[url="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNFEy9N6Gj2oLKbR3Bd6Ujx-XhQ6pQ&url=http://blogs.forbes.com/marketshare/2010/10/15/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-on-the-big-a-word/?boxes=financechannelforbes"][img]http://nt2.ggpht.com/news/tbn/5vAGeejjeu5yBM/6.jpg[/img]
Forbes (blog)[/url]
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales on the big 'A' Word[/b]
Forbes (blog)
Speaking during yesterday's closing session at AdweekMedia's Social Strategies Summit in New York, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales touted that his ...
and more »
View the article
How on Earth does Forbes, of all magazines, think is this news of any sort?
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Fri 15th October 2010, 8:27am) 
No, it's not "Asshole."
But Jimmy does manage to call wikipedia a "national park or library" and a "temple of the mind." Which are remarkable descriptions for a something that in places resembles the stall walls of a giant public men's restroom.
"the former investment banker"
Is that what they call currency day-traders now?
Well, at least they got "co-founder" right.
I stopped subscribing to Forbes about four years ago. I just couldn't take any more their pathetic struggling to find things to praise about George W. Bush.
Is that what they call currency day-traders now?
Well, at least they got "co-founder" right.
I stopped subscribing to Forbes about four years ago. I just couldn't take any more their pathetic struggling to find things to praise about George W. Bush.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 15th October 2010, 12:20pm)
But Jimmy does manage to call wikipedia a "national park or library" and a "temple of the mind." Which are remarkable descriptions for a something that in places resembles the stall walls of a giant public men's restroom.
It seems to me that anyone with half a brain, intending to start an online encyclopedia that is
intended to be written by its users, would use small display ads to support the thing--in the
absence of funding by any other means. Because it's clear by now that the lack of advertising
on Wikipedia has not led to a good reference work, either directly or not.
But, oh oh oh, "free culture" flakes just hate adverts. "Oh, oh, Wikipedia has no ads, it must
be magical!! It's special and perfect and we must give it luv!! "
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 15th October 2010, 10:17pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 15th October 2010, 12:20pm)
But Jimmy does manage to call wikipedia a "national park or library" and a "temple of the mind." Which are remarkable descriptions for a something that in places resembles the stall walls of a giant public men's restroom.
It seems to me that anyone with half a brain, intending to start an online encyclopedia that is
intended to be written by its users, would use small display ads to support the thing--in the
absence of funding by any other means. Because it's clear by now that the lack of advertising
on Wikipedia has not led to a good reference work, either directly or not.
But, oh oh oh, "free culture" flakes just hate adverts. "Oh, oh, Wikipedia has no ads, it must
be magical!! It's special and perfect and we must give it luv!! "
Yes. Well, it's not as though National Parks have user fees. Oh, no.
Most libraries, and of course national parks, are supported primarily by your tax dollars. If Jimbo really wanted to create a true public resource, he'd have no problem with Wikipedia being run and funded by the Feds, like PubMed at NIH, or by a state like arXive at the land-grant university Cornell (who would have thought that Cornell was the Ag. U., of New York
). But then, he'd lose control of it, and wouldn't be able to sanitize his own bio, or those of people who kiss up to him.
Yeah, it's a temple of the mind and national park, all right. One with Jimbo's private villa built right on the best scenic view. Well, it's actually owned by a Foundation, see. But the groundskeepers and guards do Jimbo's bidding, so it's all the same. Except he pays no rents or taxes.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 16th October 2010, 5:45am)
Most libraries, and of course national parks, are supported primarily by your tax dollars. If Jimbo really wanted to create a true public resource, he'd have no problem with Wikipedia being run and funded by the Feds, like PubMed at NIH, or by a state like arXive at the land-grant university Cornell (who would have thought that Cornell was the Ag. U., of New York
). But then, he'd lose control of it, and wouldn't be able to sanitize his own bio, or those of people who kiss up to him.
Worse still, the feds would be able to sanitize content to the point of making it useless.
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sat 16th October 2010, 1:00am)
Worse still, the feds would be able to sanitize content to the point of making it useless.
Would have been funnier with "Bilderberger," but that will do.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.