can download it for free from
> the Interweb." I have seen  very few articles about Wikipedia which
> get the licensing part right. That said, that's one of those things
> you have to hammer into a person's head about 10 times before they
> understand it.


Creative Commons isn't helping either. "Oh, we'd love this on
Wikipedia, it's all Creative Commons!" YES, IT'S BY-NC-ND. ARGH.

The trouble is that CC have monopolised the mindshare for "freer than
all-rights-reserved" ... but pretty clearly couldn't give a hoot about
actual free content.

CC's aims are not only not our aims, they actively hinder our aims.
This is ... somewhat annoying.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by geni
geni wrote:

>On 3/11/07, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>This may be a matter of judgment and who the target audience is, but in
>>my experience #1 and #2 aren't really things people don't know about
>>Wikipedia.  People get lots of things wrong about us, but that Wikipedia
>>is a free-content encyclopedia run by a non-profit organization is
>>usually gotten right.
>>    
>>
>I've seen rather a lot of "will google buy wikipedia?" blogs and forum threads.
>
If that ever happens the question of who gets the money would be
interesting.

Ec


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12