463:
just volunteers with no authority to act on behalf of
Knowledge/The Foundation, I'm going to be a little hesitant to work with them. Sort of like when I get emails about some dead person in Nigeria who happened to have the same name as me and now their lawyer needs help getting their funds out of some other foreign country, and I get a cut! One solution I've thought about is that possibly the Foundation in some way could create unpaid volunteer coordinator positions around the country for these types of recruitments. The Foundation could provide an email account and/or business cards for these people to go out and recruit groups (historical societies/think tanks/professional societies) with a more professional/official looking process. Maybe even higher at The Foundation (if one does not already exist) a coordinator that would work with these recruiters, including mailing out more official correspondence using letterhead (for legal reasons I would hesitate on giving unpaid people letterhead as this can be used to for making binding contracts). Then once groups are recruited, WikiProjects could jump in and work with the groups, allowing the recruiter to move on to new conquests. Just an idea.
618:, I desperately felt that registration should be required to edit as it seemed that such a great proportion of vandalism came from IP editors. I've since come to realize thatâon balanceâhelpful anonymous editors contribute more much than IP vandals, particular since about 95% of vandalism is removed with a click or two. Within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, vandals have much less of a chance. Besides each active member having an (apparently) extensive watchlist, we have a group watchlist which shows all changes to pages in our scope. Vandalism is quickly reversed and persistent vandals are quickly recognized and blocked. Flagged revisions are much better suited for lightly watched pages.
486:, which helped bring us together to create the blog. Personally, I think public outreach is one of the most important things we do. Getting out in our communities, both locally and online, shows the human face of Knowledge and makes us seem less monolithic. The more people understand about just how Knowledge works, the more who are willing to engage with us and help build the encyclopedia, rather than just be passive consumers. But the simple fact is that majority of our readers will never edit, and that's okay. If we can invite a few more volunteers and educate a large audience along the way, then that's a success in my eyes.
469:
old professional stuff that is littered with errors, propaganda, boosterism, and myths repeated as facts. We don't need more of that. Now, some of these people are retired academics or used to work in fields related to history and have adequate training, but my interactions with some groups didn't give me that feeling. Additionally, many older folks (my parents included) are not as savvy with computers and the internet. I consider myself a pretty good computer person, but it took awhile to get used to how
Knowledge worked just from a user interface/technical standpoint.
543:?). But some of our most prolific contributors are fully engaged in the project without being physically present. Actually, I'd say the biggest social media piece we use is the project talk page. It's a rare day that goes by without some member of the project pointing out an article that needs attention, the discovery of a new resource, or simply the reemergence of a pesky vandal. It seems pretty basic, but the life of a wikiproject really begins to thrive on those talk pages. Until you can get everyone talking there, not much else is going to happen.
457:
but very knowledgeable about their local histories. What's more, and I hate to stereotype, but the most are mainly volunteer organizations and the volunteers are usually retired folks. These people (again to generalize) often have free time on their hands/like to tell stories/have access to many sources and in these respects are perfect recruits for WikiProjects that involve history/biographies and the like. But, I have two obstacles to overcome from
Knowledge standpoint (there is also the personal problem of time).
274:
Johnson Creek and the
Cannabis articles that EncMstr mention were not COTWs to my knowledge, they were collaborations within the project outside of the COTW process. Both are great examples of the collaborative spirit within the project in general, and here I would agree with EncMstr that the GA status (FA for Johnson) has to do with the topic being of interest to those who got involved based on the project's main talk page. Which not surprisingly, cannabis was a big "hit" in Oregon.
261:
participation). Choosing two doubles your chances of enticing participation. Then when choosing each time, I also try to make them diverse to further spread the net. I also try to make them geographically disperse where possible, and also try to rotate between areas within the state and general topics, such as transportation or culture or education, etc. so that on a long-term basis (theoretically) more people will stay involved in the collaboration and hopefully the project as well.
643:
117:
107:
337:
the "what links here" feature, nor what it was useful for, so the dab patrol COTW was more about exposing the newer users to this feature. It also furthered a useful purpose of helping readers find the correct article, while it was also something anyone could easily do and do with minimal time input. Similar with the twice-yearly photo drives. Helps increase image coverage, but also let people know about the reqphoto feature and the associated categories.
767:. You will then provide individual response to the questions. Considering how many people I've asked to participate, I don't expect everyone to answer every question. Feel free to pick and choose those that best suit your skills and interests. Also, you're welcome to respond to each other's comments and not directly to the question. If you don't understand a question or would like me to rephrase it, feel free to add a <!--comment--: -->
571:
Oregon, we do a very good (though not perfect) job of monitoring content, and taking care of issues in humane, non-dramatic fashion. This keeps issues away from the noticeboards, and minimizes their demand on administrators and
Foundation staff. I hope we continue to grow in our ability to handle conflict in a non-bureaucratic, non-technical manner, so it saddens me that we must consider technical solutions like flagged revisions.
33:
127:
322:
help them make their best possible contribution. And on the (hopefully rare) occasions where we come up short, we are not shy about stepping in and telling each other to cool off or take a breather. That's one of the most gratifying things to me, personally -- developing respectful and productive working relationships, and helping one another become both better editors and better community members and leaders.
87:
137:
97:
511:
for in-person engagement, too, if you're creative about it. If you're part of a WikiProject on computer programming, you might find opportunities to let your local tech community know that they have a
Wikipedian in their midst; or you might find that 2 or 3 other programmer Wikipedians in your area want to get together once in a while to discuss your collective work.
526:
organization, just like
Knowledge as a whole. Currently, distributed networking tools our most valuable assets as a group. Since that's the case, I don't think it's outlandish to say that say, the military history project could do more off-site organizing. You just need to go where your community is, either virtually or in physical space.
562:
words, we don't really need a sweeping technical solution, since we've solved most of our problems to date with social innovation. I think most people see flagged revisions as something to solve site-wide problems with biographies of living people and such, and not as something aimed to benefit finite WikiProjects such as our own.
504:
In my time as an editor, I've come to believe that we do our best work when we view
Knowledge as one thread in the rich fabric of our society. I think there's a tendency -- and I've been as guilty of it as anyone -- to sometimes think of our work here as being separate from the rest of the world. But
416:
and advertising the monthly meeting. However, I doubt such a multi-faceted model can easily benefit other WikiProjectsâeven if Pete worked for them: Our extra-wiki enthusiasm is a manifestation of Oregon attitudes, and that's a lot harder to replicate than simply throwing wiki parties or whatever.
327:
Overall, I'd say we take an organic and inclusive approach to content development, rather than trying to make and execute a specific plan for comprehensive coverage. We try to support one another in developing the content we're passionate about, and each of us, in our own way, also tries to make sure
295:
We do these sorts of broad projects, as well as updates to specific articles, both within and outside the context of COTW. I don't think any of us would buy into the notion that any improvement to the encyclopedia is a waste of time; we all come with our personal aspirations for expanded content, but
510:
Certainly, there are opportunities with a geographically-based topic in that it's easier to meet with people in person. But that's just one small aspect of what we do. Engaging with non-Wikipedians with similar interests can be done online, by telephone, etc. And there may be excellent opportunities
468:
Secondly, the abilities/qualifications of these people may not be what we are looking for. The problem with most amateur historians is they are not usually trained in historiography. There is enough mis-information out there in history that we don't need more. Its bad enough when you come across the
403:
I look at it like this: in order to serve an audience, it's essential to be engaged with that audience, explain your work to them, and seek their feedback. And in order to continually do better work, it's important to interact with and learn from others who are doing similar kinds of work. With both
234:
I think taking a rational approach to the collaborations has been a key part of it. For example, before the weekly collaborations started, we spent a long time rating every single article in the project both in terms of importance and in terms of quality. That left a matrix that showed, for example,
456:
I have not been involved with off-Wiki meetings and projects, other than meeting Pete and Katr in person at events where I was able to get some pictures. That said, I have contemplated figuring out a way to reach out to local historical societies. The local county/city level ones are usually small,
273:
I don't see making GA but for the COTW. It had about 30 edits over 3 years until the COTW, and then about 26 during the COTW which led to the GA nom and status. Others, like the
Portland Trail Blazers, I think would eventually make it to GA without the COTW, though the COTW likely spurs this along.
217:
for previous collaborations of the week (COTW).) If the number of active members continues to increase, perhaps the right number would be three at once. I doubt the COTW is responsible for the majority of DYKs and GAsâit's more often something that comes up on the project talk page that strikes a
570:
I agree with Steven. The topic of flagged revision saddens me a bit, because I feel that
Wikipedians on the whole (and particularly in Oregon) are continually getting better at handling undesirable edits, and the hopeful armchair anthropologist in me wants to see where that goes. I believe that in
462:
First, since we are all volunteers, I find it difficult to represent Knowledge. I know if someone came up to me at said "I edit for Knowledge, want to help us and give us lots of free pictures?" I know my first reaction would be something regarding do you work for them? Then if I find out they are
336:
For a lot of them (I'm speaking about the COTW only), it is simply variety again. Wider net=more fish, in theory. With some others, I'm actually trying to educate/expose some of the newer editors to items they may not have encountered or known about. I know when I first started I had no idea about
266:
As to working well and the GAs/DYKs, I do think the COTW does help. In legal terms I think the COTW is the proximate cause, but not necessarily the but for cause. In that the articles that were created during a COTW would likely eventually be created by the same editor, just not at that time. With
491:
4. Pete said that "in order to serve an audience, it's essential to be engaged with that audience". The ability of a project to engage its audience is somewhat diminished when its audience is not as geographically confined as yours. In terms of incorporating external social media into the project
321:
Also, we keep our eyes open for "diamonds in the rough" from inexperienced Knowledge editors. When new people make contributions, they're often unfamiliar with our vast collection of policies, the Manual of Style, and the culture of the community. We do our best to make everyone feel welcome, and
605:
A basic tenet of the Knowledge philosophy is that on the whole, the desire to do good outweighs the desire to vandalize. Therefore, I generally favor policy changes that promote individual transparency and accountability, rather than technical measures that create different levels of ability to
561:
I do not think WikiProject Oregon is really the target of flagged revisions, in terms of where the need is most dire. The most direct benefit of all our organizing both here and offline is that we have good cohesion as a group, and do very well handling any situations that might arise. In other
576:
None of that should be taken to mean that I oppose considering technical changes like flagged revisions. While we're conducting our little encyclopedia experiment, real people and situations are impacted by our edits and by our policies; people's biographies are vandalized, and worse. So doing
349:
polishing a GA to an FA. Clearly both types of editing have value, and most editors agree that developing an article up to class B is near the sweet spot of effectiveness. But, thank goodness we're not all the same: an army of automatons cranking out rote sentences to fulfill our destiny of
768:
to the interview page or leave a note here. I'd like to have this interview ready for either the July 19 or the July 26 edition of the Signpost, so I'll keep posting questions and then see where we are on the 19th. Feel free to edit/expand any response at any time. Don't worry too much about
260:
I chose two to begin with, as EncMstr indicates, to allow for maximum participation. Not everyone will be interested in a certain topic, unless you are really broad in choosing the topic. But the broader the topic, usually the less participation (or at least you have difficulty tracking the
525:
Being organized around a single state doesn't mean we're all always have it easy coordinating real-world events. Many of the most dedicated members of the project are distributed throughout the state, and have a hard time traveling to Portland for our events. But we still use distributed
728:
282:
2. There are those Wikipedians who believe that putting a massive amount of effort into a single article is a waste of time considering how many undeveloped, unreferenced, and nonexistent articles we have. The Oregon COTW occasionally features more widespread cleanups, such as
589:
My friend Danny Horn of Wikia has done research and built a strong case that wiki communities generally benefit from disabling anonymous editing. The significant point, I believe, is that requiring account creation makes it much easier to interact with, welcome, and guide new
363:, and correspondence with other Oregon-related organizations, WikiProject Oregon is unusual in the amount of activity it has off-wiki. How did this off-wiki activity come about? Do you think this multi-faceted project model would benefit other WikiProjects as well?
371:
Without question, these efforts have been very beneficial. We've reached out to local organizations that have nothing to do with wikis, and also immersed ourselves in the broader wiki culture. These efforts have helped us locally, for instance working with the
350:"completing" Knowledge! There are no two similar personalities among WikiProject Oregon. It stands to reason that the COTW must vary in subject, scope, frequency, skills, topic, etc. or we'd be bored, and probably abandon the project and vanish.
598:, which removed the text "You should strongly consider choosing a username that is not connected to you" from the initial signup screen, will have a strong positive impact on the quality of new contributors' experience with Knowledge.
376:
to establish synergy in our work; and they have helped us establish better conditions for Knowledge editing, like winning an important decision at the state legislature to ensures state law is not entangled in unnecessary copyright
110:
212:
was chosen, but it works very well. Usually they are complementaryâfor example a biography and a piece of legislationâso if one article or task is somehow unappealing then the other is likely to be more interesting. (See
660:
823:
Thanks Mom -- Cryptic invited a total of 7 people to participate, at my prompting...but ony 5 of us did. I'll correct that -- can't imagine that would be a problem :) Looking forward to hearing your reflections.
505:
at the core, we base our work in writing an encyclopedia in high quality secondary sources; and engagement with the world that produces that source material is vital to producing the best and most useful content.
593:
I believe we need to do a better job encouraging (but of course not requiring) new editors to use their real names, and to describe their goals and possible conflicts of interest on their user pages. I believe
516:
I don't think there's any one winning formula for how to best engage with other Wikipedians or with your community. But if you try to find ways, I'm sure you will succeed, and it will inform the work you do on
538:
state. Yes, many of us are in the Portland area, and have the benefit of access to Portland's rich wiki community (hey, what other WikiWednesday group can boast the frequent appearance of wiki inventor
130:
287:
updates, article creation drives, and disambiguation patrols. Are these broad collaborations designed to cater to those Wikipedians, or was there some other inspiration to break away from the norm?
328:
we're branching out into new areas some of the time. There are certainly wide topic areas that are not yet covered well, but in general, I think we're making solid progress in the right direction.
192:
1. While many projects have weekly or monthly collaborations on singular articles, most of WikiProject Oregon's collaborations feature two or more articles. This process has generated at least 29
100:
156:
Here at the WikiProject Report, we generally conduct interviews with one interviewer and one interviewee. In this week's issue, we bring to a special group discussion with five active members of
140:
252:, who manages the whole collaboration process, has been very crafty about mixing up the rational and the irrational to make it fun, get a lot of people involved, and get a lot of good work done.
606:
contribute to the project. So, I generally prefer the approaches mentioned above, and would rather not see flagged revisions; but there's plenty of room for discussion on this important point.
267:
those that came via an expansion, I do think those articles likely would not have become DYKs at all except for the COTW process. With the GAs, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
168:
region. Although the state has a population density of only 35.6 people per square mile, the project has more than 50 active members and 15 featured articles. Here to discuss the project are
296:
also with a desire to make sure we're generally moving toward comprehensive coverage of what's important about Oregon. We have some great examples of massive improvement to specific areas:
90:
817:
833:
797:
743:
73:
808:
You say that 7 members of Wikiproject Oregon were involved in the interview - but you list only 5. Puzzled! (Looks like it's going to be interesting, haven't read it yet!) â
312:
has taken it upon himself to bring all high school articles up to a basic level of quality, and the work we've done on the state legislature has earned our work the praise "
707:
712:
629:
120:
717:
697:
682:
345:
I have encountered Wikipedians who think creating stub articles is a waste of time ("useless" stubs for years), as well as those who think there are significantly
677:
672:
667:
687:
783:
245:
248:
of future projects, which inevitably include pet projects of various members of the project. You can't very well ignore it when your pet has the spotlight!
214:
692:
803:
404:
kinds of outreach, occasionally you inspire somebody enough that they want to contribute to the project themselves -- which is the best payoff of all.
654:
52:
41:
313:
235:
which articles were of top importance but were still only stubs. Those were the first articles we collaborated on, and today, if you look at
236:
899:
748:
422:
421:
had 6,121 articles in the project in June 2008. In May 2008, those articles were viewed a total of 7,843,643 times. (The summary is at
595:
755:
482:
Much of this energy for real-world activities has sprung out of our attendance at other wiki and technology-related events, such as
474:
Some obstacles to overcome, but potential for a good return on investment. Though I guess this is a bit tangential to the question.
21:
874:
732:
869:
864:
300:
has done some really neat articles about the importance of steamships to the state's economic and cultural development,
859:
417:
My desire to affect the world for the better is reinforced significantly by the huge readership our articles enjoy.
219:
67:
854:
764:
642:
390:
and I cooked up as we were driving back from RecentChangesCamp, a wiki conference we attended in 2008. Our
46:
32:
17:
394:
evolved through our individual connections with other wiki-based communities and local luminaries like
308:
added some excellent coverage of older political figures related to his university studies. Meanwhile,
813:
793:
829:
779:
880:
845:
8:
809:
790:
387:
382:
Some efforts have evolved on their own, others have been more carefully planned out. Our
373:
181:
346:
269:
223:
739:
550:
483:
165:
825:
775:
773:
and I will clean up the entire interview before it gets published. Thanks mates! --
297:
249:
173:
169:
157:
150:
614:
I've been an administrator for about a year and a half, but soon after acquiring
540:
395:
301:
412:
Pete is modestly sidestepping credit for his inspirational role in organizing
893:
770:
615:
430:
418:
305:
200:. Why do you use a double collaboration system, and why does it work so well?
193:
441:
426:
284:
197:
185:
177:
763:
Greetings, interviewees! I'll be asking a series of questions relating to
413:
383:
360:
309:
534:
I would just echo that despite the fact we are all in one state--it's a
386:, which we've used to support most of our outreach efforts, was an idea
276:
Thank you, thank you very much, I'll be in Vegas all week at the Mirage.
788:
Awesome! Thanks Cryptic, I'll try and dive in where I feel I can help.
438:
434:
161:
304:
has produced several FAs about Oregon rivers and streams, and
314:
easily the state legislature best covered here on Knowledge
582:
There are two approaches I'd favor over flagged revisions:
218:
chord with several people. The best examples of this are
160:. For those readers who live outside the United States,
391:
356:
753:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
492:structure, what have you learned that can apply to
244:In addition to the rational process, we maintain
891:
148:
423:Knowledge:WikiProject Oregon/Readership/All
398:, the guy who invented wikis to begin with.
804:Small discrepancy (?) in header paragraph?
843:Make sure we cover what matters to you â
239:, there are no articles in that category.
549:5. Finally, to what extent do you think
756:
14:
892:
623:Thanks for a very enjoyable interview!
51:
577:nothing is not an acceptable option.
900:Knowledge Signpost archives 2009-07
27:
641:
53:
31:
28:
911:
738:These comments are automatically
553:would benefit WikiProject Oregon?
220:Johnson Creek (Willamette River)
135:
125:
115:
105:
95:
85:
749:add the page to your watchlist
13:
1:
437:) Though not in the top 50,
392:monthly WikiWednesday meetups
765:Knowledge:WikiProject Oregon
724:
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
10:
916:
834:20:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
818:19:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
798:08:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
784:21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
746:. To follow comments,
646:
36:
645:
164:is a US state in the
35:
742:from this article's
634:"WikiProject report"
425:âthe most read were
708:Features and admins
444:500 to 700 readers
374:Oregon Encyclopedia
846:leave a suggestion
733:Discuss this story
713:Arbitration report
703:WikiProject report
647:
347:diminished returns
270:The Register-Guard
224:Cannabis in Oregon
158:WikiProject Oregon
68:WikiProject Oregon
65:WikiProject report
42:â Back to Contents
37:
757:purging the cache
718:Technology report
698:Discussion report
683:Knowledge Academy
551:flagged revisions
484:RecentChangesCamp
277:
208:I'm not sure how
166:Pacific Northwest
47:View Latest Issue
907:
883:
848:
796:
760:
758:
752:
731:
665:
657:
650:
633:
596:this recent edit
285:Featured Article
275:
153:
139:
138:
129:
128:
119:
118:
109:
108:
99:
98:
89:
88:
59:
57:
55:
915:
914:
910:
909:
908:
906:
905:
904:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
879:
877:
872:
867:
862:
857:
850:
844:
840:
839:
806:
789:
762:
754:
747:
736:
735:
729:+ Add a comment
727:
723:
722:
721:
678:Wiki-Conference
673:Board elections
668:From the editor
658:
653:
651:
648:
637:
636:
631:
559:Steven Walling:
541:Ward Cunningham
523:Steven Walling:
480:Steven Walling:
396:Ward Cunningham
357:monthly meetups
154:
147:
146:
145:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
86:
80:
77:
66:
62:
60:
50:
49:
44:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
913:
903:
902:
878:
873:
868:
863:
858:
853:
852:
851:
842:
841:
838:
837:
836:
805:
802:
801:
800:
791:Steven Walling
737:
734:
726:
725:
720:
715:
710:
705:
700:
695:
690:
688:News and notes
685:
680:
675:
670:
664:
652:
640:
639:
638:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
620:
619:
608:
607:
602:
601:
600:
599:
591:
584:
583:
579:
578:
573:
572:
564:
563:
547:
545:
544:
528:
527:
519:
518:
513:
512:
507:
506:
488:
487:
476:
475:
471:
470:
465:
464:
459:
458:
450:
449:
406:
405:
400:
399:
388:Steven Walling
379:
378:
352:
351:
339:
338:
330:
329:
324:
323:
318:
317:
279:
278:
263:
262:
254:
253:
241:
240:
228:
227:
182:Steven Walling
144:
143:
133:
123:
113:
103:
93:
82:
81:
78:
72:
71:
70:
69:
64:
63:
61:
58:
45:
40:
39:
30:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
912:
901:
898:
897:
895:
882:
876:
871:
866:
861:
856:
847:
835:
831:
827:
822:
821:
820:
819:
815:
811:
799:
795:
792:
787:
786:
785:
782:
781:
777:
772:
766:
759:
750:
745:
741:
730:
719:
716:
714:
711:
709:
706:
704:
701:
699:
696:
694:
691:
689:
686:
684:
681:
679:
676:
674:
671:
669:
666:
662:
656:
649:In this issue
644:
635:
622:
621:
617:
613:
610:
609:
604:
603:
597:
592:
590:contributors.
588:
587:
586:
585:
581:
580:
575:
574:
569:
568:Pete Forsyth:
566:
565:
560:
557:
556:
555:
554:
552:
542:
537:
533:
530:
529:
524:
521:
520:
515:
514:
509:
508:
503:
502:Pete Forsyth:
500:
499:
498:
497:
495:
485:
481:
478:
477:
473:
472:
467:
466:
461:
460:
455:
452:
451:
447:
443:
440:
436:
432:
431:River Phoenix
428:
424:
420:
415:
411:
408:
407:
402:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
380:
375:
370:
369:Pete Forsyth:
367:
366:
365:
364:
362:
358:
348:
344:
341:
340:
335:
332:
331:
326:
325:
320:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
294:
293:Pete Forsyth:
291:
290:
289:
288:
286:
272:
271:
265:
264:
259:
256:
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:
238:
233:
230:
229:
225:
221:
216:
211:
207:
204:
203:
202:
201:
199:
195:
189:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
152:
142:
134:
132:
124:
122:
114:
112:
104:
102:
94:
92:
84:
83:
75:
56:
48:
43:
34:
23:
19:
807:
774:
769:formatting;
702:
661:all comments
655:27 July 2009
611:
567:
558:
548:
546:
535:
531:
522:
501:
496:WikiProject?
493:
490:
489:
479:
454:Aboutmovies:
453:
445:
427:D. B. Cooper
409:
377:protections.
368:
354:
353:
342:
334:Aboutmovies:
333:
292:
281:
280:
268:
258:Aboutmovies:
257:
231:
209:
205:
191:
190:
155:
54:27 July 2009
881:Suggestions
776:Cryptic C62
740:transcluded
693:In the news
361:active blog
298:Mtsmallwood
250:Aboutmovies
246:a wish list
174:Aboutmovies
170:Peteforsyth
151:Cryptic C62
517:Knowledge.
439:Mount Hood
435:Nike, Inc.
384:group blog
237:the matrix
79:Share this
74:Contribute
22:2009-07-27
875:Subscribe
744:talk page
302:Finetooth
894:Category
870:Newsroom
865:Archives
771:Ragesoss
632:Previous
612:EncMstr:
532:Esprqii:
442:attracts
414:the blog
410:EncMstr:
355:3. With
343:EncMstr:
306:Emk4ever
232:Esprqii:
206:EncMstr:
121:LinkedIn
101:Facebook
20: |
616:the mop
446:per day
186:Esprqii
178:EncMstr
111:Twitter
810:Martha
794:(talk)
433:, and
419:WP:ORE
310:Tedder
196:and 4
184:, and
162:Oregon
131:Reddit
91:E-mail
860:About
359:, an
16:<
855:Home
830:talk
826:Pete
814:talk
780:Talk
222:and
215:here
194:DYKs
141:Digg
536:big
494:any
210:two
198:GAs
149:By
76:â
896::
832:)
816:)
778:¡
630:â
429:,
316:."
188:.
180:,
176:,
172:,
849:.
828:(
824:-
812:(
761:.
751:.
663:)
659:(
448:.
226:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
