Wikipedia talk:WikiMoney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive (initial reactions)

Vote for a standardized name and symbol, or against it (one vote per user):

Name

Symbol(s)

Votes

WikiDollars/WikiEuros

W$/W€

...

WikiSmiles

W:-), W:)

...

WikiWishes

W*

Wikikisses

???

...

Whatever: no set name

??

Not sure about name (psimoleans?)

ψ (psi)

Wikis

W

Hmm, was a table really necessary here? hammers and nuts, and all that ;-) Martin

Please, ANYTHING but a money connotation. Kingturtle 22:21 May 12, 2003 (UTC)~


I think the table makes things look slightly better, but I expected someone to complain.

I was afraid most people would vote for "no set standard". I disagree that this is the "wiki way". Inconsistency will simply mess things up in the long term and confuse newbies who try to participate. But well, whatever floats your boat. --Eloquence 00:46 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

How about removing the $/euro/smilies/turtles/rabits .. suffix altogether? and writing just W50 = 50 Wikis, W4 = 4 Wikis etc.. , everyone seems to agree about the W, it will also be more neutral -- it won't reflect any economic system or assosiation. I am being extremely brave and making this change, if it is reverted then what the heck, I wasted my time.. Rotem Dan 01:32 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
Well it's not as colourful... :-(
I still like using a ψ (psi), because it is unique in currency and it is not just a letter. LittleDan

Would it be a good idea to have WikiMoney bankers? Or at the least, people should every now and again check the page history to make sure all edits are legit.

Stealing probably should not be a problem since the victim will probably notice, but what about undue increases to your own account? Without independent "bankers," there's no way to prevent this. Then again, this would contravene the disclaimer against taking this too seriously. :) Kent Wang 06:08, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence suggested to change the initial amount to 10 or 20 WikiSmilies, which are taken to be indivisible. I like it, and would go for 20, with everybody's accounts and offers divided by 5. Does anybody object? Question: what to do with W$ 1-3 offers? AxelBoldt 00:07 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Maybe they should be rewritten like "do this 5 times to get W1", but if that doesn't apply, they should all be increaced to W1. LittleDan
Only one solution: Reduce them all to the same amount (W1).--Eloquence 03:24 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I made the change. AxelBoldt 17:16 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some reward for starting a language Wikipedia that's in the top 10? haha (For the record, I think wiki money is stupid and too capitalistic, long live anarchism! But while we've got a system, I want more money. hahaha)

Contents

[edit] The alternative system

I want to start an alternative system. I haven't found a name yet, but I'll call them stars for now. It works like this:

  • there is no bank
  • give someone a star by posting on their user page. If they already have stars, increase their count. if not, create a count for them
  • you can't spend stars on anything. once they are yours, they're yours
  • giving stars does not decrease your own star count.
  • you can give stars if you have no stars
  • you can offer stars for things, but it's nice to also give stars for things you've seen done which you like
  • you don't have to say what you've given stars for

-- Tarquin 17:00 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

I think what we need to have in wikipedia is more like tradional credit system, which is commonly used in academic world. What I always feel in wikipedia is that even though I wrote a lot of articles, they are not given a proper credit to me. Well, history? It's not nearly good enough to give credits. If the article I primary wrote has a credit for me, I will certainly be proud of it. I also want to see who copyedited my Engrish to a good English-written encyclopedia article. -- Taku 23:06 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

I almost forgot that peer review is an essential for realiable reference book. How can you be so sure that China article has non-NPOV materials without a PhD of history. As opposed to Larry, I don't think we need some kind of software support for this. We can probably make a credit section or easily separete credit page for each article, which may be located in another namespace. WikiMoney is after all not actuall money but credit with articles can be in history! -- Taku 23:16 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

User:208.58.249.14, why did you take .8 wikimonies away from me and give them to Juuitchan? I've taken the .8 back until I understand what it was payment for. Kingturtle 05:39 16 May 2003 (UTC)

It was .9 WikiMonies, actually. And as I understand it, it seems to be for wikification of Campbell. I don't know if I'd call that .9 WikiMonies' worth, though. -- John Owens 05:46 16 May 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

  • Let's say that 1 Wiki = 8 WikiBits = 100 WikiCents = 1000 WikiRin. --User:Juuitchan

How about dividing each Wiki into 20 Sillys, each Silly consisting of 12 Pixels. For particularly small transactions we could also have a ha'pixel. -- Silly Infrogmation

I think we should use SI units: 1 Wiki = 1000 milli-Wikis = 1,000,000 micro-wikis.......
Wikis should be individible. LittleDan
the first part (SI) is exactly what I was thinking of. —Noldoaran (Talk) 06:00, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

W50.99

Oh, my God, are we starting with these terrible "psychological prices", even for Wiki-money? - Patrick 12:30 16 May 2003 (UTC)
Ah, with the reform psychological prices are hardly possible any more, every amount is a nice round number now. Patrick 00:42 19 May 2003 (UTC)

I object to the constraining measures put on wikibooty amounts. There will be far less offers on the table if each offer is 5%!!! of your wikibooty. I will definitely think thrice about offers I make, meaning less wikifavors going around. I see how it goes!!! You sell me on an idea I initially oppose, and then you get me hooked, and then you slowly start taking away my power!! I'm a wikibooty fiend, for crying out loud :) ... but seriously folks, I think the system works better with 100 for this reason...

  • Starting with 20, when pricing a project, I have to decide if it is worth 5% or 10% of my wikibooty.
  • Starting with 100, when pricing a project, I can decide if it is worth 3% or 5% or 7%. See what I mean? Kingturtle 19:23 18 May 2003 (UTC)

>;-) You do all realize that at this rate, come June, we'll all have 1 wiki, and losing it will be like losing one's virginity... Anyway, this whole excercise is having more and more characteristics of a Charlie Foxtrot. I predict that this episode will become a tome of cautinary wikilore for all coming wikigenerations -- cimon avaro_test 14:09 19 May 2003 (UTC)

I vote to revert our monies back to their amounts before the deflationary tactics, and that we get to use decimals as we see fit. Wikimoney has died since the 75% reduction. Kingturtle 06:35 21 May 2003 (UTC)

It wasn't very alive before it either. There is not much of an incentive to earn wikimoney if everyone is rich. Sure, we had many offers, but now we will see if there are actually any takers. The system can only work if people see W as an incentive, otherwise it's just another todo list.
Here's what we should see next: People will gradually increase the amounts for tasks which they consider especially important, and remove those which they can no longer afford. Given higher offers, there will be more takers. These takers then again can make new offers and so forth. Give this time as people have to learn to adjust to the new amounts and avlues.
You could really mess with the system by automatically degrading wikimoney after a certain amount of time. Then you would have to spend W in order not to lose them, compelling you to raise your offers quickly. :-) --Eloquence 06:48 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Here's what we should see next: fizzled out interest because of the confining monetary system. :) Kingturtle 06:52 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, right - this system would work so much better if we could just spend 0.2342234. So far WikiMoney was driven by novelty and the desire to invent new currency symbols. Now we'll see if the idea itself is actually any good. --Eloquence 06:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)
User:Juuitchan is starting Juuitchan's WikiBank. He is going to give you 1000 rin play money in exchange for every Wiki you give him. You can, at any time, exchange 1000 rin for a Wiki.

The 75%-reduction-experiment has lasted a week now. I think it is a failure. Commerce is at a stand-still. How about I revert the wiki-values to their pre-reduction values? Come on...whuddew-yehsay? Kingturtle 21:25 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Seconded. And the fact be made clear that fractional pricing is A-Okay. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 21:36 25 May 2003 (UTC)
The whole system seems even deader now if possible. BTW what is this about 75% reductions. If I count correctly, we were "penalized" a full whopping 80%. 100 - 80 = 20, or something like that... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick
I disagree and oppose the reversion. There is no indication that the current state of WikiMoney has anything to do with the amount change. --Eloquence 14:33 27 May 2003 (UTC)
I disagree with any further currency rate change. It just makes a useless more disruption. -- Taku 14:45 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Why was my offer of wikilove put at the end of the whole page, even below fullfilled requests ??? Ant

  • Ant, I moved the WikiFlowers bit from the beginning because WikiMoney is about offers and rewards for doing wikiwork on articles. In my opinion, the wikiwork offers should come first. So I took a bold step and moved things around. But I won't take issue with the community if it is decided that the WikiFlowers part should come first. I apologize that my bold move caused trouble. I will not take offense to bold moves in response. Kingturtle 19:10 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)


well, no. It is offers between wikipedians, but it is not stating specifically articles.
Besides, all the pictures uploaded very nicely improve flower plant articles. I am taking many pictures myself, it takes time to rework them after (croping, resizing, color enhancing perhaps), then to upload them on the fr and the en, to find the article they would fit in, then to insert them. Look at my last three ones User:Anthere/PictInsectes on insect. It took me an evening to do so. I fail to see how inserting flower pictures into articles could not be seen as a wikiwork. It is just adding wikiwork to nice gesture.
btw, how much would you give for the Convention on Biological Diversity ? Anthere
    • I realize I am not understanding WikiFlowers at all. Its concept has gone right over my head. Can you please explain it in detail to me? I have greatly misunderstood what it is. Kingturtle 16:10 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  1. you take a picture of a flower
  2. you upload it to wikipedia
  3. you add it to the wikipedia article on that flower
  4. you add it to the talk page of a female wikipedian
  5. Anthere gives you some wikismiles in exchange for your hard work

It's like Wikipedia:requested images, with a slight twist. Martin

yup.
It is a way to attract attention on botany articles, improve their visual impact, provide good picture references for readers. Flower plants are just *so* beautiful it would be a shame not to use the visual information it brings and not to offer the visual pleasure to contemplate them. It brings colors in a rather dull interface. Plus, it should be a non-controversial topic (though...naming...).
And at the same time, it is a way to identify women in that rather masculine world, to give awareness of our little number, to promote feminism around here (not as an opposition, but as a mutual beneficial association), to welcome transgendered, to make some users stop assuming every one here is a man (look, RK still did not get it)
and finally, it might be a way to make some people aware of other people they don't know of, for they do not work on same topics. It is a way to have people make gift to others. It might be the possibility for someone to show another one his appreciation. And most women love flowers. Just a little bit of focusing on the variety of people making the community, rather than just on articles, controversies, vandals and edit wars.
As usual, I produce a whole book, much in contrast with Martin minimalism and up to the point information. :-)))
User:Anthere

Why are the flowers only given to women? Kingturtle 07:41 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

ah, good question. No one ever said the offers had to be non-sexist. :-)
It was because it was mother day when I set the offer. So right now, it is for women.
Next week end is father day in France. I'll switch the offer to men then, ok ? (do not expect from me any wikismile in exchange for car pictures). I'll offer a flower to you, but then, don't complain, right ? (I offered a couple of time flowers to men in real life, they were always quite...er...well...)
I must hurry then, for I intended to make offerings myself to a couple of women...User:Anthere

I think wikis should /not/ be indivisible because...well, it's more fun! And we can have a leave a penny, take a penny, and half wikis for half-completed jobs :) ilyanep 22:51 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Timwi: You do realize that you open an account with 20W.hatever for free, right? Or do you not have 200 edits yet? -- John Owens 21:27 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just checked, you've got nearly 700 edits. Go get your 20ψ! -- John Owens 21:32 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I didn't add those 20ψ because it also said I need to be "older" than a month. I've been here for 15 days only. But if you say it's okay, I suppose I'll go grab them. -- Timwi 22:28 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Good point, I didn't think about that angle. I don't think anyone will object, though. If someone does, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. -- John Owens 22:53 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

« Some see WikiMoney as a quantification of WikiLove » 0_o
How romantic... Anyway I don't think WikiMoney is a good thing, do you really think a Free Encyclopedia should be reduced to using money ?? . SeeSchloss 17:19, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This isn't about money. This doesn't really actually have anything to do with money. -- Timwi 05:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How do I see how many edits I have? here I see that I have edited ~ 150 articles, but many several times... I am confused. Malbi 13:14, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You have 204 edits currently. -- Timwi 05:08, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] From VfD

    • Keep. This was already listed here two months ago. The page history shows that people are still using this page. Angela. 17:26, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, still apparently in use (if only by a small number of users). Onebyone 17:58, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Say what? Two actual transactions in the last three months counts as being in use? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 18:02, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
        • I'd say so, yes. It may be worth adding a warning to the page that only a very small number of users pay any attention to it. I don't see why it needs to be removed unless there's some kind of "travel light" policy in the Wikipedia namespace that I don't know about. Onebyone 18:09, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The last time this was listed, Louis Kyu Won Ryu voted to delete and the following voted to keep: Angela, Axlrosen Lirath Q. Pynnor, Anthère, Taku, Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick, Patrick [1]
    • Okay. Quick recap. After the inception of the page, it very swiftly died. I then suggested it should be deleted as well. The response was a hum-humming agreement that the page sucked, but "let's keep it anyway". A month or two later I suggested again that it should be deleted. That time people were already arguing that it was a "historical monument" and should be kept on those grounds. Okay, I accepted that argument, as actually being reasonable. When it came up again, I did not vote against deleting, but rather suggested that we wait and delete it once there is a way to export a page with it's history intact; since the only valuable thing about the page is its history. We now have such an export facility! The question of where the "historical monument" with its attendant page history should be interred, is not my affair, but the page is doing active harm by confusing newcomers, as you will readily see, if you check the talkpage. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 03:42, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Meta, so that people can discuss why the experiment failed there.—Eloquence 05:03, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not dead, it's just sleepy. Some people find it worthwhile. (Notice: I've indented the last two comments to put them "under" the topic.) Tualha 14:53, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • At best, the accuracy of this page is in question; I was never offered my 20 wikis. I'd go along with the move to Meta suggestion. Bmills 15:35, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • That's because you don't get offered your ψ20; you put it in yourself when you qualify. Tualha 16:46, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • The which is not extractable from the article. If kept, needs clarification. Bmills 17:14, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • Um, if you mean the article doesn't say you should add yourself, see Section 1.1. Been there since May 18. Tualha 05:58, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • WikiMoney predates me and I don't really have an opinion on what should be done with it, but it's not totally useless, as I've used it to fix or add articles. Of course, essentially the same task can be done by the Requested articles or Requested stubs pages. Adam Bishop 17:34, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. One of the nice things about this Wiki - Texture 22:02, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] give and take

er...I don't like the idea of people, after completing a request, taking money from others. the money should be given by the requestor to the worker, and not taken by the worker without permission. Kingturtle 01:32, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you to a certain extent. You are referring to Coherentism, right? I told Banno that he had done the job requested by Poor Yorick, and that he should transfer that money. I should have informed Poor Yorick as well, but I see that Banno has done that. I think that transferring the money even if it is not one's money is OK, provided that the "giver" is informed. This is due to the fact that wikimoney seems to be extremely lightly trafficked. WDYT? --snoyes 02:18, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I am referring to Roots of Peace. Had I known the work was done, I would have paid the worker. I just don't like the idea of the money being taken without my notice. Kingturtle 02:26, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC) P.S. I mean to offense to anyone. Just wondering about the process here.
No problem, it is extremely hard to convey emotion and intent with short text. I agree that a notice to the person who comissioned the work is essential - I'll add a note to the top. BTW, Roots of Peace is kinda straddling the line between stub and non-stub. I wouldn't have taken w3 for that ;-). --snoyes 04:42, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm happy to give it. And I appreciate that the article was made. And the money is rightfully Alexandros'. But a policy should be made that says money transfers should be controlled by the givers, not the receivers. Kingturtle 08:42, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Destruction

For those of us who are opposed to WikiMoney, do we have the option of destroying any of it that might be granted to us? —Ashley Y 09:20, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

If you do tasks for which another has offered a bounty, you can keep that money out of circulation, thereby effectively destroying it. --snoyes 16:35, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
But can I verifiably destroy it, so that others can see that I can no longer use it? —Ashley Y 00:49, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
There being no WikiBank, or any WikiMinistryofMoney, and considering the fact that WikiMoney is essentially voluntary, you can do whatever you want to with it. Some people will try to acquire WikiMoney to be able to offer it to others for deeds. Others, I suppose, may collect it so they may turn it into real money donations to Wikipedia. I see no reason why a person would not be able to destroy WikiMoney that they earned. WikiMoney comes from nowhere; it can go back there too! RealGrouchy 17:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Interest

One of the key problems of WikiMoney, as I see it, is that there is no way to increase the money supply except by increasing the population, which really doesn't do that much because it still leaves the same amount of money per head. And because WikiMoney is indivisible, we could not simulate an increase in the money supply by using amounts of money less than one as a normal unit of transaction. This discourages people from offering money for services. In the real world, money doesn't act like this, because as raw materials are processed into useful products, they gain value, which is eventually reflected in an increase in the world money supply.

Now, in Wikipedia, of course, turning a blank page into a page filled with information could be regarded as transforming raw materials into useful products, but there's no way we could go around awarding everyone for each edit we make (not only would it be difficult to implement logistically, but also not all Wikipedians even accept or like the idea of WikiMoney). However, one way that we could simulate the same increase in the money supply by using interest.

One way we could use interest is this: Perhaps there could a person, committee, or even robot designated as the banker. At the end of one month, this person/committee/robot would go through the list of accounts and add 1 ψ to each person's WikiMoney account. This need only take a single edit.

So, what do people think? --Lowellian 19:31, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think this needs to work like a LETS scheme. LETS don't give interest. You earn currency by trading. For example I offered 5 for someone to come up with a list of UK MPs. They did - they then had 25. It doesn't discourage people offering, but people not offering discourages trading. What is stopping you either offering pay someone 1 to do something, or doing something yourself? Secretlondon 19:36, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Looking at your account I guess you've never traded. What is stopping you from offering to pay someone 1 wiki to make an article? The fear that you might only have 19 wikis? Secretlondon 19:38, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think interest should come in an alternate form. I suggest that for every 100 articles beyond the initial 200, Wikipedians earn an additional Wiki. RealGrouchy 17:35, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

I have now de-archived WikiMoney, as there has been a fair ammount of use lately, and certainly there should be even more, now that it is no longer "archived"... There is already a sufficient warning stating the fact that it is not used much any more. --Wulf 02:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting system...

WikiMoney predates me, (became a member in 2005), but I think it is quite interesting, and useful. IMHO it can still be saved...


Below are my suggestions:

  • Use metric: It is (according to most experts) the most efficient way of measuring anything. This system would give everybody ψ100 to start. Current balances would be adjusted simply be multiplying the current number of Wikis by 5... Example: ψ14 x 5 = ψ70.
  • Any transaction of more than ψ5 would earn another ψ1. This would incourage trade (opposed to hoarding of Wikis), and the continued use of the system.


--Wulf 04:14, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Would it be posible to create a template which would show the current amount of Wikis someone is currently in posession of?

Example: "{{WikiMoney|WulfTheSaxon}}" Would show my current Wiki balance.

If it is possible, I think it would be useful for users to put on their userpages, as a way to brag about how many Wikis they have. --Wulf 04:34, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • I second this. Allowing wikipedians to show off their wikis would promote usage of wikimoney. Besides, it's just about adding an element of fun into getting others to do edits that articles need. :-) --*Wilfred (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This (or something like this) is the Answer!

This is exactly the sort of thing I'd like to see on Wikipedia! :D A system of incentives is exactly what this site needs, plus I think admins ought to have the ability to fine people of wikimoney as well as ban them. I think the idea of replacing a list of accounts with a template for each person wishing to start a bank account is excellent. In fact, the idea ought to get it's own namespace so that each User page also has a Money page or something. Why isn't this getting more traction with people? --Nerd42 03:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (something like this) Virtual Equity Market

I've recently become fascinated with the idea of idea markets (for instance You can bet on idea markets). Essentially, ideas become a financial vehicle. Some idea markets use virtual money, others use real money. I think that most wikipedians would be against a real money system, and SEC regulations might get tricky. With virtual money, these objections might be minimized (not totally eliminated, as for instance SEC v. SG, Ltd.).

How it would work

  • Some kind of brokerage system is set up.
  • Each article is divided into shares. Subarticles might be divided into sub-shares, or might exist as entities unto themselves, or some combination thereof.
  • The public (readers and editors, at least) invest in the articles they deem valuable.
  • Trading ensues.

In theory, this solves several problems. If, say, an article a person owns shares in is vandalized, then they might 1. sell some shares, or 2. have a interest in maintaining that article's value and therefore remove the vandalism. Secondly, it would provide an interesting perspective on the structure and dynamics of wikipedia. For instance, I, for one, would be interested in many articles, if only there were some metric for determining their value besides using my own brain. Sometimes thinking is hard. A lesson from competitive free markets is that the market does much of the thinking for you. Thirdly, it might encourage people to be more involved with wikipedia.

A fair objection is that people wouldn't be interested in accumulating virtual money. What are the lessons learned so far? The Hollywood Stock Exchange has had some success with virtual money, as have others. The key for them, I think, is that they frame it as a game. Of course, wikipedia is more fun than any game I've ever played. A more important objection is that the value of a stock wouldn't be based on anything other than other people's opinions of other people's opinions. I'm not an economist, so I don't know about that. --Mlandau 19:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I can't honestly see how this would even have been successful...

Users edit what they want to edit; not what they are told to edit so they can get someone else to edit other stuff for them in return...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It probably could never have been made to work long-term. But it was fun while it lasted. — Gwalla | Talk 06:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

I would like to everybody who currently or formerly participated in this program to help support the formation of a wikiproject for this concept, which would probably be more successful. If you'd like a Renaissance of WikiMoney sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject WikiMoney. Thank you.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 04:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WeNameInitiative

for RealWikiMoney

CFDL and CreativeCommons people might be interested in dedicating all their working-time (and not only their pastime as a hobby) to the well being of the planet, i.e. to giving their communications, ideas, inventions, innovations, music, graphics, movies, games, software as open content and in form of OpenBusiness in an OpenBusinessWiki to the planetary community. What about integrating a community supported income-model, so that they (surprise, surprise:-) even can prosper themselves (and not only the rest of mankind) More on <-> Meatball:WeNameInitiative. Fridemar (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)