Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wikipedia scandals"
(Duplicate content being copied in multiple places.) |
|||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ==Great chart== | ||
| + | |||
That's a great chart! It would be cool if a major media property elected to use it. | That's a great chart! It would be cool if a major media property elected to use it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Fuzzy Zoeller incident == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Arg! I didn't even include the February 22nd revelation that Fuzzy Zoeller was bringing a lawsuit against an editor who libeled Zoeller in Wikipedia. Maybe I can update the page at some point, and extend the financial pattern backwards a couple of weeks, to include the Microsoft blogger incident, too. For now, though, I think the graphic speaks volumes. --[[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 08:57, 19 March 2007 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :This would be a lot more convincing if you pushed the starting date back a month. For all we can tell, the first day just happened to coincide with a major donation and was a spike. [[User:Jayzel|Jayzel]] 00:46, 21 March 2007 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Good comment, Jayzel. Actually, if I were to have gone back further in the data, one might interpret an even LARGER downward slide. The data from the last days of February: | ||
| + | :::16th - $4,867.94 | ||
| + | :::17th - $3,193.28 | ||
| + | :::18th - $2,353.70 | ||
| + | :::19th - $2,997.28 | ||
| + | :::20th - $3,505.75 | ||
| + | :::21st - $2,922.72 | ||
| + | :::22nd - $2,151.62 (Fuzzy Zoeller libel suit hits media) | ||
| + | :::23rd - $3,477.09 | ||
| + | :::24th - $1,958.48 | ||
| + | :::25th - $2,296.67 | ||
| + | :::26th - $1,713.17 | ||
| + | :::27th - $1,760.25 | ||
| + | :::28th - $1,637.42 | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::To go from the neighborhood of $3,000 per day, to $1,700 per day, to where it seems to be now -- around $900 per day . . . strikes me as a meaningful, palpable slide. --[[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 06:07, 21 March 2007 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==First toe into the beast== | ||
| + | We'll see if this sticks. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy#Effect_on_donations] [[User:Garrett|Garrett]] 07:00, 22 March 2007 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Data was incomplete == | ||
| + | |||
| + | After further review, Wikimedia Foundation continues to add donation tallies to their daily statistics, which means that the data in the chart is not fully accurate. There may be no actual decline in donation revenues to Wikipedia. --[[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:15, 20 May 2007 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Silly== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Pointless attacks on Wikipedia are silly. More silly than my username. How much of a grudge do you people have? [[User:Silly|Silly]] 10:53, 25 May 2008 (PDT) | ||
| + | :One man's "pointless" may be another man's "progress". Anyone who thinks Wikipedia's reputation is better now than it was when this chart was made is... well, '''silly'''. - [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 05:59, 26 May 2008 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Gwen Gale, the Arrogantly Ignorant Admin of Wiki == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I (Wm5200) have been having problems with Gwen/Heidi, and now an innocent is in her grasp. If you are interested, I'm blocked there, but am thepluton@gmail.com.[[User:Wikiwm5200|Wikiwm5200]] 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:15, 29 November 2014
Great chart
That's a great chart! It would be cool if a major media property elected to use it.
Fuzzy Zoeller incident
Arg! I didn't even include the February 22nd revelation that Fuzzy Zoeller was bringing a lawsuit against an editor who libeled Zoeller in Wikipedia. Maybe I can update the page at some point, and extend the financial pattern backwards a couple of weeks, to include the Microsoft blogger incident, too. For now, though, I think the graphic speaks volumes. --MyWikiBiz 08:57, 19 March 2007 (PDT)
- This would be a lot more convincing if you pushed the starting date back a month. For all we can tell, the first day just happened to coincide with a major donation and was a spike. Jayzel 00:46, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
- Good comment, Jayzel. Actually, if I were to have gone back further in the data, one might interpret an even LARGER downward slide. The data from the last days of February:
- 16th - $4,867.94
- 17th - $3,193.28
- 18th - $2,353.70
- 19th - $2,997.28
- 20th - $3,505.75
- 21st - $2,922.72
- 22nd - $2,151.62 (Fuzzy Zoeller libel suit hits media)
- 23rd - $3,477.09
- 24th - $1,958.48
- 25th - $2,296.67
- 26th - $1,713.17
- 27th - $1,760.25
- 28th - $1,637.42
- Good comment, Jayzel. Actually, if I were to have gone back further in the data, one might interpret an even LARGER downward slide. The data from the last days of February:
- To go from the neighborhood of $3,000 per day, to $1,700 per day, to where it seems to be now -- around $900 per day . . . strikes me as a meaningful, palpable slide. --MyWikiBiz 06:07, 21 March 2007 (PDT)
First toe into the beast
We'll see if this sticks. [1] Garrett 07:00, 22 March 2007 (PDT)
Data was incomplete
After further review, Wikimedia Foundation continues to add donation tallies to their daily statistics, which means that the data in the chart is not fully accurate. There may be no actual decline in donation revenues to Wikipedia. --MyWikiBiz 13:15, 20 May 2007 (PDT)
Silly
Pointless attacks on Wikipedia are silly. More silly than my username. How much of a grudge do you people have? Silly 10:53, 25 May 2008 (PDT)
- One man's "pointless" may be another man's "progress". Anyone who thinks Wikipedia's reputation is better now than it was when this chart was made is... well, silly. - MyWikiBiz 05:59, 26 May 2008 (PDT)
Gwen Gale, the Arrogantly Ignorant Admin of Wiki
I (Wm5200) have been having problems with Gwen/Heidi, and now an innocent is in her grasp. If you are interested, I'm blocked there, but am thepluton@gmail.com.Wikiwm5200 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
