Sun­day NY Times:  All the News That’s Fit to Print Out. How Wikipedia (not Wikinews) is becom­ing hub for break­ing news. Excerpt:

When news broke on May 8 about the arrest of a half-dozen young Mus­lim
men for sup­pos­edly plan­ning to attack Fort Dix, along­side the usual
range of reac­tions — dis­be­lief, para­noia, out­rage, indif­fer­ence,
pruri­ence — a newer one was added: the desire to con­se­crate the event’s
sig­nif­i­cance by cre­at­ing a Wikipedia page about it. The first one to
the punch was a long­time Wikipedia con­trib­u­tor known as CltFn, who at
about 7 that morn­ing cre­ated what’s called a stub — lit­tle more than a
place­holder, often just one sen­tence in length, which other
con­trib­u­tors may then build upon — under the head­ing “Fort Dix Ter­ror
Plot.” A while later, another Wikipedia user named Gra­cenotes took an
inter­est as well. Over the next sev­eral hours, in con­stant
cyber­con­ver­sa­tion with an ever-growing pack of other self-appointed
edi­tors, Gra­cenotes — whose real name is Matthew Gruen — expanded and
cor­rected this stub 59 times, ulti­mately shap­ing it into a respectable,
bal­anced and even foot­noted 50-line account of that day’s major
devel­op­ment in the war on ter­ror. By the time he was done, “2007 Fort
Dix Attack Plot” was fea­tured on Wikipedia’s front page. Finally,
around mid­night, Gruen left a note on the site say­ing, “Off to bed,”
and the next morn­ing he went back to his junior year of high school.

Wikipedia, as nearly every­one knows by now, is a six-year-old global
online ency­clo­pe­dia in 250 lan­guages that can be added to or edited by
any­one. (“Wiki,” a pro­gram­ming term long in use both as noun and
adjec­tive, derives from the Hawai­ian word mean­ing “quick.”) Wikipedia’s
goal is to make the sum of human knowl­edge avail­able to every­one on the
planet at no cost. Depend­ing on your lights, it is either one of the
noblest exper­i­ments of the Inter­net age or a night­mare embod­i­ment of
rel­a­tivism and the with­er­ing of intel­lec­tual standards.

Love it
or hate it, though, its suc­cess is past deny­ing — 6.8 mil­lion
reg­is­tered users world­wide, at last count, and 1.8 mil­lion sep­a­rate
arti­cles in the English-language Wikipedia alone …

So indis­tinct has the line between past and present become that
Wikipedia has inad­ver­tently all but stran­gled one of its sis­ter
projects, the three-year-old Wikinews — one of sev­eral Wiki­me­dia
Foun­da­tion off­shoots (Wik­i­books, Wik­iquote, Wik­tionary) founded on the
prin­ci­ple of col­lab­o­ra­tively pro­duced con­tent avail­able free. Wikinews,
though nom­i­nally cov­er­ing not just major sto­ries but news of all sorts,
has sunk into a kind of tor­por; lately it gen­er­ates just 8 to 10
arti­cles a day on a grab bag of top­ics that hap­pen to cap­ture the
inter­est of its fewer than 26,000 users world­wide, from bird flu to the
Miss Uni­verse pageant to Vanuatu’s ban on cookie imports from
neigh­bor­ing Fiji. On big­ger sto­ries there’s just no point in com­pet­ing
with the ruth­less purview of the ency­clo­pe­dia, which now accounts for a
stag­ger­ing one out of every 200 page views on the entire Internet. …

Though Wales is right that there are plenty of devoted Wikipedi­ans out
there who are upward of 25 years old, most of those who do the
hard-core edit­ing on a break­ing news story seem to be at the younger
end of the spec­trum. Part of the rea­son for that may be that
high-school and col­lege stu­dents are much more likely than older folks
to have six or eight hours at a stretch to devote to some­thing on the
spur of the moment. But there is also some­thing uniquely empow­er­ing —
for bet­ter or for worse — about Wikipedia, in that there is no real
orga­ni­za­tional lad­der to climb: since every­one con­tributes behind
screen names (which may or may not match their real ones), ques­tions of
age, appear­ance, expe­ri­ence and so forth don’t color the discussion. …

With Yahoo! clos­ing the Web­jay playlist ser­vice it bought a cou­ple of years ago (a day ear­lier than they said they would, by the way), now comes word that Yahoo! is also clos­ing Yahoo Pho­tos. (Don’t bother going over there if you don’t have an exist­ing account, they won’t let you in.) They’re putting all their efforts into the excel­lent but smaller Flickr.com site.

The announce­ment by email:

For some time
now, we’ve sup­ported two great photo shar­ing ser­vices: Yahoo! Pho­tos
and Flickr. But even good things come to an end, and we’ve decided to
close Yahoo! Pho­tos to focus all our efforts on Flickr — the
award-winning photo shar­ing com­mu­nity that TIME Mag­a­zine has called
“com­pletely addictive.”

We will offi­cially close Yahoo! Pho­tos on Thurs­day, Sep­tem­ber 20, 2007, at 9 p.m. PDT.
Until then, we are offer­ing you the oppor­tu­nity to move to another
photo shar­ing ser­vice (Flickr, KODAK Gallery, Shut­ter­fly, Snap­fish, or
Pho­to­bucket), down­load your original-resolution pho­tos back to your
com­puter, or buy an archive CD from our fea­tured part­ner (for users of
the New Yahoo! Pho­tos only). All you need to do is tell us what to do with your pho­tos before we close, after which any pho­tos remain­ing on Yahoo! Pho­tos will be deleted and no longer accessible.

Of
course, we hope you’ll join us at Flickr (you can even use your Yahoo!
ID), but we also real­ize that Flickr may not be for every­one. In the
end, we want you to find the ser­vice that’s right for you, and we hope
you take some time to learn more about your options before mak­ing this
impor­tant decision.

Please give us your deci­sion by Thurs­day, Sep­tem­ber 20, 2007, at 9 p.m. PDT. After that time, any pho­tos remain­ing in Yahoo! Pho­tos will be deleted. Click here to make your deci­sion, or review a list of our fre­quently asked ques­tions.

The San Jose Mer­cury News gives the iPhone a spin with a hands-on review: First look at the new iPhone. Bot­tom line: You might want to wait. Excerpt:

In sev­eral sig­nif­i­cant ways
it feels like a Ver­sion 1.0 prod­uct. Yes, the phone’s got many neat
bells and whis­tles. I have no doubt Apple will sell mil­lions based on
the hype alone. But for those of you who can bear to do so, you
prob­a­bly should wait until Apple gets all the kinks worked out (and
hope­fully low­ers the price).

Dean Taka­hashi in the San Jose Mer­cury News: Adobe takes video-editing plunge, offer­ing free mash-up  services.

Geoff Baum, an Adobe group
prod­uct man­ager, was sit­ting at my desk, show­ing me the company’s free
video edit­ing tool. He had some cool under­wa­ter pho­tos and was remix­ing
them with titles, cap­tions and a music track. He spliced together
tran­si­tions and faded to black. It was like he was using Adobe Pre­miere
Pro CS 3 or Apple’s iMovie, but it was a sim­pler Flash-based pro­gram
with­out the frills. …

Adobe is tak­ing the
plunge with its free Adobe Pre­miere Express video edit­ing tools on
YouTube, Pho­to­bucket and MTV.com. Baum took me for a spin with the
soft­ware and it looked like a breeze to learn. You upload your video to
a stor­age site such as www.photobucket.com. Then you use the
video edit­ing tool, which is embed­ded in the site, to play around with
the video. You can use scis­sors to snip video sequences to the right
length and lay in the soundtrack.

You can learn the basics in a
heart­beat. I was using it on the MTV site to move around video clips so
I could cre­ate my own Kelly Clark­son music video. (MTV is hav­ing a
con­test for the best user-generated video, using a bunch of Clarkson’s
video snip­pets in a mix and match fash­ion.) … You just drag and drop video snip­pets to cre­ate
a sin­gle inte­grated video.

The soft­ware is good for edit­ing video that you’ve already uploaded to
a Web site. It’s all Web based. This way, you don’t have to upload it,
then down­load it, then edit it, and then upload it again. You can keep
it all on one site and do the edit­ing on that site. It’s not for your
pro film­maker. You can’t do things like edit mul­ti­ple sound tracks at
the same time. For that, you’d have to pay for the heavy-duty soft­ware.
But it may be good enough. It cer­tainly fits in with the age of the
“mash-up,” or putting a per­sonal touch on some­thing by com­bin­ing a
bunch of com­monly used sites or technologies.

After all, we’re all
going to be cre­ators in the Web 2.0 age. You will need to upload videos
to Pho­to­bucket and YouTube to use Adobe Pre­miere Express. To try out
Adobe Pre­miere Express, go to these Web sites:

• http://remix.mtv.com/contest.aspx

• http://www.youtube.com/ytremixer?turn_on=next

• http://www.photobucket.com

From the San Jose Mer­cury News ear­lier this week: How the right wing dom­i­nates talk radio. Excerpt:

A report by the
pro­gres­sive (read lib­eral) Cen­ter for Amer­i­can Progress released last
week con­cludes that 91 per­cent of week­day radio shows heard this spring
were con­ser­v­a­tive, and 9 per­cent were progressive.

That added up to 2,570 hours a day of right-wing flap­ping on the
air­waves, com­pared to only 254 hours of lib­eral talk, heard across the
country.

It’s a lit­tle more even in the Top 10 radio mar­kets, such as New York,
Los Ange­les, Chicago and San Fran­cisco, where a com­bined 76 per­cent is
conservative.

If radio were a bird, it would only be capa­ble of fly­ing in circles. …

My first incli­na­tion, when I saw the study, was to take a con­ser­v­a­tive
slant — the mar­ket gets what the mar­ket wants. And if peo­ple who lis­ten
to radio pre­fer to lis­ten to con­ser­v­a­tives, then the sta­tions are
serv­ing their communities.

But a deeper look into the study shows the mar­ket forces aren’t really free.

What has hap­pened is that in the past two decades, thanks to heavy
lob­by­ing by the broad­cast­ers, Con­gress relaxed the rules lim­it­ing the
num­ber of sta­tions own­ers can accrue, allow­ing for the mak­ings of
behe­moth com­pa­nies that could save money by syn­di­cat­ing the same shows
into hun­dreds of markets.

Which, he study con­cludes, means less diver­sity and fewer con­nec­tions to the local market.

“The rise of right-wing radio coin­cides with the fall of the mar­ket
caps,” says John Halpin, a senior fel­low with the center.

“It’s no longer a free mar­ket but a highly con­trolled non-competitive
mar­ket. It’s not like any­one can set up their fruit stand and compete.” …

The real prob­lem is that with fewer own­ers, there are fewer choices and fewer voices.

I’m sur­prised that con­ser­v­a­tives who usu­ally argue for the rights of
the indi­vid­ual aren’t more afraid of the media takeover by just a few
companies.

It’s really not free speech if you can only hear one side.

The arti­cle didn’t point to the source mate­r­ial; here it is: The Struc­tural Imbal­ance of Polit­i­cal Talk Radio, with the free full report here (PDF).

Reblogged from Dou­glas Karr’s top-notch Mar­ket­ing Tech­nol­ogy Blog: Is the next Pres­i­dent of the United States run­ning Linux?

Accord­ing to Net­craft, [Repub­li­can] Ron Paul’s site was pre­vi­ously run on Microsoft IIS but as of June 5th it’s now on Apache!

So that got me won­der­ing… what are the other can­di­dates’ sites
run­ning? Does this pro­vide some insight into their over­all candidacy?

Site Oper­at­ing Sys­tem and Server by Candidate

• Joe Biden (Demo­c­rat) — Linux, Zope by Interlix
• Hillary Clin­ton (Demo­c­rat) — Win­dows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by Paul Holcomb
• Christo­pher Dodd (Demo­c­rat) — FreeBSD, Apache by pair Networks
• John Edwards (Demo­c­rat) — Linux, Apache by Plus Three
• Mike Gravel (Demo­c­rat) — Linux, Apache by Voxel Dot Net, Inc.
• Den­nis Kucinich (Demo­c­rat) — Linux, Apache by New Age Consulting
• Barack Obama (Demo­c­rat) — FreeBSD, Apache by pair Net­works
• Bill Richard­son (Demo­c­rat) — Linux, Zope by Interlix
• Wes­ley Clark (Demo­c­rat) — Linux, Apache by Voxel Dot Net, Inc.
• Al Gore (Demo­c­rat) — Linux, Apache by Rackspace
• Sam Brown­back (Repub­li­can) — Win­dows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by Rack­Force Host­ing, Inc.
• Jim Gilmore (Repub­li­can) — Linux, Apache by 1&1 Inter­net, Inc.
• Rudy Giu­liani (Repub­li­can) — Linux, Apache by RackSpace
• Mike Huck­abee (Repub­li­can) — Win­dows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by LNH Inc.
• Dun­cun Hunter (Repub­li­can) — Win­dows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by Individual
• John McCain (Repub­li­can) — Win­dows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by Smartech Corporation
• Ron Paul (Repub­li­can) — Linux, Apache by Rackspace
• Mitt Rom­ney (Repub­li­can) — Linux, Apache by Rackspace
• Tom Tan­credo (Repub­li­can) — Win­dows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by Interland
• Fred Thomp­son (Repub­li­can) — Win­dows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by LNH Inc.
• Tommy Thomp­son (Repub­li­can) — Win­dows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by Time Warner Tele­com, Inc.
• Chuck Hagel (Repub­li­can) — Win­dows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by Individual
• Newt Gin­grich (Repub­li­can) — Win­dows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by Smartech Corporation

Here’s the over­all break­down, pretty inter­est­ing results:

It’s fas­ci­nat­ing to me that the Dems are pre­dom­i­nantly Open Source…
except for Hillary Clin­ton and the Repub­li­cans are pre­dom­i­nantly Microsoft with the excep­tion of Ron Paul, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giu­liani and Mitt Romney.

Early reviews of the iPhone from Walt Moss­berg of the Wall Street Jour­nal and David Pogue of the NY Times. Excerpt from Mossberg:

It has the largest and highest-resolution screen of any smart phone
we’ve seen, and the most inter­nal mem­ory by far. Yet it is one of the
thinnest smart phones avail­able and offers impres­sive bat­tery life,
bet­ter than its key com­peti­tors claim.

t feels solid and com­fort­able in the hand and the way
it dis­plays pho­tos, videos and Web pages on its gor­geous screen makes
other smart phones look primitive.

The iPhone’s most con­tro­ver­sial fea­ture, the omis­sion
of a phys­i­cal key­board in favor of a vir­tual key­board on the screen,
turned out in our tests to be a non­is­sue, despite our deep ini­tial
skep­ti­cism. After five days of use, Walt — who did most of the test­ing
for this review — was able to type on it as quickly and accu­rately as
he could on the Palm Treo he has used for years. This was partly
because of smart soft­ware that cor­rects typ­ing errors on the fly.

But the iPhone has a major draw­back: the cell­phone net­work it uses. It only works with AT&T …

In addi­tion, even when you have great AT&T
cov­er­age, the iPhone can’t run on AT&T’s fastest cel­lu­lar data
net­work. Instead, it uses a pokey net­work called EDGE, which is far
slower than the fastest net­works from Ver­i­zon or Sprint that power many
other smart phones. And the ini­tial iPhone model can­not be upgraded to
use the faster networks.

The iPhone com­pen­sates by being one of the few smart
phones that can also use Wi-Fi wire­less net­works. When you have access
to Wi-Fi, the iPhone flies on the Web. Not only that, but the iPhone
auto­mat­i­cally switches from EDGE to known Wi-Fi net­works when it finds
them, and pops up a list of new Wi-Fi net­works it encoun­ters as you
move. Walt was able to log onto paid Wi-Fi net­works at Star­bucks and
air­ports, and even used a free Wi-Fi net­work at Fen­way Park in Boston
to email pic­tures taken dur­ing a Red Sox game.

And John Markoff: A Trade-Off on iPhone Data Speed.

The iPhone could have an impact on the cell­phone indus­try akin to the
influ­ence that the company’s Mac­in­tosh had on the per­sonal com­puter
indus­try in 1984, Mr. Jobs said. The iPhone’s “multi-touch” con­trol
sys­tem, in which the fin­gers are used to scroll through data or enlarge
pho­tos on the screen, was the biggest shift in a computer’s user
inter­face since the Mac­in­tosh was intro­duced, he said. …

Brian Solis at PR 2.0: Defin­ing social media.

There are many of us who have spent
the last year defin­ing and defend­ing Social Media as a legit­i­mate
clas­si­fi­ca­tion for new media as well as doc­u­ment­ing the tools that
facil­i­tate the social­iza­tion of con­tent, includ­ing Stowe Boyd, Robert Scoble, Jay Rosen, Chris Heuer, Jere­miah Owyang, Shel Israel, Todd Defren, Brian Oberkirch, Chris Saad, Jerry Bowles, Mar­i­anne Rich­mond, JD Lasica, Rohit Bhar­gava, Jeremy Pep­per, Greg Narain, et al. How­ever, we always seem to run around in cir­cles defin­ing it and re-defining it, over and over again.

I orig­i­nally stated that the Wikipedia
def­i­n­i­tion was in dire need of reform, oth­er­wise we’re doomed to
con­tin­u­ally run through these cycles of expla­na­tion and defense,
instead of focus­ing on foward-thinking, col­lab­o­ra­tion, and devel­op­ment.
A more infor­ma­tive and clearer def­i­n­i­tion will ben­e­fit those new to the
con­ver­sa­tion as well as strength­en­ing and unit­ing the effort of those
vision­ar­ies who will con­tinue to carry the flag forward.

The
time is now to define social media and I would like to invite those
part of the big­ger con­ver­sa­tion to con­tribute to the com­mon col­lec­tive.

Here is the cur­rent def­i­n­i­tion on Wikipedia:

Social media describes the online
tech­nolo­gies and prac­tices that peo­ple use to share opin­ions, insights,
expe­ri­ences, and perspectives.Social media can take many dif­fer­ent
forms, includ­ing text, images, audio, and video. These sites typ­i­cally
use tech­nolo­gies such as blogs, mes­sage boards, pod­casts, wikis, and vlogs to allow users to inter­act. A few promi­nent exam­ples of social media appli­ca­tions are Wikipedia (ref­er­ence), MySpace (social net­work­ing), Gather.com (social net­work­ing),YouTube (video shar­ing), Sec­ond Life (vir­tual real­ity), Digg (news shar­ing), Flickr (photo shar­ing) and Mini­clip (game shar­ing).
…

Brian then goes on to sug­gest adjust­ments the entry on Wikipedia. We’re sure to see some changes in the com­ing weeks.

Today and Thurs­day I’ll be in San Jose, Calif., at the first Web Video Sum­mit put on by Jupiter­me­dia. I helped put on one of the tracks, and I’ll be mod­er­at­ing two pan­els: 

Mak­ing News News, with Brian Con­ley of Alive in Bagh­dad, Steve Grove of YouTube, Brian Gru­ber of fora.tv and Josh Wolf of the Rise Up Network.

The Power of Col­lab­o­ra­tion, with Kent Bye, John Fur­rier, Adri­ana Gas­coigne, and Dave Toole.

Update: Had a good time at today’s ses­sions: about 50 peo­ple at the first, 75 at the sec­ond. I’ll post an inter­view with Josh Wolf in the next week.

A few snip­pets from today:

Web video edit­ing panel

At Shoot­ing for the Web: Mak­ing Sure it Works Com­pressed, Small and Every­where, Jes­sica Kizorek, head of Two Par­rot Pro­duc­tions, had some good sug­ges­tions for those start­ing out shoot­ing video:

“Get up close and per­sonal with your sub­jects” to com­pen­sate for the small size of Web video (gen­er­ally 320x240 pix­els, though that’s now chang­ing). Use dra­matic lighting.

“View­ers like to watch human faces. We will seek out human faces first.”

“Avoid the talk­ing head effect” by shoot­ing from dif­fer­ent angles.

“Have your sub­ject speak directly into the cam­era” rather than the pas­sive to-the-side angle seen in most tele­vi­sion inter­views. It involves the viewer emotionally.

Clue peo­ple in. They want to see the behind-the-scenes chal­lenges of how you did it.

Says Kizorek: “The Inter­net is not about tech­nique or tech­nolo­gies, it’s about pro­vid­ing peo­ple wilth the access to com­mu­ni­cate and impact one another. We’re mak­ing those kinds of inter­ac­tions pos­si­ble. It’s easy to get caught up in the gad­gets but keep an eye on the human element.”

Joel Heller, Producer/Editor for Docs That Inspire, sug­gested that video pro­duc­ers use a shot­gun mike. It doesn’t pick up motor noise of cam­era. Also, if you turn the cam­era away to fol­low some­thing being dis­cussed, the sound doesn’t drop away if the speaker con­tin­ues talking.

He also advises: “Don’t ster­il­ize your set­ting.” Some amount of ambi­ent noise is good. Sub­jects look more nat­ural if they’re doing some­thing mean­ing­ful in the con­text of the story while they’re talk­ing with you. 

Adds Heller: “Emo­tion trumps every­thing. If peo­ple don’t feel laugh­ter or joy, what have you accom­plished? The sub­stance, the mean­ing is all that mat­ters in the end.“

An edit­ing tip: “I over­sat­u­rate the col­ors and brighten it on the Mac to make it look bet­ter on the PC because the Mac screen is nat­u­rally brighter,” Heller says. He also cre­ates at least two ver­sions, one at a 200 to 300 kilo­bits per sec­ond trans­fer rate in Flash, and a high-quality 1,100 kbs rate in h.264 MPEG-4.

iPhone panel

Christo­pher Allen had some inter­est­ing met­rics to share on the panel about video on the iPhone. In tests announced yes­ter­day, it took 50 sec­onds for CNN.com to load on an iPhone, and 2 min­utes for YouTube to load. “So it’s still going to be a hybrid expe­ri­ence” between a tra­di­tional mobile expe­ri­ence and a full Web experience. 

Allen recently cre­ated iPhoneWeb­Dev, which already has 122 mem­bers, all cre­at­ing web apps for the iPhone.

And iPhoneDe­v­Camp is hap­pen­ing July 6–8, bar­camp style, at Adobe HQ in San Jose. Admis­sion is free.

More Allen: “The iPhone will have an inter­face for video that will be dif­fer­ent from what peo­ple are expect­ing,” that is, not the usual Flash video seen on YouTube. But YouTube says it’ll transcode all new videos into the H.264 for­mat for use on the iPhone. I asked whether that meant YouTube will now be sup­port­ing down­loads, some­thing that only a tiny minor­ity of vis­i­tors have been able to do until now. Panel con­sen­sus: Prob­a­bly, and they’ll con­tinue to use the DMCA take-down pro­vi­sions as a defense.

See what they’re plan­ning over at m.youtube.com.

A for­mer Web map­ping com­pany exec said, “The iPhone’s imple­men­ta­tion of Google Maps is the best I’ve seen to date.”

Also, Josh Wolf has a report on the con­fer­ence on CNET.

Day 2

Just a cou­ple of brief updates from Thursday:

Enric Teller showed off Showinabox.tv, a fairly com­plete solu­tion for videoblog­gers. It’s a plug-in for Word­Press blog users. Enric called it “the ulti­mate videoblog­ging tool.”

Dina Kaplan, COO of Blip.tv, was a high­light of the con­fer­ence, per usual. Blip doesn’t run adver­tis­ing on its free grass­roots video host­ing ser­vice. Instead, it splits licens­ing rev­enues 50–50 by lin­ing up spon­sors of its Inter­net TV shows, like Ze Frank with Dewars, Amanda Con­g­don with Dove, and AliveinBaghdad.com with Per­sonal News Net­work. “We are bring­ing in spon­sors for inde­pen­dent media cre­ators,” she said.

She had a word of advice for video pro­duc­ers who want to make money but who blow off their chances at earn­ing rev­enues through ado­les­cent (my word) antics: “It’s cool to be artsy,but don’t pro­voke the grownups writ­ing the checks.”

Mark Glaser at PBS’s Medi­aShift: Your guide to online adver­tis­ing. Says Mark: “As peo­ple start spend­ing more time online and in the realms of new media, adver­tis­ers and mar­keters are try­ing hard to reach them there. I go through the his­tory of ban­ner ads, the rise of search-related “pay-per-click” text ads, and the eth­i­cal chal­lenges for mar­keters who cross the line with ads served through spy­ware or spam email. I also pro­vide key sta­tis­tics mea­sur­ing just how fast Inter­net adver­tis­ing is grow­ing around the world.”