402:
708:
of a puff piece. That said, I agree with this article's implication and the deleted wiki article's statements (viewing deleted articles is the best part of being an admin) - while "participatory grantmaking" might be a neologism that pretty much only
Lafayette uses, it does seem like the idea, sans name, is a real thing that's been around for a while, and Wikimedia might be one of the larger(est) organizations to use it, under whatever terminology. Unsurprisingly, this leaves me thinking the same thing I usually do with a Kohs report- he has once again turned a molehill into a mountain, and found malicious conspiracy in otherwise minor coincidences. About what I usually expect from a guy who has carried a 5+-year grudge for Knowledge not letting him carry out his paid editing work unimpeded. --
994:- Do you imagine that the good reporting here was enhanced by the reporters' access to responsive commentary from the Wikimedia Foundation staff? It's not really fair to critique Mr. Kohs' reporting when the subjects refuse to reply from their lofty (and "open and transparent") perches. What would you suggest Kohs do, in order to regain access to the Foundation's communications channels? Grovel? Apologize for past misdeeds? Or, do you imagine as I do, that the Foundation would never re-open dialogue with Mr. Kohs, no matter what, because he is simply too talented at spotting embarrassing misdeeds of the Foundation and its affiliates? -
1174:
working on their own time, and an attempt to create an article about a marketing buzzword phrase that didn't turn out to be of sufficient quality-- all happening when a key employee is leaving for health reasons. This does not sound like something over-the-top nefarious; it sounds more like PR people who are trying to puff the organization up while they are struggling to keep up with their workload. Not saying there's nothing to criticize-- but rather pointing out that we do need a WMF staff, and throwing tomatoes at them every chance we get is "not cricket," it is unsportsmanlike. --
94:
741:. Kohs endeavored from the start to disclose every one of his paid clients and suffer the community's decision-making process on any of his content submissions. Jimmy Wales said that was unacceptable, encouraging Kohs instead to post content on his own site, then let other Wikipedians copy it over to Knowledge, even if that meant the risk of losing proper attribution for the content. Then two months later, Wales reneged on even that small compromise. You do a disservice with your descriptions of Kohs, especially in a forum where he is not permitted to respond. -
737:- It seems rather unfair to label Kohs in this way. If the Wikimedia Foundation were to respond to his requests for comment prior to his authoring news stories, then certainly fewer molehills would turn into mountains in his mind. It speaks volumes that the Wikimedia Blog editors won't even publish a comment of his on their blogs. How is that "open and transparent"? As for your theory that his grudge is "for Knowledge not letting him carry out his paid editing work unimpeded", it sounds like you don't even know the history of
169:
595:
121:
111:
341:âtheir initial exploration of participatory grantmaking, created in April 2014 without funding or input from the WMF. He thought that the WMF's grantmaking structure had "interesting parallels" with funders in the human rights space, or what was described in the Lafayette report. On finding that the English Knowledge had no article on the topic, he composed the majority of the article in his hotel room that night and saved it the next afternoon, Eastern time.
1250:
financially benefitting from its relationship with WMF or from the creation of a new semi-proprietary concept. He's not a WMF employee, glorifying their employer with a blog post sourced out through blatant
Citeogenesis... He's just a dude who is pissed at the hypocrisy of him being banned while WMF employees and paid PR peeps flout common sense by distorting WP content for their own betterment. So, I respectfully suggest: try again.
37:
131:
91:
141:
911:
survived a full-length debate in any event. I for one am glad that Mr. Kohs is keeping an eye focused on WMF and their waaaaaaaaay too cozy relationship with paid consultants and professional service suppliers and the tendency for these (not just in this case, but in general) to manipulate WP content while at the same time engaging in a business relationship with WMF. Kudos also to the
101:
1082:
sore thumb). I am also concerned that some of them appear to have many "group decisions" made by a group of "1", and that some give out as little as 25% of their budget. In short, the report was not quite ready for prime time, and the
Knowledge article seems all too much like an effort to burnish the report's shine. If one does not have some
498:, was used as the main source in Bartov's Knowledge article and did not have any WMF involvement. She also discounted Kohs' central assertion, that "the Lafayette Practice 'owns' the trade term 'participatory grantmaking', and the Wikimedia Foundation solidified the consultant's lock on that term by authoring a Knowledge article about it":
1362:
one might look for an existing article on a broader topic that encompasses the subject, to which some brief notes about this aspect might be added. Otherwise the article is prone to be so narrowly focused on one firm's view that neutrality is elusive. A narrow frame is always an attractive place to hang coats.
335:, the WMF's chief communications officer, and Bartov told us so, and we were able to independently confirm this. The conference was Bartov's first chance to attend a professional grantmaking forum in his then-new position as Head of WMF Project and Event Grants, and he took note of Lafayette's presentation of
1173:
A more tactful variant, as I agree with the above poster that it is important for WMF staff to brave both the UX and the community. Without reading thoroughly and in detail: a PR piece that needed more proofreading and more thorough research, a decision to declare yourself/your client a winner, staff
273:
by
Wikimedia Foundation staff in their capacity as Wikimedia volunteer editors. This was done on their own time, using their personal editor accounts." Kohs questioned the validity of this statement and further accused Bartov of deliberately neglecting to declare the conflict of interest between the
1144:
wow, is that the best you can do? it's face-palms all the way down. should WMF editors now check in with wpcrazy to edit their work? if they don't eat the cooking, then they will be even more detached from the UX. how many people you wanna get fired? is the gotcha wpcrazy adding to the battleground,
1081:
I have problems where a survey produces a graph from as few as "2 responses", produces graphs from varying numbers of responses where the results are clearly not validly comparable, and releases a "study" which was not even proof-read (graph showing $ 21 million "average" budget in 2011 is clearly a
893:
Note that I used brackets plus spaces rather than quotation marks. Quotation marks give you a different result if you include them or not, leading to awkward "without the quotes" instructions. Square brackets (plus spaces so they are not interpreted as wikinarkup) work the same on Google whether you
707:
Hats off to the editors; this is some actual in-depth journalism, of far better quality than most "newspapers" of comparable staff and readership. As to the content, if
Lafayette only created a sample size of 8 before deciding Wikimedia is the biggest one of this category then their report was a bit
220:
in the 2009 WMF Board of
Trustees election. He alleged that the WMF hired Lafayette, which he believes has "basically adopted the phrase 'participatory grantmaking' as a proprietary discussion point," and paid the research firm to declare the WMF as the "winner of sorts in the category it was hired
910:
I nominated the piece for deletion; I didn't think it was a GNG pass looking at it. I'm a little disappointed that process wasn't followed and that the AfD debate was snowed shut so fast â it opens the door for
Deletion Review doing that sort of thing â but it doesn't seem that the piece would have
378:
I would welcome concrete criticism of the article text I composed; I note Kohs did not actually claim the article failed to discuss its subject in a neutral way. I took care that from the very first revision the article did not present the practice as an unalloyed good, stressing that the benefits
288:
So, in short, Kohs alleges that there are two separate but related problems within the WMF's transactions with the
Lafayette Group. First and foremost, the report's questionable metrics raise questions as to the expectations set down by the WMF. Second, did Bartov create a Knowledge article with an
1361:
To avoid this pitfall one might search for other works on the field (which the firm's 12014 paper avers has "proliferated over the past several decades") that do not use the same terminology. Failing that (supposing the same paper is correct that "there has been little research or documentation"),
966:
I hope the irony of Kohs' complaining about "conflict of interest" is sharpened by the good reporting here. These types of errors (and let us hope they are errors) are common in the leading articles posted on
Wikipediocracy, even those written by somewhat more thoughtful authors. The groupthink
834:
I'm not arguing anything about whether Kohs should have been allowed to do open-air paid editing work on
Knowledge (I'm actually fine with that, given sensible restrictions). I'm saying that, when they said he (you) couldn't, most rational people would have been annoyed/angry, sure, but then they
196:
themselves as "spanning 50 years of deeply engaged experience solving the complex problems that foundations and nonprofit organizations encounter." This report, funded and commissioned by the WMF, grandly noted that it is by far the largest participatory grantmaker in the world. As defined by the
180:
has declared that the Wikimedia Foundation is the "largest known participatory grantmaking fund," but several concerns have been raised with their report, the phrase being used (participatory grantmaking), the now-former Knowledge article on that phrase, and an alleged conflict of interest by WMF
1354:
Re. "concrete criticism of the article text I composed":Â Granting the avowed intention to document rather than to promote, there is a serious drawback to adopting the buzzword/neologism of some research consultancy as the title and frame for constructing an article. There is a strong tendency,
364:
Given all of this, we directly asked Bartov about the possibility of a conflict of interest, both in regards to the WMFâLafayette relationship and within the WMF itself. He told us that he was not aware of any relationshipâpotential or realâbetween the two organizations at the time he wrote the
1301:
May I say something that is slightly tangential to this story? I can't help pointing out one obvious problem in Lafayette's report: their assumption of a black line etched between so-called participatory and non-participatory grantmaking. In the UK, the EPSRC, at least for some schemes, allows
365:
article. Had this been otherwise, he wrote in no uncertain terms that he "would not have created the article at the time, given its strong dependence on first report as a source." Furthermore, he did not edit the article at any time after being interviewed by Lafayette in London at Wikimania.
1249:
I'm really not following you there... Kohs has his business, such as it is (it's a really small fish in a big ocean) and he's still pissed that he tried to be a good guy and Jimmy Wales personally banned him off way back when. Long grudge and so forth... Still, he's not associated the PR firm
1306:
it goes to the selection committee. This and similar bodies have enormous spends compared with WMF grantmaking, and this does rather suggest that the distinction is not simpleâperhaps even not useful. Against this, some grantmaking bodies conduct their processes strictly at arm's length from
392:
From the WMF, Maher strongly rejected the notion that there was a conflict of interest in this case; in their view, WMF staffersâin their personal capacities, with the goals of Knowledge in mindâcontributed to the article and were never directed to do so by their supervisors or anyone else.
344:
It is unclear whether the WMF had already contracted with the Lafayette Practice at this time. With recent changes within the WMF's grantmaking department's structure, Maher was not able to provide an exact date of when the WMF commissioned Lafayette to write the report. Publicly available
507:
The Lafayette Practice may have written the source that is most easily discoverable online at the moment, but they did not develop the concept. Adoption of the term 'Participatory Grantmaking' may be relatively recent among the philanthropic community, but the concept is well-established.
30:
Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm: A report from the external research firm Lafayette Practice has declared that the Wikimedia Foundation is the "largest known participatory grantmaking fund." Several concerns have been raised with the report, the phrase being used
670:
550:: The Knowledge Library, Grantmaking (now "Community Resources"), Learning and Evaluation, the Knowledge Education Program, Community Advocacy, and Community Liaison WMF staff are now combined in the "Community Engagement" Department under new Senior Director of Community Engagement
1111:
for ever including examiner.com on the blacklist at all, seem to me to be exceedingly weak, especially since the nominator for the blacklisting admits that he was "not aware of any concerted spam campaign", and not to meet the criteria for listing currently given in
114:
1335:
Thank you for your comment. This is the sort of article focus that would help those of us who are not non-profit or philanthropic professionals understand a little more about the issues involved with grantmaking, and the pros and cons of different approaches.
189:
839:
complaining about Knowledge, writing articles about invented conspiracies about Knowledge, trying to self-promote at Knowledge conferences, and bitterly complaining in any venue that would have him/you that Wikimedia won't return your calls any more.
467:
383:(i.e. by the practitioners), and including shortcomings and challenges. ⌠I wrote the article entirely of my own volition neither instructed to by, nor discussing my intention with, anyone else before I posted it directly to mainspace.
134:
368:
On the potential for an internal conflict of interest within the WMF itself, he wrote that he was aware of a potential for breaching the conflict of interest policy and therefore avoided mentioning the organization in his article.
104:
762:
As he has been banned for egregious violations of our rules, including vicious personal attacks, it would be unfair to say that he is being denied a chance to respond. He can just do it elsewhere, which he does all the time, at
144:
303:
My goal was not to promote WMF's practice, or even the general practice, but to document it, in a fair and NPOV way. I still think I achieved that. Indeed, I would welcome concrete criticism of the article text I composed.
932:
269:
One day after the blog post was published, most likely in response to the criticism, the WMF added a disclaimer to its piece. In part, it stated that "the Knowledge article on Participatory Grantmaking was written in part
1309:
I haven't read the Lafayette report properly, but it looks as though they weren't given a tight brief for critically focusing on the weaknesses and opportunities for improving outcomes of the WMF's grantmaking schemes.
1264:
If Kohs' article miraculously convinces the Knowledge community that his ban was hypocritical and unwarranted, and it is then overturned, he clearly stands to benefit financially. Thus he has a conflict of interest.
1302:
applicants to contact them for advice on framing their research funding applications. I believe that applicants typically receive feedback on their budget from the grantmaking organisation, and modify their budget,
474:
last year, which contains a total of eight non-profit organizations. For a neologism with such a wide scope, it is inevitable that a plethora of similar grantmaking models have been missed. For example, as noted by
460:
1208:
who first raised the point about how maintaining a more professional tone with GLAMs is important for GLAM and WMF staff discussing partnerships-- something the average editors here don't necessarily realize.
396:
431:, the base concepts of "participatory grantmaking"âwhich was only used as a single term starting after 2008âhave been around for several decades under a myriad of different terms. The concept has roots in
228:
by others before Lafayette, very few besides Lafayette and the WMF use it. Google search results reveal more than half of all mentions presently found online are related to Lafayette and/or Wikimedia.
197:
blog post, participatory grantmaking attempts to "include representatives from the population that the funding will serve in the grantmaking process and in decisions about how funds are allocated."
784:
I don't doubt that with 21 edits, something strange is going on, but the SP has traditionally taken a very liberal approach when it comes to article comments to avoid the appearance of censorship.
327:
s inquiries, Kohs's assumption that Bartov created the article at his WMF desk was erroneous, as Bartov created the Knowledge article while he was in New York City attending the 2014
281:, Kohs noted that given a "typical Wednesday workday," Bartov would have edited at 10:25am, 1:00pm, 1:09pm and 1:39pm (Pacific Time/San Francisco). He charged that "the substantial
77:
231:
Kohs stated that based on his analysis of the page history of the Knowledge article on participatory grantmaking, almost all of the page had been authored by a WMF staffer,
1145:
rather than helping to change the dysfunctional culture? should that not be the goal? there is legitimate criticism of the WMF, that is not advanced by such a hatchet-job.
266:, the author of the Wikimedia blog post, edited the articleâs talk page from July 23 through August 25, 2014, listing other grantmakers including the Wikimedia Foundation.
1074:
1136:
1041:
779:
685:
1050:
788:
350:
262:, contributed minor edits to the article that day and the next, respectively; Opinenow returned to the article on July 23 for some further copyedits. Both Opinenow and
240:
1154:
875:
654:
292:
1218:
1168:
1108:
808:
522:
1374:
1288:
1274:
1259:
1003:
959:
903:
853:
750:
1345:
634:
494:
On the relationship between the WMF and Lafayette, Maher wrote that they hired the firm based on a Lafayette Practice report released in April 2014. The document,
124:
1240:
1183:
1095:
924:
185:
793:
In exchange, I don't think it's too much to ask that if he's allowed to comment here, we don't have this farce of him referring to himself in the third person.
649:
217:
1325:
644:
582:
573:
629:
1200:
Tangential comment, in response to "should WMF editors now check in with wpcrazy to edit their work?" This is precisely one of the topics at issue in the
411:, was not). On page eleven, it declares that the WMF is the "largest known participatory grantmaking fund" based on a sample of eight other organizations.
612:
439:, Brazil in the 1980s and has since spread to Asia, Europe, and North America. Lafayette points to the 1970s formation of the Funding Exchange, which "
448:
1389:
721:
71:
606:
56:
45:
639:
353:
eight WMF staffers: the earliest edit mentioning Lafayette came on July 22, when Alex Wang, the WMF's Project and Event Grants Program Officer,
427:) prior to about 2009, the phrase had never been written in any book or any academic paper." Despite having many traits of a trendy, in-vogue
405:
The second of two reports produced by the Lafayette Practice on participatory grantmaking was commissioned and paid for by the WMF (the first,
158:
967:
there, though the individual creeds may vary, is pretty plain to see, and detracts from what could be a useful critical tool. All the best:
624:
354:
1442:
659:
401:
31:(participatory grantmaking), the now-former Knowledge article on that phrase, and an alleged conflict of interest by WMF staff members.
690:
480:
345:
information indicates that it was sometime before the London Wikimania conference in August 2014, where the research group presented
1231:
Does anyone else find it ironic that the only person mentioned in this article with an actual conflict of interest is Greg Kohs?
697:
21:
443:
to provide long-term institutional support for grassroots social justice movement-building work" in the United States until it
1417:
674:
1201:
1412:
1407:
459:. These go back to at least 2010, and the WMF has been using the term to describe its approach to grantmaking since at least
1131:
201:
1402:
867:
470:
on the WMF, they declare that it is the "largest known participatory grantmaking fund" based purely on the sample it
466:
All that being said, there is cause for concern with Lafayette's definition of "participatory grantmaking." In their
456:
951:
871:
452:
1103:
I have edited this Signpost article to include a direct link to Kohs's Examiner article, using a URL which,
1397:
1028:
I've reverted a long-time banned editor who responded here. (RF's response below was to the banned editor)
594:
444:
289:
intent to promote WMF goals on participatory grantmaking, the term popularized and most used by Lafayette?
50:
36:
17:
488:
332:
955:
858:
I'm pretty sure Greg does more than criticise Wikimedia. Banning him from that conference was stupid. --
766:
I'll ask the Signpost editors to keep the banned editor's comments off this page, as much as possible.
1008:
I don't imagine anything. Perhaps something both you and Kohs would be wise to emulate. All the best:
361:
on July 28. These are mere days after Bartov created the participatory grantmaking article on July 16.
282:
278:
1070:
1013:
972:
200:
Shortly after the blog post was published, Gregory Kohs, a long-time Wikimedia critic, published an
1127:
1113:
192:
by the Lafayette Practice, a France-based five-person team of philanthropy advisors. The partners
1116:. In any case, it's obviously ridiculous to forbid this Signpost article from linking to Kohs's.
1104:
544:: WMF's Senior Director of Grantmaking has announced her upcoming departure due to health issues.
432:
936:
This 2009 source gives a nice definition and says it takes place in a number of European cities
239:, his volunteer username and an account he has been editing with since 2003; he came to the WMF
1150:
863:
564:
440:
937:
225:
915:
for the work of reconstruction of this tangled web. âTim Davenport, Corvallis, OR (USA) ///
313:â Asaf Bartov, speaking about the now-deleted Knowledge article on participatory grantmaking
1423:
1066:
1034:
1010:
989:
969:
888:
Please add an editor's not indicating that a Google search for finds the page in question.
772:
540:
358:
328:
248:
8:
1370:
1122:
1025:
999:
947:
899:
756:
746:
232:
1356:
1341:
1214:
1179:
801:
224:
This may be correct, in part: while the term "participatory grantmaking" was certainly
154:
285:
he ... created is highly unlikely to have been produced only on personal break time."
1284:
1270:
1255:
1236:
1146:
1091:
920:
859:
681:
551:
208:
alleging misconduct on the part of WMF staffers, specifically regarding Knowledge's
338:
Who Decides? How Participatory Granting Benefits Donors, Communities, and Movements
263:
244:
471:
406:
336:
1320:
1029:
847:
767:
715:
555:
532:
484:
193:
1366:
1164:
995:
939:
895:
829:
742:
526:
424:
254:
Two other Knowledge editors whose user pages identified them as WMF staffers,
1436:
1337:
1210:
1175:
1047:
794:
785:
259:
209:
447:
in 2013. Entities that have used "participatory grantmaking" itself include
1280:
1266:
1251:
1232:
1087:
916:
436:
420:
205:
168:
1279:
I don't think Carrite said he doesn't - just that he's not the only one.
1313:
842:
732:
710:
255:
177:
1307:
applicants, which has a different set of advantages and disadvantages.
1205:
1160:
738:
428:
236:
213:
162:
521:
inquiry by press time. The article on participatory grantmaking was
357:
them to the Wikimania schedule. Lafayette followed this with a
397:"Participatory grantmaking" and the WMFâLafayette relationship
1359:
for the firm's views, subjects, and/or (subsequent) clients.
525:
on February 25 and deleted less than 24 hours later per the
759:
I've reverted a long-time banned editor who responded here.
1046:
As per my comment above, I've restored the comment above.
835:
would have found something else to do, rather than spend
1065:
This is a superb bit of writing. Kudos to all involved.
72:
Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm
251:. He is now the head of WMF Project and Event Grants.
1355:
whether intended or not, for the article to become a
558:
has been promoted to Director of Community Resources.
487:
in 2013. The WMF, in comparison, disbursed less than
415:
Kohs wrote "You may never have heard of this phrase,
463:âwell before the two reports authored by Lafayette.
695:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
554:, who was previously WMF's Deputy General Counsel.
293:
COI concerns surround now-deleted Knowledge article
1434:
235:. Bartov created the page on July 16, 2014 with
152:
931:"Participatory grant" used in 2005 textbook
517:The Lafayette Practice did not respond to a
1202:proposed merger of Outreach Wiki into Meta
331:conference, held on July 15 and 16. Both
216:, is a banned Knowledge editor and was a
1084:statistically useful number of responses
567:. SUL finalization is planned for April.
400:
329:International Human Rights Funders Group
167:
1107:, circumvents the spam blacklist. The
698:
212:guideline. Kohs, founder and owner of
14:
1435:
55:
29:
500:
435:, which started as an experiment in
371:
296:
1443:Knowledge Signpost archives 2015-02
27:
593:
57:
35:
28:
1454:
680:These comments are automatically
491:in its 2013/2014 financial year.
457:Center for Effective Philanthropy
379:(largely drawn from report) are
274:WMF and the Lafayette Practice.
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
1390:putting together the next issue
1086:, one does not publish. Alas.
1105:as suggested on Wikipediocracy
1019:14:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC).
978:10:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC).
691:add the page to your watchlist
548:WMF organization chart changes
184:On February 19 the WMF's blog
13:
1:
1346:12:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1326:06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1289:10:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1275:01:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1260:00:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1241:21:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
1219:12:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1184:03:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1169:20:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
1155:19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
1137:13:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
1096:13:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
1075:11:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
1051:15:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
1042:15:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
1004:13:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
960:07:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
925:05:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
904:05:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
876:15:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
854:19:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
809:17:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
789:15:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
780:14:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
751:13:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
722:05:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
666:
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
1100:
176:The external research firm
10:
1459:
1375:18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
417:participatory grantmaking
311:
419:, because (according to
1159:That's a little harsh.
894:include them or not. --
433:participatory budgeting
688:. To follow comments,
598:
523:nominated for deletion
412:
173:
40:
597:
404:
258:and the pseudonymous
171:
39:
684:from this article's
453:Overbrook Foundation
277:Using the article's
210:conflict of interest
1204:. In fact, it was
675:Discuss this story
655:WikiProject report
599:
586:"News and notes" â
449:Harvard University
413:
178:Lafayette Practice
174:
46:â Back to Contents
41:
1135:
1020:
979:
807:
699:purging the cache
565:are now available
562:Global user pages
515:
514:
390:
389:
318:
317:
283:amount of content
221:to investigate."
188:the release of a
51:View Latest Issue
1450:
1426:
1388:needs your help
1323:
1318:
1125:
1037:
1018:
993:
977:
944:
850:
845:
833:
804:
799:
797:
775:
736:
718:
713:
702:
700:
694:
673:
635:Featured content
617:
609:
607:25 February 2015
602:
585:
578:"News and notes"
577:
541:Anasuya Sengupta
501:
372:
326:
314:
297:
249:Wikimedia Israel
245:Hebrew Knowledge
241:in February 2011
165:
143:
142:
133:
132:
123:
122:
113:
112:
103:
102:
93:
92:
63:
61:
59:
58:25 February 2015
1458:
1457:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1422:
1420:
1415:
1410:
1405:
1400:
1393:
1382:
1381:
1321:
1314:
1141:
1067:Maury Markowitz
1040:
1035:
990:Rich Farmbrough
987:
940:
848:
843:
827:
802:
795:
778:
773:
730:
716:
711:
704:
696:
689:
678:
677:
671:+ Add a comment
669:
665:
664:
663:
650:Recent research
610:
605:
603:
600:
589:
588:
583:
580:
575:
535:
399:
333:Katherine Maher
324:
312:
295:
181:staff members.
166:
151:
150:
149:
140:
130:
120:
110:
100:
90:
84:
81:
70:
66:
64:
54:
53:
48:
42:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1456:
1446:
1445:
1421:
1416:
1411:
1406:
1401:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1384:
1383:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1330:
1329:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1244:
1243:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1140:
1139:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1114:the guidelines
1099:
1098:
1078:
1077:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1032:
1021:
982:
981:
980:
963:
962:
934:
928:
927:
907:
906:
890:
889:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
770:
764:
760:
725:
724:
679:
676:
668:
667:
662:
657:
652:
647:
645:Traffic report
642:
637:
632:
627:
622:
620:News and notes
616:
604:
592:
591:
590:
581:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
559:
545:
534:
531:
513:
512:
509:
505:
485:$ 13.9 million
481:Colorado Trust
477:Wikipediocracy
425:Google Scholar
398:
395:
388:
387:
384:
376:
316:
315:
309:
308:
305:
301:
294:
291:
148:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
74:
73:
69:News and notes
68:
67:
65:
62:
49:
44:
43:
34:
33:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1455:
1444:
1441:
1440:
1438:
1425:
1419:
1414:
1409:
1404:
1399:
1391:
1387:
1377:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1363:
1358:
1353:
1352:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1328:
1327:
1324:
1319:
1317:
1312:
1305:
1300:
1299:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1229:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1121:
1120:
1115:
1110:
1109:reasons given
1106:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1063:
1052:
1049:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1038:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1022:
1016:
1015:
1012:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1001:
997:
991:
986:
985:
984:
983:
975:
974:
971:
965:
964:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
943:
938:
935:
933:
930:
929:
926:
922:
918:
914:
909:
908:
905:
901:
897:
892:
891:
887:
886:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
856:
855:
852:
851:
846:
838:
831:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
810:
805:
798:
792:
791:
790:
787:
783:
782:
781:
776:
769:
765:
761:
758:
754:
753:
752:
748:
744:
740:
734:
729:
728:
727:
726:
723:
720:
719:
714:
706:
705:
701:
692:
687:
683:
672:
661:
658:
656:
653:
651:
648:
646:
643:
641:
638:
636:
633:
631:
628:
626:
623:
621:
618:
614:
608:
601:In this issue
596:
587:
579:
566:
563:
560:
557:
556:Siko Bouterse
553:
549:
546:
543:
542:
539:Departure of
537:
536:
530:
528:
527:"snow" clause
524:
520:
510:
506:
503:
502:
499:
497:
492:
490:
486:
482:
478:
473:
469:
468:recent report
464:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
410:
409:
403:
394:
385:
382:
377:
374:
373:
370:
366:
362:
360:
356:
352:
348:
342:
340:
339:
334:
330:
323:
310:
306:
302:
299:
298:
290:
286:
284:
280:
275:
272:
267:
265:
261:
257:
252:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
229:
227:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
198:
195:
191:
187:
182:
179:
170:
164:
160:
156:
155:Go Phightins!
146:
138:
136:
128:
126:
118:
116:
108:
106:
98:
96:
88:
87:
79:
60:
52:
47:
38:
23:
19:
1386:The Signpost
1385:
1364:
1360:
1315:
1311:
1308:
1303:
1147:Duckduckstop
1123:David Wilson
1083:
1026:WP:REVERTBAN
1009:
968:
941:
912:
860:Anthonyhcole
841:
836:
757:WP:REVERTBAN
709:
630:In the media
619:
613:all comments
561:
547:
538:
518:
516:
496:Who Decides?
495:
493:
476:
465:
437:Porto Alegre
421:Google Books
416:
414:
407:
391:
380:
367:
363:
347:Who Decides?
346:
343:
337:
321:
319:
287:
279:edit history
276:
271:
268:
253:
243:through the
230:
223:
206:Examiner.com
199:
183:
175:
1424:Suggestions
1357:WP:COATRACK
682:transcluded
489:$ 6 million
408:Who Decides
351:interviewed
256:Jessie Wild
233:Asaf Bartov
172:Asaf Bartov
1030:Smallbones
1014:Farmbrough
973:Farmbrough
768:Smallbones
552:Luis Villa
483:disbursed
455:, and the
349:again and
83:Share this
78:Contribute
22:2015-02-25
1418:Subscribe
1367:Ningauble
1206:User:Ijon
1036:smalltalk
996:WilmingMa
942:Doc James
896:Guy Macon
830:WilmingMa
774:smalltalk
743:WilmingMa
739:MyWikiBiz
686:talk page
445:shut down
429:neologism
381:perceived
320:Based on
264:Katy Love
218:candidate
214:MyWikiBiz
190:new study
1437:Category
1413:Newsroom
1408:Archives
1338:Djembayz
1211:Djembayz
1176:Djembayz
952:contribs
913:Signpost
868:contribs
796:Gamaliel
576:Previous
533:In brief
519:Signpost
461:May 2013
322:Signpost
260:Opinenow
194:describe
186:extolled
159:The ed17
125:LinkedIn
105:Facebook
20: |
1322:(talk)
1281:Squinge
1267:Kaldari
1252:Carrite
1233:Kaldari
1088:Collect
917:Carrite
837:8 years
763:length.
640:Gallery
472:created
202:article
115:Twitter
1304:before
479:, the
451:, the
441:worked
161:, and
135:Reddit
95:E-mail
1403:About
956:email
872:email
733:PresN
625:Op-ed
359:tweet
355:added
16:<
1398:Home
1371:talk
1342:talk
1316:Tony
1285:talk
1271:talk
1256:talk
1237:talk
1215:talk
1180:talk
1165:talk
1161:Gigs
1151:talk
1132:cont
1128:talk
1092:talk
1071:talk
1024:Per
1011:Rich
1000:talk
970:Rich
948:talk
921:talk
900:talk
864:talk
844:Pres
803:talk
755:Per
747:talk
712:Pres
660:Blog
584:Next
423:and
247:and
237:Ijon
226:used
163:Pine
145:Digg
874:)
204:on
153:By
80:â
1439::
1373:)
1365:~
1344:)
1336:--
1287:)
1273:)
1258:)
1239:)
1217:)
1209:--
1182:)
1167:)
1153:)
1130:¡
1094:)
1073:)
1048:Ed
1017:,
1002:)
976:,
958:)
954:¡
950:¡
923:)
902:)
870:¡
866:¡
840:--
786:Ed
749:)
574:â
529:.
511:â
504:â
386:â
375:â
307:â
300:â
157:,
1392:.
1369:(
1340:(
1283:(
1269:(
1254:(
1235:(
1213:(
1178:(
1163:(
1149:(
1134:)
1126:(
1090:(
1069:(
1039:)
1033:(
998:(
992::
988:@
946:(
919:(
898:(
862:(
849:N
832::
828:@
806:)
800:(
777:)
771:(
745:(
735::
731:@
717:N
703:.
693:.
615:)
611:(
325:'
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
