The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Who owns Wikipedia?, I am not a lawyer
anthony
post Sat 29th January 2011, 11:47pm
Post #41


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 29th January 2011, 10:35pm) *

Mmm... nonprofits can sell advertising, and can pay officers fat salaries. It's what they do with the profit that affects nonprofit status. Selling ads for a publication is not an unrelated business if the business is publishing, as it is. It's just a means of accomplishing the purpose: education, right?


No, wrong.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sat 29th January 2011, 11:49pm
Post #42


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



There are two things that strike me about this, aside from the fact that even the most short-sighted businesses don't sell their #1 asset merely to "advance their stated goals."

The first, and the most obvious, is how they would reconcile the fact that Wikimedia isn't actually a charity (in any meaningful sense of the word) with these self-imposed restrictions on unloading assets, which are presumably in there primarily (if not solely) to support its spurious claim that it really is a charity. I don't think they can, so they would have to change their bylaws to make the sale, and if people got wind of the attempt in advance, they might try to stop them. I was actually thinking that these bylaws might serve an additional purpose, namely to prevent any kind of takeover whatsoever, friendly, hostile, or otherwise. (I doubt that would have been intentional, though.)

The second is that when you go from not being ad-supported to being even partially ad-supported, you have some pretty serious work to do. You're going to need some additional infrastructure in the organization - sales-people, a fulfillment department, dedicated technical support staff, maybe another accountant or three. It's likely they'd want to start small and ramp up - maybe just run something in the sidebar or a small sitewide banner, probably using some sort of automatic rotation scheme. If they suddenly threw in a whole bunch of new/untested features to show targeted ads based on page content (sort of like Google AdSense) or allow advertisers to buy space on particularly "hot" articles (namely those related to porn, politics, and current entertainment and media properties), that would be very risky, IMO.

I guess what I'm saying WRT advertising is that I believe the estimates of Wikipedia's value as an advertising platform are grossly inflated. I can certainly see them getting into 7 figures per year, maybe 8 later on if they do it right. But 50 million? I just don't see it, personally, unless several other media markets just completely collapse in the short term.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 29th January 2011, 11:58pm
Post #43


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 29th January 2011, 3:49pm) *
I guess what I'm saying WRT advertising is that I believe the estimates of Wikipedia's value as an advertising platform are grossly inflated. I can certainly see them getting into 7 figures per year, maybe 8 later on if they do it right. But 50 million? I just don't see it, personally, unless several other media markets just completely collapse in the short term.

You might be correct, given the use patterns and userbase.

Don't forget that Facebook made $1.86 billion last year, from advertising
(more-or-less the only revenue generator they've got).
But then, it's been absurdly overvalued by investors--currently $50 billion.
I doubt an "encyclopedia" run by a bunch of Aspies could ever come close to that.

Maybe they could start a "MY Wikipedia" social site like Facebook?
Leverage their brand a little bit? biggrin.gif

(Did you know that mywikipedia.com redirects to a spam-filled blog?)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 30th January 2011, 12:08am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Sun 30th January 2011, 12:24am
Post #44


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 29th January 2011, 2:35pm) *
Mmm... nonprofits can sell advertising, and can pay officers fat salaries. It's what they do with the profit that affects nonprofit status. Selling ads for a publication is not an unrelated business if the business is publishing, as it is. It's just a means of accomplishing the purpose: education, right?

Re "fat salaries", the IRS newly requires non-profits to submit on their Form 990s the salaries of all "highly compensated" executives, and certify that the total compensation for those executives is comparable to that of executives at similar institutions elsewhere. "Excess compensation" is prohibited and can endanger the tax-exempt status of the institution.

Regarding selling advertising, many non-profits do so (for example in their magazines, or whatever), but it is usually "unrelated business taxable income" which is usually limited to 30% of the non-profit's revenue. The key test for UBTI is "not substantially related to furthering the exempt purpose of the organization". The IRS goes on to say that "the causal relationship [to the exempt purpose] must be substantial" and "the activities that generate the income must contribute importantly to accomplishing the organization's exempt purposes to be substantially related." The IRS uses an example of advertising in a yearbook, and concludes that ads are unrelated business income. There are other relevant examples in IRS Publication 598.

Note, however, that sponsorship advertising (of the kind, e.g. that Public Broadcasting does) is not generally considered UBTI, but the sponsorship statements cannot be "inducements to purchase, sell or use ... products or services". Note also that any "trade or business in which substantially all the work is performed by volunteer labor without compensation" is specifically excluded from being UBTI in the statute. It is all quite complicated.

I'll keep explaining this to you guys, but I have no idea where this conversation is going.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
radek
post Sun 30th January 2011, 12:56am
Post #45


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat 28th Nov 2009, 10:40pm
Member No.: 15,651

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 29th January 2011, 5:58pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 29th January 2011, 3:49pm) *
I guess what I'm saying WRT advertising is that I believe the estimates of Wikipedia's value as an advertising platform are grossly inflated. I can certainly see them getting into 7 figures per year, maybe 8 later on if they do it right. But 50 million? I just don't see it, personally, unless several other media markets just completely collapse in the short term.

You might be correct, given the use patterns and userbase.

Don't forget that Facebook made $1.86 billion last year, from advertising
(more-or-less the only revenue generator they've got).
But then, it's been absurdly overvalued by investors--currently $50 billion.
I doubt an "encyclopedia" run by a bunch of Aspies could ever come close to that.

Maybe they could start a "MY Wikipedia" social site like Facebook?
Leverage their brand a little bit? biggrin.gif

(Did you know that mywikipedia.com redirects to a spam-filled blog?)




Mmmm.... agree with that. It's like Yahoo!'s market value at one point was greater than of all the automobile producing firms in US put together and people bought into that. And these days most "kids" don't even know what a "Yahoo!" is, more or less. Same thing with Facebook. Silly pop culture movies made for the "meme of the day"and the "celebritization" of the guy behind it are actually a pretty good indication that soon no one will care.

For better or worse somehow I don't think the same is true for Wikipedia. Too much "economies of scale" and path dependence.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Sun 30th January 2011, 1:14am
Post #46


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(gomi @ Sun 30th January 2011, 12:24am) *

Regarding selling advertising, many non-profits do so (for example in their magazines, or whatever), but it is usually "unrelated business taxable income" which is usually limited to 30% of the non-profit's revenue. The key test for UBTI is "not substantially related to furthering the exempt purpose of the organization". The IRS goes on to say that "the causal relationship [to the exempt purpose] must be substantial" and "the activities that generate the income must contribute importantly to accomplishing the organization's exempt purposes to be substantially related." The IRS uses an example of advertising in a yearbook, and concludes that ads are unrelated business income. There are other relevant examples in IRS Publication 598.

Note, however, that sponsorship advertising (of the kind, e.g. that Public Broadcasting does) is not generally considered UBTI, but the sponsorship statements cannot be "inducements to purchase, sell or use ... products or services". Note also that any "trade or business in which substantially all the work is performed by volunteer labor without compensation" is specifically excluded from being UBTI in the statute. It is all quite complicated.


Thanks for that. I've always wondered whether or not a charity with an exempt purpose of dissemination of informational content could justify (at least the more informational forms of) advertising as being directly related to that exempt purpose, but it's not something that I'd recommend without a private letter ruling or signoff by someone more knowledgeable than myself on the relevant case law.

And yes, I'm aware of qualified sponsorship statements, but I'm thinking of advertising that would not qualify, among other things due to "containing qualitative or comparative language, price information, or other indications of savings or value".

But in the end, for something like Wikipedia, I'd say the benefit of being able to retain earnings tax free comes nowhere near the detriments of having to deal with the IRS's micromanagement of charity organizations.

This post has been edited by anthony: Sun 30th January 2011, 1:35am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sun 30th January 2011, 9:34am
Post #47


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 29th January 2011, 11:49pm) *

even the most short-sighted businesses don't sell their #1 asset merely to "advance their stated goals."


Property developers do just this. The question is whether the asset is something that fits well with the business's current ability, strategic direction, business model etc etc.

If you read anything that WMF puts out, or join in their stupid forum, it's almost like Wikipedia doesn't exist. As though they are purposefully ignoring it. And perhaps they are: if they tried to manage it like any other business, they would be in for all sorts of trouble. Their business model is simply hosting an internet site (according to them). If so, why not just sell off the asset? Or lease it somehow? As well as the recent disposal of assets, my church also leases an adjoining building to a coffee shop. The running of the business is entirely the business of its owner. The church simply collects a rental.

On how much money Wikipedia could make from advertising, that's another subject. I would split it into three colour-coded or clearly identifiable sectors. One for straight advertising. Another for hobbyists who can collect information Pokemon stuff, train timetables or old Dr Who episodes and so on. The third for properly encyclopedic content.

Outbound links from the encyclopedia part to the other parts would be alowed, but strictly controlled. It always struck me as a shame that if I look on Wikipedia for any place I know about, there is very little. It would be nice to know which are the local restaurants, what are the good places to buy property, as well as the prices of property, what shops there are and so on. So you could have links in the encyclopedia part to the advertising part, just like when you get the free London Evening Standard, you can turn to pages that advertise houses or jobs or cars.

And there's nothing to stop the hobbyists also having pages about the place they live in, with comments about the local restaurants, which ones are shit and so on.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 30th January 2011, 9:37am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sun 30th January 2011, 10:27am
Post #48


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 30th January 2011, 1:34am) *
If you read anything that WMF puts out, or join in their stupid forum, it's almost like Wikipedia doesn't exist. As though they are purposefully ignoring it. And perhaps they are: if they tried to manage it like any other business, they would be in for all sorts of trouble.

Oh, but sometimes, they do. They have to. Legal threats and all that.
But they just "pretend" to not have a problem.
Have a look at this thread for the latest example.

QUOTE
On how much money Wikipedia could make from advertising, that's another subject. I would split it into three colour-coded or clearly identifiable sectors. One for straight advertising. Another for hobbyists who can collect information Pokemon stuff, train timetables or old Dr Who episodes and so on. The third for properly encyclopedic content.

You've just described Wikia, btw. (Minus the third part, although there's probably a lot of useful
encyclopedia content hidden away in there somewhere.)

Frankly, I don't think anything will change at the WMF. They are like General Electric--so hidebound,
conservative, and unable to change, that the mere idea of moving from making electrical
switchgear and turbine engines to, say, mining equipment, would cause them to laugh their heads off.

But if the market for switchgear and turbines ever collapses, they will just ride the whole massive
entity into the ground, all the while pointing fingers at each other. It almost happened to GE--read
Jack Welch's biography. GE was headed for the dustbin when Welch took the reins in 1981. He was
a bastard, but he probably saved the company from irrelevance-followed-by-bankruptcy.

(Did you know that in 1981, GE still owned the world's largest vacuum-tube factory, in Owensboro, Kentucky?
One of Welch's first acts was to sell off the white elephant--given that the market for tubes was
crashing because consumer electronics had already gone solid-state, it wasn't a bad decision.)

I don't see any Jack Welches at the WMF. Just a gang of mediocrities, blaming each other for
each disaster and crisis, and then trying to cover it all up.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sun 30th January 2011, 11:36am
Post #49


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 30th January 2011, 10:27am) *

You've just described Wikia, btw.


Not quite. Wikia kept the advertising quite separate from the content, and there was no encyclopedia. Here I'm envisaging carefully policed outbound links from the encyclopedia part to the advertising part. The police are employed by the encyclopedia part, and their job is to protect its neutrality. So if your local estate agent or restaurant has a reasonably good article, say like this

QUOTE
Light Horse Tavern received favorable mention in a 2003 review for The Jersey Journal, which noted, "With its beautiful decor, try to stay focused on the food. It's surprisingly good and reasonably priced."[1] The Waterfront Journal described the Light Horse Tavern in 2004 as "an exquisite restaurant where you can dine Manhattan-style".[11] In 2004, Hudson Reporter referred to the establishment as "the center" of the "political world" in Hudson County, New Jersey.[12] The publication noted, "Unfortunately, so many political people show up at the Light Horse these days that enemies cannot help but bump into each other."[12] The tavern was a favorite hangout location for New Jersey politician Paul Byrne.[13][14] In 2005, The Jersey Journal recommended the Light Horse Tavern among locations to celebrate New Year's Eve.[2] A 2006 article about Jersey City in New York Magazine highlighted the Light Horse Tavern, among recommended local attractions of the city, and described it as "upscale".[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Horse_Tavern

then you can get an outbound link in the encyclopedia part. The difference from the Wikipedia article above is that the encyclopedia would get paid for both the link and the article/advertising space. In the case above, the restaurant owner got it for free.

In the case of articles about large corporations, which would deserve space in the encyclopedia itself, that's more difficult. I would suggest a very short article in the encyclopedia, restricted to the bare facts, plus a link to an article paid for by the company and written by its own PR staff, clearly identified as such (like the advertisement-feature articles you see in normal newspapers that have 'this is an advertisement' in big letters at the top).

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 30th January 2011, 11:38am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sun 30th January 2011, 6:22pm
Post #50


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 30th January 2011, 5:36am) *
In the case of articles about large corporations, which would deserve space in the encyclopedia itself, that's more difficult. I would suggest a very short article in the encyclopedia, restricted to the bare facts, plus a link to an article paid for by the company and written by its own PR staff, clearly identified as such (like the advertisement-feature articles you see in normal newspapers that have 'this is an advertisement' in big letters at the top).

Things like that have been suggested (and, of course, roundly rejected by the "community") before, but I should just point out that if WMF/Wikipedia allowed for something like that, then yes, their potential ad revenue could go into 9, 10, or jeez, maybe even 11 figures someday.

The lowball estimate I used earlier in this thread was based on the fact that advertisers want a fair amount of control over the space they buy, and by "fair" I mean "total." If the seller of ad space is forced to tell the advertiser, "we can't guarantee, or even give you any kind of assurance whatsoever, that the page on which your corn-flakes ad will appear won't occasionally contain information about the negative effects of eating corn-flakes, or won't even contain the words "CORN FLAKES SUCK BALLS" in large capital letters," that's going to make the space less valuable to the advertiser, so the advertiser will insist on paying less than he would on, say, Facebook, where he has much greater control.

But if Wikipedia were to set up something like Wikipedia Review.com, where the subject of an article can control what's on the page and still get the same amount of Google juice, then sure, the WMF would clean up. It would be a ca$h-grabbing bonanza. What's more, the organizational infrastructure required just to manage that part of the business would force the WMF to expand to, I dunno, at least twice its current size and maybe 4 or 5 times its current size, in terms of employees, office space, etc. - with all that such an expansion would entail. Obviously I hope they don't do that, because the WMF is bad enough as it is, without being a billion-dollar company. Imagine how much damage they could do with that kind of money.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sun 30th January 2011, 7:23pm
Post #51


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 30th January 2011, 6:22pm) *

But if Wikipedia were to set up something like Wikipedia Review.com, where the subject of an article can control what's on the page and still get the same amount of Google juice, then sure, the WMF would clean up. It would be a ca$h-grabbing bonanza. What's more, the organizational infrastructure required just to manage that part of the business would force the WMF to expand to, I dunno, at least twice its current size and maybe 4 or 5 times its current size, in terms of employees, office space, etc. - with all that such an expansion would entail. Obviously I hope they don't do that, because the WMF is bad enough as it is, without being a billion-dollar company. Imagine how much damage they could do with that kind of money.


MWB was a much better idea. The problem always was that there is only room for one Wikipedia. I have tested writing the same page on Wikipedia and on MWB. Wikipedia grabs the juice every time. And that's what I mean by 'it'. I don't want to buy the content, or even the name. I just want the ability to have everything I write get to #1 in Google. That's what people buying the advertising want, too.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 30th January 2011, 7:24pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Sun 30th January 2011, 7:39pm
Post #52


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 30th January 2011, 12:23pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 30th January 2011, 6:22pm) *

But if Wikipedia were to set up something like Wikipedia Review.com, where the subject of an article can control what's on the page and still get the same amount of Google juice, then sure, the WMF would clean up. It would be a ca$h-grabbing bonanza. What's more, the organizational infrastructure required just to manage that part of the business would force the WMF to expand to, I dunno, at least twice its current size and maybe 4 or 5 times its current size, in terms of employees, office space, etc. - with all that such an expansion would entail. Obviously I hope they don't do that, because the WMF is bad enough as it is, without being a billion-dollar company. Imagine how much damage they could do with that kind of money.


MWB was a much better idea. The problem always was that there is only room for one Wikipedia. I have tested writing the same page on Wikipedia and on MWB. Wikipedia grabs the juice every time. And that's what I mean by 'it'. I don't want to buy the content, or even the name. I just want the ability to have everything I write get to #1 in Google. That's what people buying the advertising want, too.

There's an un-doable experiment I'd love to try: suppose Google were jiggered so that, for a year, it automatically put the Wikipedia Review (MWB) article above WP's, in any case where both articles existed. How long before MWB started to shoot into the statosphere? For all the "I get to control the article about my business and myself" reasons that Greg has mentioned.

The problem with WP is that Google sees it as one homogenous site, so that every article with 2000 page views a month gets the same ranking, when you search that term, as an article that gets 100 times more. There's something basically unfair about that.

However, this has allowed WP (as a WHOLE) to achieve "escape velocity," so that there's no way to catch any individual part of it now, in GOOGLE rankings. I believe it would take GOOGLE deliberately jiggering their own product, Google Knol, to get past that advantage now, so long as they insist on seeing en.wiki (and the other language wikis, too) as "single" websites, and not the many many sub-pages that each is composed of.

And Google has not done this, at least not yet. Example: search Google for "Knol." Sure, Google's own site comes up FIRST, then the help site for it. Then, (THIRD) WP's article on Knol, even though that page is only seen 5500 times a month on WP. All this is purely because the ENTIRE Knol site beats out the single WP article for this term, but it won't happen for any given page of Knol vs. any given page of Wikipedia. Example: Knol itself gives "Insomnia" as a good example article for Knol. But if you search on Google for "insomnia", WP's article on it comes up FIRST on page one, and I can't find the Knol article in first FIVE pages of the search (at which point I gave up). Effectively, it might as well not exist on the web.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 31st January 2011, 1:40am
Post #53


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 30th January 2011, 2:23pm) *

MWB was a much better idea. The problem always was that there is only room for one Wikipedia. I have tested writing the same page on Wikipedia and on MWB. Wikipedia grabs the juice every time. And that's what I mean by 'it'. I don't want to buy the content, or even the name. I just want the ability to have everything I write get to #1 in Google. That's what people buying the advertising want, too.


The secret, Peter, is to write the high-quality content on Wikipedia Review, then expressly do not write anything at all on Wikipedia. Keep doing that about 400,000 times, and we'll begin to make a dent in Wikipedia's search engine dominance.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Mon 31st January 2011, 2:17am
Post #54


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



You guys are assuming that Google's page ranking scheme is 100% "honest" and "predictable".
I've seen a few declarations to the contrary. Not to mention the mountains of blather SEO
people have written about gaming Google.

Perhaps Mr. Brandt would have a few choice comments about this subject.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 31st January 2011, 2:17am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TungstenCarbide
post Mon 31st January 2011, 4:04am
Post #55


Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined: Sat 14th Mar 2009, 6:12am
Member No.: 10,787

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 31st January 2011, 2:17am) *
Perhaps Mr. Brandt would have a few choice comments about this subject.

i'd rather hear from Bambi.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A User
post Mon 31st January 2011, 4:15am
Post #56


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed 23rd Apr 2008, 2:37am
Member No.: 5,813



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 31st January 2011, 1:17pm) *

You guys are assuming that Google's page ranking scheme is 100% "honest" and "predictable".
I've seen a few declarations to the contrary. Not to mention the mountains of blather SEO
people have written about gaming Google.

Perhaps Mr. Brandt would have a few choice comments about this subject.


I agree with you Eric. The Google ranking system is unfair and biased.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th 11 14, 3:41pm