Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin

    Wiki Ed

    Hi!

    As you are well aware the people behind wikiedu.org have been supporting the Wikipedia Education Program in the United States and Canada since 2010.

    You wrote: "If you have some ideas about how the movement might better make use of resources, then the best place to start is by getting informed".

    Someone explained to me that the WMF does not financially support Wiki Ed, which was a surprise to me.

    What do you think about the idea to give Wiki Ed an one-time donation? Their funds are quite limited. Even a relatively small amount would be a big deal to them.

    Of course money doesn't magically solve all problems, but I think it might give them a boost.

    I think we can all agree that the basic idea behind wikiedu.org is pretty solid.

    Maybe you'll think my idea is stupid, please tell me gently, I am here to learn stuff and fix typos.

    I am not in any way affiliated with Wiki Ed or any other Wiki-related organization.

    Merry Christmas and a happy New Year, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: this message was copied by The Quixotic Potato on 08:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC) and again on 07:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Graham87 10:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graham87: I do not want to have to post the same message every day. I've set the archiving period to 7 days now. I hope you'll find that more reasonable. The maxarchivesize parameter ensures that this page won't get too long. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Quixotic Potato: Nope, that's far too long, especially when this page gets busy. Please use {{Do not archive until}} for threads you don't want archived. Or just respect the fact that as time goes on, this thread will become less and less relevant ... perhaps use email if you really want to get Jimmy's attention. The maxarchivesize parameter controls the size of the archives, not that of the main talk page. Graham87 15:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graham87: Thank you, that is a far better solution. I was not aware of the existence of that template. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comparisons of Wikipedia to other organizations

    I agree with NewYork Brad that the above discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't look like it will contribute much to do with Wikipedia's goals. But to get back to the original question of whether there are reasonable comparisons to be made of Wikipedia to other organizations (good done vs. amount spent), I should say something about the TED (conference) folks, supported by the Sapling Foundation.

    The Sapling Foundation has about the same budget as WMF, $62 million in 2014 [1]. They also rely heavily on volunteer labor, e.g. the presenters. They have 2,000+ of their shorter-than-18-minute videos on their website. But they have something like 20,000 videos on YouTube, plus another 80,000 or so on TEDx talks on YouTube (all this should be checked). Altogether it looks like an interesting comparison could be made, after carefully checking the facts.

    So there are at least 3 comparisons that look pretty reasonable to make. edX, Khan Academy, and Ted (conference). Can anybody think of another? Somehow a group of 5 non-profits would make a more convincing group to compare among. The only other I can think of is a for-profit Quora. Not that the efficiency of non-profits and for-profits can't be compared, but ....

    Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You might want to look for other websites or organizations in Category:Educational websites. Also, the group of websites or organizations being compared might be suitable for a new article in Category:Online services comparisons.
    —Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to consider these websites.
    —Wavelength (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some other websites for consideration.
    —Wavelength (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WebCite is quite similar to the Wayback Machine. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of these websites will generate a significant amount of revenues via advertisements, e.g. on YouTube where the videos start after a commercial, and there are typically always indirect links to other commercial activities for these so-called "non-profit organizations". Count Iblis (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone has compiled a list of the "top 100 nonprofit organizations" at https://topnonprofits.com/lists/best-nonprofits-on-the-web/.
    —Wavelength (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to all of you. I'm slogging through looking at most of these websites and hadn't imagined there's so much stuff (good and bad) on the internet. Keep more suggestions coming, especially if they are about large websites that distribute educational material (broadly defined), are nonprofits, and reach a mass audience. Budgets between $10-$100 million wouldn't hurt either. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You can cast a wider net with these links, and then you can use your own methods for narrowing down your search.
    (Incidentally, some editors may find that editing articles about non-profit organizations can be more satisfying than editing articles about big corporations.)
    —Wavelength (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC) and 00:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    DuckDuckGo has search results for "most cost-efficient nonprofit organizations".
    —Wavelength (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    DuckDuckGo has search results for "most cost-effective nonprofit organizations".
    —Wavelength (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you can try variations of the two aforementioned searches, by using different search engines (Category:Internet search engines) or different search terms (for example, "most good for your charitable dollar", "most beneficial charitable organizations", "charities that give the most value for money").
    —Wavelength (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You can investigate microfinance and related topics and categories.
    —Wavelength (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The company iFixit (https://www.ifixit.com, archived at http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.ifixit.com) provides free online manuals for fixing things, so it has economic and environmental benefits. (Maybe the Wikimedia Foundation can use some of its money-saving, earth-saving manuals. Maybe it has done so already.) The article "iFixit" is categorized in categories where you can search for other organizations.
    —Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ordinal numbers in dates: No

    Template:Formerly

    MOS:BADDATE admonishes us that we should not use ordinal numbers in dates on here. So February 5th is out, and February 5 is fine. So why then am I getting a watchlist notice saying: "The 2017 WikiCup begins on January 1, 2017. Signups are open until February 5th." ?? Not the first time I've seen stuff like this. Kinda hard to enforce an MOS when Wikipedia powers violate it, no? So what's it to be : cardinal numbers only or cardinal and ordinal numbers? Numerous wikignome pedants are eagerly awaiting your guidance in these dark and troubling post-Solstice times. Valenciano (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am revising the heading of this section from Consistency? to Ordinal numbers in dates: No, in harmony with WP:TPOC (point 11: Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents. (Please see also the fifth point listed at WP:MOS#Article titles, headings, and sections.)
    —Wavelength (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    At 00:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC), I posted these comments: "Also, I suggest that other editors copyedit pages in non-article namespaces. Those pages have a more official nature, and a mistake there can mislead editors to imitating the same mistake." (User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 166#Copyediting is tedious but lasts)
    —Wavelength (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that no one misinterprets the word "No" in the new heading as indicating an imperious tone on my part. I added that word because I wanted to avoid the possibility of a half-attentive reader misinterpreting the heading as indicating that they were required. In retrospect, I wish that I had omitted it, but I do not wish to change the heading again. I was not trying to boss anyone around (which can be counterproductive).
    —Wavelength (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The watchlist notice now uses the form "February 5".
    —Wavelength (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For discussing Wikipedia:Watchlist notices (and maybe watchlist notices themselves), there is Wikipedia talk:Watchlist notices.
    —Wavelength (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valenciano: I guess you were right about the 'wikignome pedants' eh :) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Allow FFD discussions to be closed as delete via NAC

    Hello, Jimbo. There is an ongoing proposal to allow non-admins to close FFD discussions. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Tip of the day

    This is to inform or remind editors that they can use Wikipedia:Tip of the day to learn or re-learn "daily advice about how to use or develop Wikipedia more effectively".
    —Wavelength (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy New Year, Jimbo Wales!

       Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

    Happy New Year, Jimbo Wales!

       Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

    --5 albert square (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy New Year, Jimbo Wales!

       Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

    Happy New Year, Jimbo Wales!

       Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=757826898

    Leave a Reply