I'm the sum of the eighth row of Lozanić's triangle years old! Yay?
Yes, it's true. I'm 72.
Besides being the sum of the eighth row of Lozanić's triangle, 72, my age, is:
the product of two consecutive numbers, 8 and 9.
the sum of four consecutive primes: (13 + 17 + 19 + 23).
the sum of six consecutive primes (5 + 7 + 11 + 13 + 17 + 19).
And a bunch of other stuff besides. Thanks Wikipedia. And that reminded me to make my annual donation, and then to write a G+ post, which I'll quote below and then link to.
Because I just spent a bunch of time writing my G+ post, and then wondered if I could render it, and then spent a bunch more time actually rendering it and making it look the way that I wanted to.
And because I'm the sum of the eighth row of Lozanić's triangle years old, and when you're that old, and it's your blog, then you get to do what you want--providing Blogger lets you do it.
And it does. So I did. So there.
How many Wikipedia pages a year do you read? What's each page worth to you? Well, yeah, not that particular page. But on the average? And in aggregate?
For me, a lot, and I hope for you, as well.
It's worth a lot to have a fairly trustworthy resource for information that you care about? Yes, I know it's not always accurate. It's not absolutely trustworthy. And sometimes it's downright lame. And no matter what attempts are made for objectivity there are issues that are so charged that edit wars have broken out, and sanctions threatened against people who misbehave.
For example: Climate Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change) "The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages." Meaning: "Be nice, or we'll cut you off."
Wikipedia is not an anarchy, but a community with rational government based on clearly stated principles. The principles are spelled out as clearly as possible, and evolve as the community learns more. What's it worth having a transparent governance model for a site you rely on?
Yes, there are politics involved. If there are people there will be politics. But the politics are (mostly) polite, and even though I am sure there are some bad actors the ethos of the community is to produce information that is written from a neutral point of view, with verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources:" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars) And that community standard, along with the ability to enforce the standard keeps the politics (mostly) healthy.
The ability to enforce the community standards--that is, to exercise the power of government--is granted to people based on their contribution and the contribution of any Wikipedian can be objectively measured. What's it worth having a government where power is given to people who have objectively demonstrated their commitment and contribution to the community--rather than people whose primary skill is their ability to convince people of their good intentions and to convince people of others' bad intentions?
What's it worth having a laboratory in which his sort of new governance model can be explored and can evolve?
For me it's worth enough to make a substantial money donation every year, and this coming year I intend to back that up with a time contribution.
This is a project I believe is important. This is a community that I believe is earnestly attempting to help us all become more knowledgeable. This an endeavor that I support. It's worth a lot to me.
I hope it is to you as well, and that you will find a way to show your support, financially or otherwise.