- Here are some free comments, on what I understand is a rough early draft.
- You have a couple ideas mixed up that may or may not work together for an editorial. One is the analogy to cancer, which at least at first seems interesting. I and most readers probably have not heard of the "hallmarks of cancer" and if there is an analogy that works here, then maybe you have a good basis for an editorial. But then how exactly do the elements correspond, between cancer and Wikipedia. I saw mention of cell division, and i thought you were going to be addressing the splitting of articles. If you want to comment on growth of Wikipedia, maybe also look in terms of bytes of information or number of articles.
- The checkerboard link explains about exponential growth, but note the article's point is that things can't grow exponentially. The financial information and graphic don't show exponential growth, I don't think. And what is the fear, that financial growth of Wikipedia will take over the economy? The problem with cancer is that it is growth of bad stuff, but I don't see what financial stuff is bad stuff that is growing here. It would be bad financially if assets did not grow, if all the growth was in expenses, say. But the financial growth looks balanced, offhand, to me.
- I wonder if you have some elements for a political cartoon, instead of an editorial article?
- Hope this helps or at least doesn't hurt. cheers, --doncram 04:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are exactly the sort of comments I was looking for. I will rewrite the bit about cell division so it is more clear.
- I like the idea of comparing bytes of information and/or number of articles. Do you know of any page I can cite that have those numbers for 2005 and 2015?
- I also can see that I need to clarify that cancer isn't the growth of bad stuff. It is the ever-increasing growth that makes cancer bad stuff. Take any tissue in the body, no matter how "good", and let it grow exponentially. If it doesn't stop growing It will kill you.
- Again, thanks for the feedback. Try as I might, I just can't see problems in my own work, but when someone else points them out, my reaction is usually "yeah, that's right. I need to fix that." --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who was bold enough to ask you to write this? (You have been saying this for some time, but who in or outside the WMF had the courage to ask you to put this in a semi-official publication?) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- After the discussion in the comments section at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-11-26/Op-ed, Peteforsyth (co-Editor-in-Chief of the Signpost), asked me via email if I was willing to write up an editorial. I responded here:[1] Our latest discussion is at User talk:Peteforsyth#Editorial?. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(The comment below was moved here from User talk:The Quixotic Potato --Guy Macon (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
[2] It may be possible to find a more elegant solution for the sentence about the chessboard problem. I prefer using parentheses inside a sentence (like this). (This looks weird.) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a good idea to mention the discrepancy between the fundraising goal for December 2014 (20 million USD) and the amount that was actually raised (30.6 million USD). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]