Revision as of 22:35, 8 July 2009

My new strategy - remove comments after responding to them. Hope it works! (thanks to Ward for the idea)
(see history of this page)

here

Cats on loose

I'll send you the details in excel once i've finish taking samples (current est. 4500 samples), 1000 of which i've finished. Some early analysis that I can gather:

• 152,445 is the # of cats, 13,949 of which doesn't start with A-Z
• 283.37 is the avg. # of articles in a cat
• 96.03% of the cats have no human edit
• 94.13 is the avg. # of page views per cat
• 91.88% of the cats have no WikiCategories (Intersect)
• 0.33 is the number of pageview/#ofArticle, which means roughly 1 view / 3 articles
• 12.56% of the cats should be deleted.
• Categories with high pageviews like CD, Clothes, Casino, Amazon Associates Program, and Debt Consolidation are potential for ads, while those already with ads like Content Management Systems, Business Consulting, Communication Training doesn't have that high of pageviews.

– (-_-)V cats the web bennylin (talk • cont) 17:14, 18 September 2008 (PDT)

The pages that are automatically linked to this category are mostly fixed already... :) – (-_-)V cats the web bennylin (talk • cont) 18:44, 18 September 2008 (PDT)

WIki Boxes

Hi Mark, its good to hear from you. I looked at you link for wiki boxes but I guess I don't follow how that would work for my pages? Maybe I don't understand the functionality.

David Braden

Please help

Hello Mark,

The user kennysams is still spamming my aboutus page with text agaisn't me and multiple links of his site. I think I've been quite tolerant enough, and have even encouraged people to view his link to understand that he is lying.

Now that he has his own aboutus page for his defamation and libel of my website, can't I have my page how I like, and he have his page how he like? That seems fair enough.

After all, why should I allow a defamer to ruin the page that is about my website with blatant lies?

I would think a simple external link to his page should be sufficient.

How long must I put up with this person editing my page? He has his own page now, I could care less what he does with that.

Mark, you said on my talk page that I was allowed to leave a brief critique and a wiki link to the page. I did just that and the admin of freeofferspot removed it. I even told him that you said it was ok, but he continues to ignore it and go back to his old postings.

The admin of that site is not being tolerant with how WE SETTLED this situation back in the past. He left the link and review of the site be up for awhile, but a couple weeks after he quietly reverted everything back. How is that not being sneaky? We settled this back in the past, but the admin wants to go back to his way quietly.

Multiple links? It was one link to the site, and I used the Influence Us part to cross-link to the aboutus page of the site. As a matter of fact, he used the Influence Us on our aboutus page TWICE before we even did. Not only that, but he also left a huge joke on the page, which we were forced to remove b/c we returned the gesture with how he was removing our small truth.

AboutUs is a wiki, with contributions from people about a site, and how it relates to it. Why should the site discriminate with "each person have their page" like the admin of the site says? Am I not understanding the mission statement of the site by allowing people to read the other side of the site?

The stuff posted about his site is not blatant lies, suggesting it is posted by his competitor. He always likes to mitigate blame towards someone, and he picked one of his competitors to do so. The truth about is site is posted, proved by evidence. How is that lies?

New Wiki Site

Please check your emails, I'm looking forward to your response, cheers NathanJ 03:59, 18 April 2009 (PDT)

Have you had a chance to talk with Ray King about the new wiki idea, I'm excited about this and look forward to discussing it further NathanJ ^(talk)

OpenLetter WikiNomicsOnTrailfire

Dear Mark, I have written a hopefully groundbreaking open letter to the CEO and CTO of Trailfire.com: WikiNomicsOnTrailfire, where I promised to notify RayKing and WardCunningham (done). As I noticed in the last minute, that Trailfire is not for commercial use, I spent all the night to find the right arguments to convince Trailfire to open their social software to WikiNomics in the same way, as MySpace has done it and Facebook is going to do it too.

fridemar 20:54, 31 May 2009 (PDT) PS.: By the way I had problems with uploading the promised screenshot, so I put in on my FTP server directory and gave a link at the end. I didn't find a way to embed external images on Aboutus.org.

PPS.: Mark, wouldn't it be nice to map WikiIndex or Aboutus collaboratively with Cmaps. I have just started an initiative Cmaps:CmappersCommunityInitiative fridemar 20:28, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

BiLinkTemplate a misnomer, please correct

Mark, on [[1]] I found in the source part of the wiki page, a BiLink template and thought, somebody had invented a new method to create automatically BiLinks between two "BiLinkable" wikis. Unfortunately it created something different, only a LinkPair. Although I love this template and find it also nice and useful it, nevertheless it dillutes the valuable concept of BiLinks, which are meant to heal the chronical disease of one-way links in the current Web. Wikis have the chance to get BiLinked internally and externally. We shouldn't forget that until we can realize true BiLink templates, which makes it easier for the wikizens to "Weave the Web", at least the sub-Web of all BiLinkable Wikis. So LinkPair gives the correct name for the template.

Best fridemar 15:35, 8 July 2009 (PDT)

PS.: To make this posting persistant, I put it on BiLinkTemplate for two reasons: (a) to keep you talkpage cleanable (b) to make the idea of more powerful templates (with a more powerful template engine) memorable and referable.