Comments on: Aaron Swartz on What’s Wrong with Wikipedia http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/09/28/aaron-swartz-on-whats-wrong-with-wikipedia/ Self-Experimentation, Scientific Method, the Shangri-La Diet, etc. Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:48:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: links for 2007-10-01 « Matthew Henty http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/09/28/aaron-swartz-on-whats-wrong-with-wikipedia/#comment-48090 Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:22:40 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/09/28/aaron-swartz-on-whats-wrong-with-wikipedia/#comment-48090 [...] Seth’s blog » Blog Archive » Aaron Swartz on What’s Wrong with Wikipedia (tags: Wikipedia socialsoftware) [...] […] Seth’s blog » Blog Archive » Aaron Swartz on What’s Wrong with Wikipedia (tags: Wikipedia socialsoftware) […]

]]> by: Seth’s blog » Blog Archive » The Wikipedia Wars http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/09/28/aaron-swartz-on-whats-wrong-with-wikipedia/#comment-47865 Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:32:22 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/09/28/aaron-swartz-on-whats-wrong-with-wikipedia/#comment-47865 [...] Aaron Swartz on What’s Wrong with Wikipedia [...] […] Aaron Swartz on What’s Wrong with Wikipedia […]

]]> by: seth http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/09/28/aaron-swartz-on-whats-wrong-with-wikipedia/#comment-47807 Sat, 29 Sep 2007 06:24:26 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/09/28/aaron-swartz-on-whats-wrong-with-wikipedia/#comment-47807 Yes, obviously Wikipedia gets a staggering number of page views with a small staff and lots of user-contributed content, just like craigslist. That's why they're worth comparing. But if you don't like that comparison -- which is fine -- tell me a better one. If you think Aaron is wrong about lack of vision, it would be helpful to know why. Yes, obviously Wikipedia gets a staggering number of page views with a small staff and lots of user-contributed content, just like craigslist. That’s why they’re worth comparing. But if you don’t like that comparison — which is fine — tell me a better one.

If you think Aaron is wrong about lack of vision, it would be helpful to know why.

]]> by: Sage (User:Ragesoss) http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/09/28/aaron-swartz-on-whats-wrong-with-wikipedia/#comment-47763 Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:00:05 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/09/28/aaron-swartz-on-whats-wrong-with-wikipedia/#comment-47763 I think that chart is misleading when you're trying to compare Wikipedia to Craigslist. That chart is limited to English language rankings, and is probably out of date. The overall rankings (not page view rankings) from Alexa currently have Wikipedia at #9 and Craigslist at #10 for the U.S. Globally,Craigslist is something around #40, while Wikipedia is #8 and serves almost 3 times the page views of Craigslist. Wikipedia also has a much broader constituency; Craigslist has a much higher number of page views per user, but much lower "reach". Incidentally, the Wikimedia Foundation has a paid staff of 12. I love Craigslist, but I think this is apples and oranges. Aaron is certainly right that Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation has some problems (and I respect Aaron's viewpoint; I voted for him for the board), but I think he's out of touch with the way things have been going since he disconnected with the community when it comes to points 2 and 3. Organization has been improving rapidly, and funding has more or less kept pace with the organization's ability to spend it in an organized and effective manner. Yes, many people (myself included) have thrown out big ideas for what we could do if we had the money for it, but the priority has been to create stability first, including a stable funding base. This is much more of a challenge for Wikimedia (a non-profit) than Craigslist (which makes its money from job and housing ads). As for lack of vision, I think Aaron is deeply mistaken here, but I guess it comes down to a judgment call. I think that chart is misleading when you’re trying to compare Wikipedia to Craigslist. That chart is limited to English language rankings, and is probably out of date. The overall rankings (not page view rankings) from Alexa currently have Wikipedia at #9 and Craigslist at #10 for the U.S. Globally,Craigslist is something around #40, while Wikipedia is #8 and serves almost 3 times the page views of Craigslist. Wikipedia also has a much broader constituency; Craigslist has a much higher number of page views per user, but much lower “reach”.

Incidentally, the Wikimedia Foundation has a paid staff of 12. I love Craigslist, but I think this is apples and oranges.

Aaron is certainly right that Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation has some problems (and I respect Aaron’s viewpoint; I voted for him for the board), but I think he’s out of touch with the way things have been going since he disconnected with the community when it comes to points 2 and 3. Organization has been improving rapidly, and funding has more or less kept pace with the organization’s ability to spend it in an organized and effective manner. Yes, many people (myself included) have thrown out big ideas for what we could do if we had the money for it, but the priority has been to create stability first, including a stable funding base. This is much more of a challenge for Wikimedia (a non-profit) than Craigslist (which makes its money from job and housing ads). As for lack of vision, I think Aaron is deeply mistaken here, but I guess it comes down to a judgment call.

]]>