2009/11/5 David Gerard :
> 2009/11/5 Andrew Gray :
>> 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 shedload of good
>> luck. "It's got a wiki
2009/11/5 Andrew Gray :
> 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 shedload of good
> luck. "It's got a wiki in it" isn't a magic spell, aft
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 calculate
2009/11/5 Peter Coombe :
> 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. Articles are picked up
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
time
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 ha
2009/11/5 :
> 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 those projec
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:55 AM, wrote:
> 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 / internet services budget p
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
mat
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM, 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
foundation-l@li
How do you determine the number of views a particular Wikipedia page has
received?
-Original Message-
From: Brian J Mingus
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wed, Nov 4, 2009 3:58 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews has not failed
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Bod Notbod 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 big enough th
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 of
- 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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radovan_Karad%C5%BEi%C
14 matches
Mail list logo
