Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Re: Wikinews has not failed

 

 

Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


andrewrturvey at googlemail

Nov 4, 2009, 3:32 PM

Post #1 of 17 (1486 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed

----- WJhonson [at] aol 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%C4%87#Arrest_and_trial

or indeed the nearly 3,000 other articles listed at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Wikinews&limit=500

> And I submit that
> no outside agency points at Wikinews articles for anything.

Google News has started to link to stories in both Wikipedia and Wikinews, depending on individuals' profiles.

Andrew
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


bodnotbod at gmail

Nov 4, 2009, 3:50 PM

Post #2 of 17 (1440 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

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 Katrina) and I seem to recall the
coverage in Wikipedia was amazing.

Perhaps that means Wikinews can only ever be a little brother because
Wikipedia gets to cover the big stories as well as Wikinews ever will.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


Brian.Mingus at Colorado

Nov 4, 2009, 3:58 PM

Post #3 of 17 (1441 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod [at] gmail> 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 that Wikipedia can cover it
> without fear of deletion (I think of Katrina) and I seem to recall the
> coverage in Wikipedia was amazing.
>
> Perhaps that means Wikinews can only ever be a little brother because
> Wikipedia gets to cover the big stories as well as Wikinews ever will.
>
>
The [[Colorado balloon incident]] Wikipedia article has had 120,000 views.
I'm sure that the [.[.6-year-old boy in Colorado found alive, unhurt after
runaway balloon allegedly carried him away]] article on Wikinews received
far, far less attention.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


wjhonson at aol

Nov 4, 2009, 4:02 PM

Post #4 of 17 (1441 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

How do you determine the number of views a particular Wikipedia page has received?





-----Original Message-----
From: Brian J Mingus <Brian.Mingus [at] Colorado>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Wed, Nov 4, 2009 3:58 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews has not failed










On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod [at] gmail> 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 that Wikipedia can cover it
> without fear of deletion (I think of Katrina) and I seem to recall the
> coverage in Wikipedia was amazing.
>
> Perhaps that means Wikinews can only ever be a little brother because
> Wikipedia gets to cover the big stories as well as Wikinews ever will.
>
>
The [[Colorado balloon incident]] Wikipedia article has had 120,000 views.
I'm sure that the [.[.6-year-old boy in Colorado found alive, unhurt after
runaway balloon allegedly carried him away]] article on Wikinews received
far, far less attention.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


rarohde at gmail

Nov 4, 2009, 4:08 PM

Post #5 of 17 (1443 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM, <wjhonson [at] aol> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


tango.chan at wikimedia

Nov 5, 2009, 2:42 AM

Post #6 of 17 (1427 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

In my opinion, Wikinews may use for some small community's news.

2009/11/5 Robert Rohde <rarohde [at] gmail>

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM, <wjhonson [at] aol> 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 [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Tango Chan
Administrative Assistant
Treasury
Wikimedia Hong Kong
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


thewub.wiki at googlemail

Nov 5, 2009, 7:31 AM

Post #7 of 17 (1426 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

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
by Google News (at least, they will be again once a bug is fixed). And
there is a fairly small but dedicated community.

Pete / the wub

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


faigos at gmail

Nov 5, 2009, 7:51 AM

Post #8 of 17 (1423 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

There is a big difference between failing and simply not having succeeded yet.


--
△ ℱajro △
Lernu! - http://www.lernu.net

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


WJhonson at aol

Nov 5, 2009, 10:55 AM

Post #9 of 17 (1423 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

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 material is
more placid and stable.

News should be far more material. And yet the English Wikinews has only 15
thousand articles. So something seriously went wrong in that approach. It
simply did not capture the attention of any significant part of the core
community.

It's a bit silly to talk about three thousand links, when we have over
three million articles. So that's one tenth of one percent? In terms of news
outlets, our own news outlet gets a trivial number of links compared to
others. And it's ours! That's my point. That's what I consider failing.
Crawling along with your tongue out in the desert, while the nearest water is 20
miles away.

Better to re-focus attention on those projects which are successful, than
have ten non-successful projects dragging off any resources at all.

Will

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


rarohde at gmail

Nov 5, 2009, 11:28 AM

Post #10 of 17 (1422 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:55 AM, <WJhonson [at] aol> wrote:
<snip>

> 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 probably only comes to a couple
thousand dollars per year, in other words basically a rounding error
in the budget. At the same time, many of the volunteer resources
might simply be lost rather than going to work elsewhere, since
volunteers are hard to redirect.

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, and I certainly wouldn't begrudge Wikinews a share of
that. One of the virtues of the Foundation is that existing
infrastructure makes it very cheap to experiment and try some ideas to
see what sticks.

-Robert rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


dgerard at gmail

Nov 5, 2009, 11:31 AM

Post #11 of 17 (1421 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

2009/11/5 <WJhonson [at] aol>:

> 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 projects which are successful, than
> have ten non-successful projects dragging off any resources at all.


That you are upset at being moderated on their mailing list does not
make volunteer effort fungible.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


WJhonson at aol

Nov 5, 2009, 11:45 AM

Post #12 of 17 (1420 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

In a message dated 11/5/2009 11:29:32 AM Pacific Standard Time,
rarohde [at] gmail 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 has had it's chance, for years, and
it didn't make the grade. Time to cut the losses and try a new project with
that 100K investment. Every corporation looks at the brands which have
lingered around and has to make the decision to cut and re-direct. How many
more years do you want to give Wikinews to try to make it before you cut it
out? Or would you never cut it out at all? 100K on a new project like
WikiEarth or WikiDirections or WikiStockQuotes or whatever might pay off soon.
Wikinews has never paid off it's investment.

Will

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


wiki at konsoletek

Nov 5, 2009, 12:03 PM

Post #13 of 17 (1425 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

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 frame. En.wn doesn't have a huge amount of hits in comparison, but it
is nothing to sneeze at either. You can also take a quick look at the
stats from enwn.net, our URL shortner ( http://enwn.net/stats.php ) and see
that in the last 30 days we've had 17k click through from Twitter & Identica
alone. So we might not be huge, but we've got a fairly loyal following.

If most news sites go pay wall, as they've been threatening, I think you'll
see see a huge rise in contributions/interest to Wikinews. Really, that is
the main difference between the popularity of Wikinews and other projects.
When Wikipedia started, there was no other reasonable "free encyclopedia".
Wikinews on the other hand? We've got to compete with every other news
outlet on earth. Give us some credit for trying.

-Jon


On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:45, <WJhonson [at] aol> wrote:

> In a message dated 11/5/2009 11:29:32 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> rarohde [at] gmail 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 has had it's chance, for years, and
> it didn't make the grade. Time to cut the losses and try a new project
> with
> that 100K investment. Every corporation looks at the brands which have
> lingered around and has to make the decision to cut and re-direct. How
> many
> more years do you want to give Wikinews to try to make it before you cut it
> out? Or would you never cut it out at all? 100K on a new project like
> WikiEarth or WikiDirections or WikiStockQuotes or whatever might pay off
> soon.
> Wikinews has never paid off it's investment.
>
> Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Jon
[[User:ShakataGaNai]]
http://snowulf.com/ - Blog
http://snowulf.imagekind.com/ - Pictures
This has been a test of the emergency sig system.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


andrew.gray at dunelm

Nov 5, 2009, 12:48 PM

Post #14 of 17 (1414 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

2009/11/5 Peter Coombe <thewub.wiki [at] googlemail>:
> 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
> by Google News (at least, they will be again once a bug is fixed). And
> there is a fairly small but dedicated community.

Mmm.

It's fair to say that Wikinews has not exploded massively, or become a
first-rank household-name service like Wikipedia has. It'd be great if
it did, of course, but not doing so isn't a sign of failure!

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, after all.

Wikinews is, as Pete says, flourishing quietly; it has a community, it
has readers - though I'd be interested to see figures - and it is
making steps in the outside world, reaching people and making a niche
independently of its "big sibling" Wikipedia. It's not become a
top-ten website, it's not a household name, but then, neither are the
other sites working in this field.

The readership of the English Wikinews is 8m pageviews/month; this is
only about 50% less than the English Wikiquote or Wikisource, both
quite stable and regarded projects. There's certainly a core of people
out there who read it, and who are presumably satisfied enough to keep
doing so. The authors enjoy writing it; the readers continue to, well,
continue to read it. Administratively and technically, it's a small
cost; from a volunteer perspective, the loss to the other projects of
people who might be working on them is offset by the fact that there's
a definite social benefit to keeping multiple projects so that people
can change what they're working on for a whle rather than burn out and
leave entirely. And, of course, people who actively want to write
journalism have somewhere to do it.

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray [at] dunelm

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


william at scissor

Nov 5, 2009, 1:37 PM

Post #15 of 17 (1415 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

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 calculated cost/pageview numbers
for a client that serves a lot of pages, and adding the Wikinews traffic
to their load would cost them maybe $40/month, even including a share of
hardware costs.

I don't have the WMF numbers handy to do the equivalent comparison, but
I wouldn't be surprised if WMF page views were an order of magnitude
cheaper given their scale and their non-profit status.

Either way, it's plausible Wikinews covers its own expenses through
generated donations. Shutting it down would also have costs, both
financial and reputational. So the question for me isn't so much,
"should we keep it running?" but, "why would we pay to kill it?"

William

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


dgerard at gmail

Nov 5, 2009, 1:46 PM

Post #16 of 17 (1421 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

2009/11/5 Andrew Gray <andrew.gray [at] dunelm>:

> 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, after all.


I've always thought the next likely hit would be Commons. It'd need
something like the cats-as-tags feature, though. I'd like not to be
able to describe it as "Sorta like Getty Images but the search sucks."


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


dgerard at gmail

Nov 5, 2009, 1:46 PM

Post #17 of 17 (1419 views)
Permalink
Re: Wikinews has not failed [In reply to]

2009/11/5 David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail>:
> 2009/11/5 Andrew Gray <andrew.gray [at] dunelm>:

>> 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, after all.

> I've always thought the next likely hit would be Commons. It'd need
> something like the cats-as-tags feature, though. I'd like not to be
> able to describe it as "Sorta like Getty Images but the search sucks."


(And I know the search has improved a lot of late.)


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.