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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Fundraising Survey (2009)
Rating  3
thekohser
post Fri 16th July 2010, 2:33am
Post #21


Member
*********

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



QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 15th July 2010, 8:42pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 15th July 2010, 11:11am) *
Kind of amusing how my well-wishes for Rand didn't draw a single comment from the Hive members. I guess they're learning not to poke.
That thread is eerily quiet; there are only two replies to the announcement total. That, combined with the message of the announcement, probably says something about someone.


It's that moment of quiet fear and flight of calm in the guts of Wikipediots, as they realize "Hey, it looks like Kohs was right about this after all..."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 6th October 2010, 6:05pm
Post #22


Member
*********

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



It didn't take SpiderHands Sue (assuming the buck stopped with her) very long to do what probably should have been done in the first place -- farm out the survey to a professional research company.

Except, in typical Wikimedia fashion, they gave it to an outfit that nobody's ever heard of: Tulsa-based Q2 Consulting, LLC.

Anyway, here is their report -- completely biased by self-selection, since they apparently did nothing to contact a small sample of non-responders, to see how their opinions differed from the gung ho types.

Now, let's see... who is from Tulsa?

This post has been edited by thekohser: Wed 6th October 2010, 6:09pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Thu 7th October 2010, 4:06am
Post #23


blah
*********

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

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 6th October 2010, 11:05am) *

Except, in typical Wikimedia fashion, they gave it to an outfit that nobody's ever heard of: Tulsa-based Q2 Consulting, LLC.
Anyway, here is their report -- completely biased by self-selection, since they apparently did nothing to contact a small sample of non-responders, to see how their opinions differed from the gung ho types.
Now, let's see... who is from Tulsa?

Dunno, but Philippe has some kind of personal connection to Q2 Consulting partner Nelly Vanzetti.

Their names are listed together here.

Ah! According to LinkedIn, he used to be a....."Research Associate at Q2 Consulting, LLC".
What a coinkydink! (You need a LinkedIn account to see that.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 7th October 2010, 4:06am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Thu 7th October 2010, 4:16am
Post #24


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(thekohser @ Wed 6th October 2010, 1:05pm) *
Anyway, here is their report -- completely biased by self-selection, since they apparently did nothing to contact a small sample of non-responders, to see how their opinions differed from the gung ho types.

Even so, it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, or even predict. In addition to the self-selection bias, there's the inherent assumption that genuine concerns about Wikipedia's irresponsibility (and relationship to society in general) are not to be mentioned, in favor of the usual claptrap:
  • That Wikipedia will be forced to sell advertising to maintain itself
  • That the volunteers who contribute the vast majority of Wikipedia's content will lose interest over time and Wikipedia will become out-of-date
  • That Wikipedia will include information that is incomplete, distorted, or wrong
  • That Wikipedia will be forced to charge money for access
  • That major corporations or other interested parties will influence Wikipedia's content and priorities
In other words, the only hint that real issues are even being considered here is the single word "distort," and even that's mostly self-serving. And obviously at no point do they mention the concern that money being donated isn't actually being used for anything, other than maybe a war-chest to defend against future lawsuits.

QUOTE
Now, let's see... who is from Tulsa?

I'd say the chances of that being purely a coincidence are less than 10 percent.

(Edit - Eric B. beat me to the punch there!)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 7th October 2010, 3:33pm
Post #25


Member
*********

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



We'll see how the Foundation-l mailing list responds to this request:

QUOTE
Gregory Kohs thekohser at gmail.com
Thu Oct 7 12:18:42 UTC 2010

Philippe Beaudette recently mentioned the final report from a donors survey
recently completed by Q2 Consulting, LLC. I'd like to congratulate the
Foundation for getting this independent research project completed. (I had
participated extensively in the design of the 2009 survey that never came to
pass, prior to Rand Montoya's departure from the Foundation.)

I am wondering if Philippe could share with us the "request for proposal"
that went out to the various vendors who surely bid on this 2010 donors
survey? Also, if we could see the list of research firms that presented
proposals, and the criteria by which Q2 Consulting was selected, I would be
very pleased.

Kindly,

Greg

--
Gregory Kohs
Contact: 484-NEW-WIKI
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sun 10th October 2010, 2:54am
Post #26


Member
*********

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



Since they wouldn't respond intelligently on the Foundation-l mailing list, the national news media had to get involved. It doesn't look very good for Mssrs. Beaudette and Montoya, as the piece pulls no punches.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jayvdb
post Mon 11th October 2010, 3:56am
Post #27


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed 28th Feb 2007, 2:15am
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 1,039

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 10th October 2010, 2:54am) *

Since they wouldn't respond intelligently on the Foundation-l mailing list, the national news media had to get involved. It doesn't look very good for Mssrs. Beaudette and Montoya, as the piece pulls no punches.

Your piece in examiner.com is national news media, and the BayNewser blog is mainstream media? hrmph.gif

Other than that, nice work.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 11th October 2010, 1:37pm
Post #28


Member
*********

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



QUOTE(jayvdb @ Sun 10th October 2010, 11:56pm) *

Your piece in examiner.com is national news media, and the BayNewser blog is mainstream media? hrmph.gif

Other than that, nice work.


Examiner.com is the #30 news site on the Internet, according to Alexa. It ranks higher in online reach than Business Week, Time Magazine, or CBS News. My articles have received over 3,400 page views in the less than three months since I began writing for Examiner. I don't know what more you want from me than that.

As for the MediaBistro / BayNewser description as "mainstream media", I suppose I could change that in my article. MediaBistro.com is dedicated to anyone who creates or works with content, or who is a non-creative professional working in a content/creative industry. That includes editors, writers, producers, graphic designers, book publishers, and others in industries including magazines, television, film, radio, newspapers, book publishing, online media, advertising, PR, and design. The property was sold in 2007 to Jupitermedia for $27 million, according to Wikipedia. That's only 1/20th of what the Philadelphia Inquirer sold for in the previous year. You got me on that one -- sorry.

Thank you for the compliment on the rest of the article.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Mon 11th October 2010, 1:40pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 11th October 2010, 2:01pm
Post #29


Member
*********

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



I want to say another thing about the quality of the Q2 Consulting LLC reports.

In the short report, they call out: "Note high % of retired participating". Some 12.3% of the survey participants reported that they were retired. Well, guess what? According to the United States census figures, about 13.2% of people over the age of 16 in the United States are over the age of 65 and not in the labor force nor formally identified as "unemployed" -- in other words, "retired". So, really, there was not a "high % of retired participating"; it was an appropriately expected percentage of retired participating.

A similar gaffe is found in the long report. Q2 Consulting says about the respondents to its survey, "notably, 63% are not living with children". Guess what? The U.S. census tells us that 68.2% of households have no children under 18 present in them. So, why is it "notable" that 63% of the respondents to a donors survey about Wikipedia would not be living with children?

These strike me as comments made by a consulting firm that doesn't really do a lot of population surveys.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Mon 11th October 2010, 3:10pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Mon 11th October 2010, 2:13pm
Post #30


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 11th October 2010, 10:01am) *

These strike me as comments made by a consulting firm that doesn't really do a lot of population surveys.


Or just φudged their data from the Census Report …

Jon tongue.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jayvdb
post Mon 11th October 2010, 10:42pm
Post #31


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed 28th Feb 2007, 2:15am
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 1,039

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 11th October 2010, 1:37pm) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Sun 10th October 2010, 11:56pm) *

Your piece in examiner.com is national news media, and the BayNewser blog is mainstream media? hrmph.gif

Other than that, nice work.


Examiner.com is the #30 news site on the Internet, according to Alexa. It ranks higher in online reach than Business Week, Time Magazine, or CBS News. My articles have received over 3,400 page views in the less than three months since I began writing for Examiner. I don't know what more you want from me than that.


Colour me surprised. It's Alexa ranking (524) is a lot higher than I expected.

Is examiner.com solely 'citizen' contributed stories, or does it syndicate content as well?

Is 3,400 page views the combined total across all your articles, or an average for each article?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 12th October 2010, 11:19am
Post #32


Member
*********

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



QUOTE(jayvdb @ Mon 11th October 2010, 6:42pm) *

Colour me surprised. It's Alexa ranking (524) is a lot higher than I expected.

Is examiner.com solely 'citizen' contributed stories, or does it syndicate content as well?

Is 3,400 page views the combined total across all your articles, or an average for each article?


You mean "Its". tongue.gif

My understanding is that the content is 100% generated by "citizen" reporters; but, keep in mind, that there is an application process, a background check, a fairly substantial training process, and ongoing service forums and tutorials, to help these citizens perform more like "professional" journalists. We are all paid for our articles, based on a proprietary algorithm of page views, length of time on page, comments, etc. It's not a way of living by any means (I've made about $25 so far), but it is a bit of a motivation that separates the task from other "free culture" scams. I suppose someone who really churned out a couple of articles per day on popular (celebrities, UFO's, sports) topics, could probably pay for their household's groceries each month.

The 3,400 page views is the combined total across all of my articles thus far. It's up to 3,560 today.

P.S. If anyone is interested in becoming an Examiner, please sign up by claiming me as a referral. I'll get $50 once you're an established reporter, and I'll share half of that with you.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 12th October 2010, 11:20am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 12th October 2010, 1:14pm
Post #33


Member
*********

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



Kudos to Jayvdb... but how long before he too is "moderated" on the Foundation-l list?

Also, it looks like Geni is jealous of my role as Wikimedia critic, but John Vandy put her (?) in her place.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 12th October 2010, 1:14pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 12th October 2010, 7:00pm
Post #34


Member
*********

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



Seems that nobody at Q2 Consulting is answering their phones today. Likewise, they weren't responding to their "Contact Us" web form yesterday.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cedric
post Tue 12th October 2010, 9:28pm
Post #35


General Gato
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined: Sun 11th Mar 2007, 5:58pm
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 12th October 2010, 8:14am) *

Kudos to Jayvdb... but how long before he too is "moderated" on the Foundation-l list?

Also, it looks like Geni is jealous of my role as Wikimedia critic, but John Vandy put her (?) in her place.

Tsk, tsk! John is forgetting the Foundation's motto:

Image

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 13th October 2010, 12:35am
Post #36


Member
*********

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



This is really getting out of hand.

The Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation is now advising that questions about competitive bidding and possible violation of WMF's own internal policies on purchasing and disbursements should be suppressed on the Foundation's public mailing list, and shunted off to an even more inaccessible place and time, like "IRC Office Hours".

Is it just me, or have I really hit on a nerve here, that this much under-the-rug sweeping is being carried out?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 13th October 2010, 3:07am
Post #37


Member
*********

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



Uh oh, looks like Birgitte might be headed for Blocksville.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Wed 13th October 2010, 3:07am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Wed 13th October 2010, 3:18am
Post #38


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 12th October 2010, 8:35pm) *

This is really getting out of hand.

The Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation is now advising that questions about competitive bidding and possible violation of WMF's own internal policies on purchasing and disbursements should be suppressed on the Foundation's public mailing list, and shunted off to an even more inaccessible place and time, like "IRC Office Hours".

Is it just me, or have I really hit on a nerve here, that this much under-the-rug sweeping is being carried out?


QUOTE(Jimmy Wales @ 18 May 2010)

One of the interesting things about Wikipedia is that we do all of our work publicly and in the open. And the kinds of disagreements and tussles and struggles within the community that would normally, at The Encyclopedia Britannica, go on behind closed doors, we do in public, because that's the way we do our work.

— Jimmy Wales, “Debate : The Internet and Democracy”, Miller Center of Public Affairs, 18 May 2010.


Is there a transcript for the debate that I can cite? — I can't imagine ever having the stomach to sit through that whole video.

Jon sick.gif

Okay, I found the PDF transcript.

Jimbo's remark is at the top of page 17.

Jon Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Wed 13th October 2010, 2:06pm
Post #39


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 12th October 2010, 11:18pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 12th October 2010, 8:35pm) *

This is really getting out of hand.

The Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation is now advising that questions about competitive bidding and possible violation of WMF's own internal policies on purchasing and disbursements should be suppressed on the Foundation's public mailing list, and shunted off to an even more inaccessible place and time, like "IRC Office Hours".

Is it just me, or have I really hit on a nerve here, that this much under-the-rug sweeping is being carried out?


QUOTE(Jimmy Wales @ 18 May 2010)

One of the interesting things about Wikipedia is that we do all of our work publicly and in the open. And the kinds of disagreements and tussles and struggles within the community that would normally, at The Encyclopedia Britannica, go on behind closed doors, we do in public, because that's the way we do our work.

— Jimmy Wales, “Debate : The Internet and Democracy”, Miller Center of Public Affairs, 18 May 2010.


Is there a transcript for the debate that I can cite? — I can't imagine ever having the stomach to sit through that whole video.

Jon sick.gif

Okay, I found the PDF transcript.

Jimbo's remark is at the top of page 17.

Jon Image

That stuff on the mailing list is just embarrassing. Moulton would probably point out that every role in the "lunatic drama" was played perfectly! popcorn.gif

Epic win, Greg. I suppose it would be naive to think this might portend a change of tides, but the levee seems to be developing noticeable cracks. applause.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 13th October 2010, 6:51pm
Post #40


Member
*********

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



Sue Gardner will take office hours on IRC tomorrow. It's at a time when I can't possibly participate, so will someone please ask her about how the Q2 Consulting research project was awarded?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >
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: 24th 7 17, 4:28am