On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Anthony wrote:
> I guess. I'd support a system where a real-named individual (or maybe
> even a very well-established pseudonym) signs off on an entire
> article.
Should read "one or more real-named individuals..."
___
>>> More interesting for us
>>> would be why these kids use Wikipedia. Are the authorized proprietary
>>> textbooks that bad?
>>>
>> No, kids just understand that they're going to get caught if they
>> plagiarize from their textbooks. What they don't realize is that the
>> "NPOV" language of Wiki
on 10/10/09 7:31 PM, Ray Saintonge at sainto...@telus.net wrote:
>>
> At the high school level what may be acceptable when the students start
> may not be acceptable when they graduate. They should be learning how
> to think critically, and looking beyond what the teacher and the
> textbook
[and
Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> One would think from these discussions you might have learned that
>>> Wikipedia, Britannica, and World Book are tertiary sources
>> What is accomplished by trying to label encyclopedias as te
Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 10/10/09 11:32 AM, geni at wrote:
>
>> Depends on the school. By being anti-wikipedia you make a statement
>> that you insist on a certain quality in your sources. You could view
>> it as a form of snobbery "Wikipedia may seem okey to the peons but we
>> know better".
>>
Michael Peel wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2009, at 15:00, geni wrote:
>
>> The complexity is that in certain groups being anti-wikipedia is a
>> requirement for fitting in. A statement that you take knowledge
>> seriously.
>>
> I'm sorry; I can understand those sentences separately, but not when
>
2009/10/10 Marc Riddell :
> Geni, in true scholarship, "information" and "knowledge" are not synonymous.
>
> Marc
Entirely depends on the context. Sometimes they are sometimes not. In
the context I was useing the term they are (doesn't really scan
otherwise).
--
geni
On 10 Oct 2009, at 16:54, Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 10/10/09 11:32 AM, geni at geni...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Depends on the school. By being anti-wikipedia you make a statement
>> that you insist on a certain quality in your sources. You could view
>> it as a form of snobbery "Wikipedia may seem
> 2009/10/10 Michael Peel :
>> I'm sorry; I can understand those sentences separately, but not when
>> they are combined. Wikipedia is a way to take knowledge (and the
>> spread of knowledge) seriously. That's why I'm here.
>>
>> I would hope that being anti-wikipedia (or anti-knowledge) is not a
> 2009/10/10 Marc Riddell :
>> Geni, it is not "anti-wikipedia" to recognize and understand the difference
>> between information and knowledge.
on 10/10/09 11:36 AM, geni at geni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> That enitrely depends on context. In the context of the sentence the
> where I used the term
2009/10/10 Marc Riddell :
> Geni, it is not "anti-wikipedia" to recognize and understand the difference
> between information and knowledge.
That enitrely depends on context. In the context of the sentence the
where I used the term the two are synonyms.
--
geni
___
2009/10/10 Michael Peel :
> I'm sorry; I can understand those sentences separately, but not when
> they are combined. Wikipedia is a way to take knowledge (and the
> spread of knowledge) seriously. That's why I'm here.
>
> I would hope that being anti-wikipedia (or anti-knowledge) is not a
> requir
> 2009/10/10 Michael Peel :
>>
>> On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>
>>> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
>>> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing
>>> would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.
>>
>> Doe
On 10 Oct 2009, at 15:00, geni wrote:
> 2009/10/10 Michael Peel :
>>
>> On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>
>>> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
>>> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of
>>> thing
>>> would be a fascinatin
2009/10/10 Michael Peel :
>
> On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
>> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing
>> would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.
>
> Does the WMF comm
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, George Herbert
>> wrote:
>>
>>> They are
>>> aware we aren't a primary source, and the risks of any secondary
>>> source... Such as Britannica and World Book, too.
>>>
>>
>> One would think
2009/10/10 Anthony :
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
>> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing
>> would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.
> I don't know. My e
2009/10/10 Samuel Klein :
> The ratio of overhead to other expenses isn't always a great meter
> stick, as Erik mentions. Nevertheless, one extraordinary aspect of
> Wikipedia and siblings is how high the efficiency of its core project
> work is by that measure: 100 billion views / 100 million ed
On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote:
> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing
> would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.
Does the WMF commission surveys like this? It would s
George Herbert wrote:
> I know EB and World Book contributors who are very upset about
> Wikipedia's rise, and many who see it as a godsend to information
> propogation around the world, on the order of the rise of the Web and
> of Google. There are lost jobs at EB and WB - but the Post Office has
Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
>> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing
>> would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.
>>
> I don't know.
Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>
>> I have had a number of excellent deep discussions with high school,
>> college, grade school teachers about Wikipedia and the ones who pay
>> more attention than "Someone copied the Wikipedia entry as an essay"
>> ge
Samuel says:
+
In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing
would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.
+
I agree. Market research, even longitudinal tracking research, has
fas
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing
> would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.
I don't know. My evidence is all anecdotal, but
Samuel Klein wrote:
> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today.
I would guess that the shift is in part thanks to their students, who in
my experience have been 90/10 or better in favor of it.
--Michael Snow
___
The ratio of overhead to other expenses isn't always a great meter
stick, as Erik mentions. Nevertheless, one extraordinary aspect of
Wikipedia and siblings is how high the efficiency of its core project
work is by that measure: 100 billion views / 100 million edits a year,
for $3M in hardware and
"Christophe Henner"
wrote in message
news:84a69b0e0910091333k1bcb1c87o8dc7b5df126df...@mail.gmail.com...
> Anyway, soif we want to have the "stars" what's needed is just to put
> all the salaries and costs needed to run the servers and improve the
> software in programm.
So that's the entire '
On 10/9/09 11:33 AM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> Brion says:
>
> ++
>
> A few thousand dollars in rent for the Usability Initiative's space...
>
> ++
>
> It may be equally accurate to say that I have earned "a few thousand
> dollars" this year, or in my lifetime, or that comprises the bud
2009/10/9 Gregory Kohs :
> Nathan asks:
>
> +
>
> I'm curious what importance you attach to the Charity Navigator
> rating, and how you think it is (or should be) relevant to the
> operations of the WMF. Care to explain?
>
> +
>
> Thank you for asking, Nathan. As always, I am eager
--- On Fri, 10/9/09, Gregory Kohs wrote:
>
> You may not be aware of the stories behind the Deputy
> Sheriffs' Fraternal
> Organization or the Wishing Well Foundation, but I would be
> sick to my
> stomach if I found that I had donated money to such an
> organization, only to
> discover that
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
>
> It may be equally accurate to say that I have earned "a few thousand
> dollars" this year, or in my lifetime, or that comprises the budget of the
> State of Indiana. I was hoping for an accurate figure, not a carefree
> estimate, Brion.
Nathan asks:
+
I'm curious what importance you attach to the Charity Navigator
rating, and how you think it is (or should be) relevant to the
operations of the WMF. Care to explain?
+
Thank you for asking, Nathan. As always, I am eager to provide a prompt and
direct response to
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
>
> It may be equally accurate to say that I have earned "a few thousand
> dollars" this year, or in my lifetime, or that comprises the budget of the
> State of Indiana. I was hoping for an accurate figure, not a carefree
> estimate, Brion.
>
>
Brion says:
++
A few thousand dollars in rent for the Usability Initiative's space...
++
It may be equally accurate to say that I have earned "a few thousand
dollars" this year, or in my lifetime, or that comprises the budget of the
State of Indiana. I was hoping for an accurat
On 10/8/09 7:27 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> Erik,
>
> How much of WMF's expenses went to Wikia, Inc. this year so far?
A few thousand dollars in rent for the Usability Initiative's space,
which will end soon thanks to Wikimedia getting larger office space of
their own.
You might perhaps remember
Erik,
How much of WMF's expenses went to Wikia, Inc. this year so far?
Greg
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/10/8 Michael Snow :
> We do pay attention to the efficiency of operations and how funds are
> spent, not merely for the sake of appearances but as something valuable
> in its own right. With that in mind, it's more useful to look directly
> at ways of achieving greater efficiency than to debat
George William Herbert says:
+
Greg, your glass is perpetually half empty. This makes you a not so
useful critic.
+
That may be, George. But, when the world's full of organizational
efficiency glasses that can hold four stars, if you've only got two stars,
your glass is by def
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> "The Defeat of Communism, Rising Prices in Post-Crisis America, and
> Why Washington Shouldn't Run Detroit."
>
> Yes, and people consult Wikipedia for information about these topics too.
On the latter two topics, where on Wikipedia would you su
Gregory Kohs writes:
> (1) That the Wikimedia Foundation's "impact" is a favorable one. (Many
> would disagree, at least according to Andrew Keen, the staff of
> Encyclopedia
> Britannica and World Book, and just about every high school teacher I've
> ever talked to about Wikipedia.)
>
My frie
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> I have had a number of excellent deep discussions with high school,
> college, grade school teachers about Wikipedia and the ones who pay
> more attention than "Someone copied the Wikipedia entry as an essay"
> generally have a more nuanced a
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:10 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
> Right. What's a program expense? What *should* be a program expense?
> * keeping servers online?
> * Wikimania?
> * producing how-to guides?
> * improving mediawiki?
>
>
> Since all the documentation is readily available, like Mike Snow said
Dear Gregory,
> (2) That Alexa rankings reflect "impact in the world". If you've got
> 300,000 living persons checking their biography every day for
> defamation,
> I'm sure the Alexa rankings are going to notice that.
only 11% of English Wikipedia article views are about Living People.
You f
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>> Gregory Kohs writes:
>>
>>>
>>> For comparison, witness an organization cited by Charity Navigator as
>>> "similar" to the WMF -- the Reason Foundation -- and see how their Expenses
>>> are a mu
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> Your comment about "Reason" carries with it at least two premises:
>
> (1) That the Wikimedia Foundation's "impact" is a favorable one. (Many
> would disagree, at least according to Andrew Keen, the staff of Encyclopedia
> Britannica and World
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> WMF could no doubt spend a lot more in program expenses, though
> defining exactly what those are is a pretty fun game. But it's
> certainly not spending as inefficiently as the histogram might seem to
> suggest.
Right. What's a program expen
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Gregory Kohs writes:
>
>>
>> For comparison, witness an organization cited by Charity Navigator as
>> "similar" to the WMF -- the Reason Foundation -- and see how their Expenses
>> are a much larger portion of revenue for them, and thus obtain a
Godwin says:
++
My long-time friends at the Reason Foundation wish very much that they and
their programs could have the same kind of impact in the world that the
Wikimedia Foundation and its programs have. Compare, for example, the Alexa
rankings of wikipedia.org and reason.com.
Full d
Gregory Kohs writes:
>
> For comparison, witness an organization cited by Charity Navigator as
> "similar" to the WMF -- the Reason Foundation -- and see how their Expenses
> are a much larger portion of revenue for them, and thus obtain a 3-star
> rating:
> http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/10/8 Anthony :
>> And it's not clear what that number means anyway. Is a high ratio
>> good or bad? It could be either, depending on the circumstances.
>
> Of course. It isn't a useful metric in itself, it's just a factor that
> you nee
And yet, for organizational efficiency, the Red Cross earned three stars
from Charity Navigator, rather than only two.
Also, the CEO of Red Cross was compensated with 0.01% of the expenses. I'm
not sure of Sue Gardner's total compensation these days, but it was last
reported at a half-year rate o
2009/10/8 Anthony :
> And it's not clear what that number means anyway. Is a high ratio
> good or bad? It could be either, depending on the circumstances.
Of course. It isn't a useful metric in itself, it's just a factor that
you need to account for when interpreting proportions of revenue spent
2009/10/8 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/10/8 George Herbert :
>> The WMF is not entirely unique in that regard; many other charities
>> are largely volunteer (cf Red Cross).
>
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross#Activities:
>
> "Altogether, there are about 97 million people worldwide who
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/10/8 Anthony :
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Thomas Dalton
>> wrote:
>>> 2009/10/8 George Herbert :
The WMF is not entirely unique in that regard; many other charities
are largely volunteer (cf Red Cross).
>>>
>>> Accordi
George Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> Are most Red Cross volunteers directly involved in disaster response?
>> I would expect most of them to be doing fundraising, education and
>> publicity, and long term projects.
>>
>
> My experience - whi
2009/10/8 Anthony :
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/10/8 George Herbert :
>>> The WMF is not entirely unique in that regard; many other charities
>>> are largely volunteer (cf Red Cross).
>>
>> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross#Activities:
>>
>> "Al
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The British Red Cross has a list of ways to volunteer:
>
> http://www.redcross.org.uk/TLC.asp?id=75777
>
> Emergency response is just one part of one item on that list.
I gave blood once. Am I a Red Cross volunteer?
I once helped out at a b
2009/10/8 George Herbert :
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> 2009/10/8 George Herbert :
>>> Red Cross volunteers do a little bit of prep work, typically, and a
>>> little training each year. And then a disaster hits and they drop
>>> everything and respond.
>>
>> Are m
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/10/8 George Herbert :
>> The WMF is not entirely unique in that regard; many other charities
>> are largely volunteer (cf Red Cross).
>
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross#Activities:
>
> "Altogether, there are about 97
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/10/8 George Herbert :
>> Red Cross volunteers do a little bit of prep work, typically, and a
>> little training each year. And then a disaster hits and they drop
>> everything and respond.
>
> Are most Red Cross volunteers directly invo
2009/10/8 George Herbert :
> Red Cross volunteers do a little bit of prep work, typically, and a
> little training each year. And then a disaster hits and they drop
> everything and respond.
Are most Red Cross volunteers directly involved in disaster response?
I would expect most of them to be do
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/10/8 George Herbert :
>> The WMF is not entirely unique in that regard; many other charities
>> are largely volunteer (cf Red Cross).
>
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross#Activities:
>
> "Altogether, there are about 97
2009/10/8 George Herbert :
> The WMF is not entirely unique in that regard; many other charities
> are largely volunteer (cf Red Cross).
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross#Activities:
"Altogether, there are about 97 million people worldwide who serve
with the ICRC, the Internatio
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/10/8 Gregory Kohs :
>
>> Despite an overall three-star rating (out of four), WMF was only rated two
>> stars for Organization Efficency. This is described by Charity Navigator as
>> "Meets or nearly meets industry standards but underperforms most charities
>> in its
2009/10/8 Gregory Kohs :
> "Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least
> 75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And
> 9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a
> third of their budget on program expense
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/10/8 Gregory Kohs :
>> Despite an overall three-star rating (out of four), WMF was only rated two
>> stars for Organization Efficency. This is described by Charity Navigator as
>> "Meets or nearly meets industry standards but underperfo
2009/10/8 Gregory Kohs :
> Despite an overall three-star rating (out of four), WMF was only rated two
> stars for Organization Efficency. This is described by Charity Navigator as
> "Meets or nearly meets industry standards but underperforms most charities
> in its Cause". The Charity Navigator s
Greetings.
The Charity Navigator site has evaluated and rated the Wikimedia Foundation:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212
Despite an overall three-star rating (out of four), WMF was only rated two
stars for Organization Efficency. This is described by Char
68 matches
Mail list logo
