Activist groups such as Indymedia and Peoples' Global Action have demonstrated this, leading WTO officials to say that Seattle was not lost in the negotiating rooms, nor in the streets but on the internet. Indeed, some sites which need a certain number of visitors to keep going would be likely to go bust. The analysis links are probably the most problematic. Attempting to filter development-related information to produce a global supersite for so many audiences is extremely unrealistic. The meaning of development and many of the Gateway topics is itself strongly contested.
Development includes everything that has to do with everyone in the South.
On such a megasite reports from African think-tanks or NGOs are likely to be crowded out by major World Bank publications on the same issues. Many detailed criticisms have been made against the Bank's planned approach. But the Bank has done little to respond to them. This was a frank admission that the consultation exercise they have been conducting was largely a sham and Wolfensohn was using his diplomatic muscle to marginalia opponents and steamroll groups into collaborating without questioning the fundamentals of the Bank's plans. The World Bank already gets four million page hits per month on its main website.