Thanks to the FSF for supporting the summit that eventually led to Autonomo.us and the Franklin Street Statement, even if FSF isn't endorsing them yet.
I'm really surprised at the near total lack of on topic comments on this post. Not even any generic anti-FSF flames or calling Autonomo.us luddite. So everyone agrees that this activity is a good thing? (I'm biased.)
I'll strongly consider System76 if they offer a laptop with better than 1280x800 resolution when I'm in the market again. I'm running Ubuntu on a Dell Inspiron 6000 with 1920x1200 resolution and could not tolerate the downgrade. But I'd love to buy a machine with Linux pre-installed and tuned.
While I think ads should be used throughout the site to "fully fund free knowledge" the foundation could easily fund itself simply by selling access to the search page, just like Mozilla does with Firefox's search box.
So RC does, was working a few days ago.
Yes Bitzi would make a fine registry, but I'm not in a position to push that due to conflict of interest (and becasue there are a zillion things more critical for Bitzi to do).
Hi, I'm the author of the linked article. My response to the gist of a bunch of comments:
The major objection to ads on Wikipedia takes two forms:
Advertising is profane.
Advertising would compromose Wikipedia's neutrality.
A common response to the first is that those who don't like ads can run an ad blocker. Easier still, those who don't like ads can log in -- there's little reason to display ads to logged in users, who probably generate a tiny fraction of pageviews. But I don't think either of these responses will satisfy this form of the objection, as it is basically emotional. Some people object to the knowledge that ads exist, even if not experienced personally. I suppose these people don't use search engines. It's a wonder they can stand to use the net at all. I discount them completely.
The second is completely unrealistic. How would third party text ads, e.g., via AdSense, compromise neutrality? There's simply no vector for an advertiser to demand changes and zero reason for Wikipedians to comply. Wikipedia is not a small town newspaper beholden to the local department store, not even close. It isn't even Slashdot, which as far as I can tell has not been compromised by years of running ads. To people with this objection: show me a community site that has gone astray due to advertiser influence.
Sponsors, "being managed by Wikipedia staff (like in newspaper ads, i.e. no uncontrolled 3rd party feeds)", as suggested by Kuba Ober, are far more dangerous than third party ads, because then there is a vector between advertiser and someone with power at Wikipedia.
There may be an opportunity for Wikipedia to completely rethink and remake advertising, or merely compete in some fashion with what some are calling Google's near monopoly, but now it would make tremendous sense to use AdSense or Yahoo! or both -- and I suspect Wikipedia could manage to keep a greater share of revenue than a normal web publisher. Rick Yorgason mocked up what AdSense would look like in the place of the current fundraiser's donation banner.
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.
The next line, all bold, asks for help in the form of donations.
Much more money, hundreds of millions, would speed the arrival of that world and fulfillment of that commitment.
As above, there is no realistic scenario for ads undermining neutrality on Wikipedia.
The third objection strikes me as a non-sequitur. In any case, the point of obtaining more resources would be to increase the wealth of the community -- of all human beings.
Strongly agree. Don't give money to the copyright industry. $100m could fund a huge amount of new and improved free culture and free software. Hopefully this would also make old copyrights less valuable and more easily purchased later.:)
The "GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Rationale" says "See Opinion on Denationalization of Terminology" and "See Opinion on Digital Restrictions Management". Are these opinions available? I cannot find them by searching gplv3.fsf.org, fsf.org, or google.
Wikis are being used increasingly as CMS-replacements, as they should, as working with a CMS is hugely unappealing. See the http://www.mono-project.com/ website for a reasonable beginning example.
Another exciting use is as a simultaneous mostly free-form encyclopedia and structured knowledge base, database, or whatever. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki.
The answer to "Is There Still Racism in IT Hiring Practices?" is obviously yes. The question is how much. My guess is less than in most contemporary fields and less than IT of years past, but those are guesses.
It's worth noting that South African Apartheid persisted approximately 30 years after the US civil rights movement.
The main problem with racism in the IT industry today is that people are prohibited from competing for jobs on a level playing field based on a condition of their birth.
Slashdot Mirror
See the Wikipedia article and the W3C team comment on the submission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_OpenType
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/01/Comment
Thanks to the FSF for supporting the summit that eventually led to Autonomo.us and the Franklin Street Statement, even if FSF isn't endorsing them yet. I'm really surprised at the near total lack of on topic comments on this post. Not even any generic anti-FSF flames or calling Autonomo.us luddite. So everyone agrees that this activity is a good thing? (I'm biased.)
Link(s) please? I don't see anything about Linux on Acer's website (which appears pretty broken at the moment).
I'll strongly consider System76 if they offer a laptop with better than 1280x800 resolution when I'm in the market again. I'm running Ubuntu on a Dell Inspiron 6000 with 1920x1200 resolution and could not tolerate the downgrade. But I'd love to buy a machine with Linux pre-installed and tuned.
While I think ads should be used throughout the site to "fully fund free knowledge" the foundation could easily fund itself simply by selling access to the search page, just like Mozilla does with Firefox's search box.
RC is back online, bad timing for them.
So RC does, was working a few days ago. Yes Bitzi would make a fine registry, but I'm not in a position to push that due to conflict of interest (and becasue there are a zillion things more critical for Bitzi to do).
+1 WebCite isn't perfect for a variety of reasons, but it's pretty useful.
See Registered Commons (not affiliated with Creative Commons).
The major objection to ads on Wikipedia takes two forms:
- Advertising is profane.
- Advertising would compromose Wikipedia's neutrality.
A common response to the first is that those who don't like ads can run an ad blocker. Easier still, those who don't like ads can log in -- there's little reason to display ads to logged in users, who probably generate a tiny fraction of pageviews. But I don't think either of these responses will satisfy this form of the objection, as it is basically emotional. Some people object to the knowledge that ads exist, even if not experienced personally. I suppose these people don't use search engines. It's a wonder they can stand to use the net at all. I discount them completely.The second is completely unrealistic. How would third party text ads, e.g., via AdSense, compromise neutrality? There's simply no vector for an advertiser to demand changes and zero reason for Wikipedians to comply. Wikipedia is not a small town newspaper beholden to the local department store, not even close. It isn't even Slashdot, which as far as I can tell has not been compromised by years of running ads. To people with this objection: show me a community site that has gone astray due to advertiser influence.
Sponsors, "being managed by Wikipedia staff (like in newspaper ads, i.e. no uncontrolled 3rd party feeds)", as suggested by Kuba Ober, are far more dangerous than third party ads, because then there is a vector between advertiser and someone with power at Wikipedia.
There may be an opportunity for Wikipedia to completely rethink and remake advertising, or merely compete in some fashion with what some are calling Google's near monopoly, but now it would make tremendous sense to use AdSense or Yahoo! or both -- and I suspect Wikipedia could manage to keep a greater share of revenue than a normal web publisher. Rick Yorgason mocked up what AdSense would look like in the place of the current fundraiser's donation banner.
Slashdot commenter jklooserman summarizes objections from Wikiproject no ads:
- Wikipedia's philosophy is non-commercial
- Ads put at risk Wikipedia's principle of Neutral Point of View (NPOV)
- The information that constitutes Wikipedia is wealth for the community
I don't see "non-commercial" in any form on the Wikimedia Foundation home page. I do see this, in large text: The next line, all bold, asks for help in the form of donations.Much more money, hundreds of millions, would speed the arrival of that world and fulfillment of that commitment.
As above, there is no realistic scenario for ads undermining neutrality on Wikipedia.
The third objection strikes me as a non-sequitur. In any case, the point of obtaining more resources would be to increase the wealth of the community -- of all human beings.
jklooserman also pointed out that there's a category of Wikipedians who think that the Wikimedia Foundation should use advertising. Add it to your user page if you agree.
Expanded version: defeatist dreaming
Strongly agree. Don't give money to the copyright industry. $100m could fund a huge amount of new and improved free culture and free software. Hopefully this would also make old copyrights less valuable and more easily purchased later. :)
! (sf.net's "remember me" checkbox has never done anything for me. how annoying.)
Hilarious! I love it.
The "GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Rationale" says "See Opinion on Denationalization of Terminology" and "See Opinion on Digital Restrictions Management". Are these opinions available? I cannot find them by searching gplv3.fsf.org, fsf.org, or google.
I especially like that they use '/p/' in a url where sourceforge uses '/projects/'.
HP's "business" line seems to have models with WUXGA and firewire, no idea about full-sized firewire.
Dell Latitude D820 seems to be the only current Dell model anyway.
15.4" laptop screens that support 1920x1200 have been around for awhile too. I'm satisfied with mine.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2006/01/15.html# a1371
Do you really need one? Wiki- and/or blog-focused software is probably all you need, e.g, Mediawiki and Wordpress.
If you're a special person that believes pain is necessary by all means use a full-fledged CMS for your site.
Wikis are being used increasingly as CMS-replacements, as they should, as working with a CMS is hugely unappealing. See the http://www.mono-project.com/ website for a reasonable beginning example. Another exciting use is as a simultaneous mostly free-form encyclopedia and structured knowledge base, database, or whatever. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki.
The answer to "Is There Still Racism in IT Hiring Practices?" is obviously yes. The question is how much. My guess is less than in most contemporary fields and less than IT of years past, but those are guesses.
It's worth noting that South African Apartheid persisted approximately 30 years after the US civil rights movement.
The main problem with racism in the IT industry today is that people are prohibited from competing for jobs on a level playing field based on a condition of their birth.
Would white miners in South Africa be better off without competition from black miners?