What the "donors" are saying..., A continuing series.... Options

Then again, there's the option of writing yet another comic opera.

That is so last year. There are sites-a-plenty that celebrate the absurdity of Wikipedia — came to act but only catharted — and leave you too weak from laughter to do anything about the threat to society. Sure, I would hate it if we couldn't keep our faculties intact, humour-wise, but I am of late less and less of a mind to believe that Wikipedia is Wikiφunny anymore.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 31st October 2007, 3:34am

Don't many organizations, good, bad, otherwise, have such statements? Don't they usually have little or no impact on the behavior of these organizations? Remember just how deeply dysfunctional this community currently is, how feeble it's normal institutions, such as it Board of Trustees has become. Also is there any way that this contract can provide for meaningful participation for stakeholders that are not currently at the table at all?

Mission Statements are much more common than full-fledged Social Contracts. And there are plenty of organizations in which their charter documents (e.g. Constitution, By-Laws, etc) are mere window dressing. Corrupt and dysfunctional organizations are the norm, and have been since the dawn of civilization. In the Theory of Community Building, there are Communities of Interest, Communities of Practice, Communities of Commitment, and Centers of Excellence. Wikipedia might have become a world-class Center of Excellence, but it failed to become a Communty of Commitment. Instead, it has devolved into a dysfunctional Community of Malpractice.

It need not have been that way.

I spent a good part of the last decade of the last millennium thinking a lot and writing a little about the relation between Democracy and Inquiry. I have already spent a good part of the first decade of this millennium discussing the same issue in numerous online forums. The topic is a Perennial Hot One in Pragmatic Philosophy and a major theme in the works of Peirce, James, Dewey, Mead, and Company. The list of contemporary lights who have lit on it is too numerous to exhaust, but Richard J. Bernstein, Noam Chomsky, Jürgen Habermas, and Hilary Putnam come to mind as having supplied memorable insights.

Trying to have intelligent discussions about these issues in Wikiputia — well, there is an old song about trying to roller skate in a buffalo herd that now comes to mind.

Jonny

I'd like to see a fund set up to retain a genuinely independent Ombudsman.

Suppose there were an Ombudsman, and people went to him with a complaint of blocking as alleged sockpuppets. He'd ask for the CheckUser. No, he can't have it because of confidentiality rules or (WP:BEANS) because it might disclose information enabling people to sockpuppet more effectively.

They obtained 8,000 donors in the first week of a nine-week campaign. Average donation is $26. So, simply put, 8,000 donors x 9 weeks x $26 = $1.87 million. Nowhere near $4.6 million. It's even well short of the $2.6 million "projected" above. (Note, also, that the campaign has expressed that 100,000 donors is the goal, and the size of their "thermometer" matches that number. If we forecast the first-week tally through nine weeks, they're only going to hit 72,000 donors.)

Furthermore, I'd like to add in the concept of attrition. People tire of fundraising campaigns -- both longitudinally from year to year, and fatigue sets in within the campaign over each subsequent week. The "eager beavers" have already made their donations. This leaves behind the apathetic masses, bored of being asked to donate to something they regard as their "own" free creation. Let's imagine that over week-to-week, we'll see a conservative 5% attrition rate.

A 5% attrition rate will yield a grand total of $1.54 million.

A 10% attrition rate will yield a total of only $1.27 million.

It's Friday morning, which means we're half-way through Week 2 of the Jimbo Blinks, You Donate campaign. Remember that they hoodwinked 8,000 donors in Week 1? Remember that I suggested there would be attrition in subsequent weeks? We're half-way through Week 2, which would mean a steady donation flow should have added another 4,000 donors to the 8,000 from Week 1, or a current straight-line total of 12,000.

Instead, it looks like we haven't even hit 11,000 yet. Is there any possible way this campaign will be at 16,000 donors by Tuesday morning (the end of Week 2)? I'm saying "no way". Might even have to threaten to eat some liverwurst if they make it.

God, I'm lovin' Tuesdays now.

So, they're at about $275,000 currently. That's a far cry from $4.6 million. GOOD JOB, Wikipedia Review. I dare say that our efforts are actually having a real-world impact on the hearts and minds of people with "closed-source" wallets.

Greg

Anybody else see the Signpost blurb about the fundraising?

Fundraiser continues

The Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser continued this week. In the first seven days of the fundraiser, about 8,280 people had donated, and the Foundation had raised about US$212,000.[1] This amount is slightly less than the $261,000 donated during the first seven days of last year's drive. Interestingly, only three contributions of $1,000 or more have been recorded so far during this drive; during the last drive, 20 contributions of $1,000 or more were recorded, discounting two large contributions that appeared to have been mailed independent of the fundraising drive. Last year's drive, however, began during the holiday season, which may explain decreased giving so far.

So, they admit that the first-week capital is about 19% LESS than the previous fund-drive, and thousand-dollar-plus donations are down a full 85%, but Jimbo proudly proclaims it's "the highest we have ever seen". More lies (or is it just careless, misinformed hucksterism?) from the Sole Flounder. Anyone surprised?

RED ALERT! The "Blinky Jimbo" video and thermometer-goal graphic have been replaced! I'm sure THAT will fix the problem. Muuu-wah-ha-ha-haaaaah!

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser: Sun 4th November 2007, 4:53am

Anybody else see the Signpost blurb about the fundraising?

Fundraiser continues

The Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser continued this week. In the first seven days of the fundraiser, about 8,280 people had donated, and the Foundation had raised about US$212,000.[1] This amount is slightly less than the $261,000 donated during the first seven days of last year's drive. Interestingly, only three contributions of $1,000 or more have been recorded so far during this drive; during the last drive, 20 contributions of $1,000 or more were recorded, discounting two large contributions that appeared to have been mailed independent of the fundraising drive. Last year's drive, however, began during the holiday season, which may explain decreased giving so far.

So, they admit that the first-week capital is about 19% LESS than the previous fund-drive, and thousand-dollar-plus donations are down a full 85%, but Jimbo proudly proclaims it's "the highest we have ever seen". More lies (or is it just careless, misinformed hucksterism?) from the Sole Flounder. Anyone surprised?

RED ALERT! The "Blinky Jimbo" video and thermometer-goal graphic have been replaced! I'm sure THAT will fix the problem. Muuu-wah-ha-ha-haaaaah!

Greg

Yes, it has been replaced by a very ugly banner too!

They obtained 8,000 donors in the first week of a nine-week campaign. Average donation is $26. So, simply put, 8,000 donors x 9 weeks x $26 = $1.87 million. Nowhere near $4.6 million. It's even well short of the $2.6 million "projected" above. (Note, also, that the campaign has expressed that 100,000 donors is the goal, and the size of their "thermometer" matches that number. If we forecast the first-week tally through nine weeks, they're only going to hit 72,000 donors.)

Furthermore, I'd like to add in the concept of attrition. People tire of fundraising campaigns -- both longitudinally from year to year, and fatigue sets in within the campaign over each subsequent week. The "eager beavers" have already made their donations. This leaves behind the apathetic masses, bored of being asked to donate to something they regard as their "own" free creation. Let's imagine that over week-to-week, we'll see a conservative 5% attrition rate.

A 5% attrition rate will yield a grand total of $1.54 million.

A 10% attrition rate will yield a total of only $1.27 million.

It's Friday morning, which means we're half-way through Week 2 of the Jimbo Blinks, You Donate campaign. Remember that they hoodwinked 8,000 donors in Week 1? Remember that I suggested there would be attrition in subsequent weeks? We're half-way through Week 2, which would mean a steady donation flow should have added another 4,000 donors to the 8,000 from Week 1, or a current straight-line total of 12,000.

Instead, it looks like we haven't even hit 11,000 yet. Is there any possible way this campaign will be at 16,000 donors by Tuesday morning (the end of Week 2)? I'm saying "no way". Might even have to threaten to eat some liverwurst if they make it.

God, I'm lovin' Tuesdays now.

So, they're at about $275,000 currently. That's a far cry from $4.6 million. GOOD JOB, Wikipedia Review. I dare say that our efforts are actually having a real-world impact on the hearts and minds of people with "closed-source" wallets.

Good morning, class. Today's number is... 15,350. Remember, last week's number was 8,000 donors. If we subtract 8,000 from 15,350, we get 7,350. That means 650 fewer people donated to Wikipedia this week than they did last week. This is what we call attrition. Therefore, I am putting this two-pound block of liverwurst back in the refrigerator, since I am not obligated to eat it to fulfill my double-dog-dare of last week.

In fact, what we have just witnessed is a weekly attrition rate of 8.125%. Quite presciently, last week I offered you all projected grand totals based on either a 5% or a 10% weekly attrition rate. We are about in the middle between the two, aren't we? This would suggest a final fundraising total of about $1.43 million -- sixty-nine percent short of the $4.6 million goal to overpay Sue Gardner and Mike Godwin. However, that's the best-case scenario, if the Wikimedia Foundation can sustain an attrition rate of only 8%. I am going to predict right here and now that this attrition rate will increase over the remaining weeks, by as much as 1 or 2 percentage points per week! They're running out of "eager beavers", which leaves only non-donating visitors who are simply annoyed by the banner ad.

Of course, the predicted total depends on the average donation amount remaining near $26. We did have a nutter donate $10,000 this week, but that has the algebraic effect of boosting the average overall donation amount by about 75 cents. Perhaps the average donation is up to $27 now. Big deal.

I hope that Zscout returns with more Foundation-sourced totals from the IRC chat which I don't frequent. Those values would corroborate my estimates here, but I would say that the fundraiser is now at the $414,000 mark.

My prediction for next Tuesday morning's (9:00 AM Eastern) donor tally is: 22,040 donors, coughing up $584,000. It still sickens me, but clearly, it's a failure on the Foundation's part.

Greg

If we forecast the first-week tally through nine weeks, they're only going to hit 72,000 donors.)

My gut reaction is, "what's with the counting of donors?".

You count amounts, not number of donations.

Unless the amounts are not impressive.

Then putting forth 70k donors, many of which donated 1 dollar, sounds impressive.

See?

They shouldnt even be mentioning number of donors. No one does that, unless they are:
1) Doing an analysis
2) Masking the amounts, and going for positive spin.

DL

With the recent analysis of Dragons Flight I believe he hypothesized they would miss their margin by quite a bit, Let me see if I can dig his quotes up.

Judson Bagley AntiSocialMedia.net AntiSocialMedia.net Mon, 11/12/2007 - 05:14 USD 5.00

Possibly the best $5.00 I've ever spent.

Judson Bagley AntiSocialMedia.net AntiSocialMedia.net Mon, 11/12/2007 - 05:14 USD 5.00

Possibly the best $5.00 I've ever spent.

You're a class act, Judson. If I were you (lol), I would have gotten a bit nastier. Isn't WP fortunate that someone who knows (and can show!) so much dirt on them is such a nice guy?

Nevermind that WP got their Wordbomb timeline all wrong. My wayback machine checks on WP show that you weren't a employee of the Big O when you were Wordbomb, or when you started ASM. So I guess your "corporate smear campaign" eminated from that great big evil monopoly, "Business Jive dotcom".

No match for the barrells of ink flowing from the poison pens of Wall Street sychophant newspapers, several billion dollar hedge funds, Wall Street firms, and stock clearing houses and the people that work for them on wikipedia, eh?

[yadda yadda]

Hi Mr Lackey, could you please take that godawful screenshot of "Durova" off your avatar? It's ruining my meal. Put up one of JzG's page 3 girls or something.

I'll never forget the first time I googled Brandt after stumbling into that hornets nest on WP, and see ing the sideshow of humanity on his hivemind page. I hadn't been that nauseous and ashamed of my species's propagation since the last Piper Family reunion. Just thinking about Hivemind compels me to search JzG's W-R babes thread from the Kohser to restore my faith in the future of mankind, artificial or big and natural.

Some goodies:

"I can't imagine being able to do the job I do without Wikipedia." — Anon.
- I can't imagine a job that you can do with Wikipedia, Anon.

"Wikipedia is my fountain of knowledge" — Anon.
- Don't drink that knowledge! It's filthy!

"college would be impossible without wikipedia!" — katy tull
- I worry about U.S. higher education now.

"A great, reliable, constantly-updated online encyclopedia!" — Dave Britz
- Well, you got the "constantly-updated" part right. And it is "online."

"This model of information transfer will change humanity." — Anon.
- Yeah, but into what?

"Go baby go, go!" — Anon.
- Go away, you mean?

"Even my cats like it!" — Anon.
- Alright, did someone from Uncyclopedia hack the Foundation donation banner?

"I love philanthropy" — Anon.
- Me too, but what does that have to do with Wikipedia?

"For not deleting at least some articles" — Vladimir Mozhenkov
- Angry inclusionist? Well, those deletionists are [deleted by WP Deletionist Cabal].

"Probably the best thing modern world has ever achieved." — Frei Klaus
- No, no it's not. What about the Internet and its WWW? Or nuclear power? Or the Nintendo Wii?

You can see the pattern out of my random sample here: ignorance! They do not understand the crazy Community and unreliable nature that is WP.

I'm tempted though to think some people donate to WP but obviously aren't thinking of the consequences of said donation. I hope that mad Russian gets his articles undeleted though.

I could go on and on, but I think theKohser was hoping for commentary from the big donors.

I would like to add some other questions, if I may: Do corporations donate to WMF? If so, what companies have been known to do so? And, if someone can explain, why?

I would like to add some other questions, if I may: Do corporations donate to WMF? If so, what companies have been known to do so? And, if someone can explain, why?

I could almost see a joke forming before my mind's eye that involved the puzzle pieces : «Man» … «Off» … «Tax» … «Woe» … «Write» — but then I lost it.

Oh well, off to see the sandwoman …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 12th November 2007, 6:22am

I would like to add some other questions, if I may: Do corporations donate to WMF? If so, what companies have been known to do so? And, if someone can explain, why?

I don't know if this helps you or not, but there is this list of the most foolish people and organizations on our planet.

Once I saw that list, I closed my accounts at Fidelity and moved them to Vanguard. I'll never buy a Dell computer, either.

Greg

I would like to add some other questions, if I may: Do corporations donate to WMF? If so, what companies have been known to do so? And, if someone can explain, why?

I don't know if this helps you or not, but there is this list of the most foolish people and organizations on our planet.

Once I saw that list, I closed my accounts at Fidelity and moved them to Vanguard. I'll never buy a Dell computer, either.

Greg

Uh Oh, we're getting into dangerous territory here. You see, I don't personally think that Wikiabuse was shut down because of all the dirt that we dug up about admins and incidents. I think that WMF could really care less about that.

I think it got shut down because we had started organizing wikipages using this page and had started making pages with each of these "benefactors" and their corporate giving policies and issues that they supported. Since the evil admins were being sorted by perceived bias, the next step would have been to match the corporate benefactor's issues with the number of admins who were working against their policies. This could have been deadly to any WMF funding campaign, so I think that's when the bells started going off...

Anyway, I wonder if they all know that they're funding the Cleveland Steamer article?

I would like to add some other questions, if I may: Do corporations donate to WMF? If so, what companies have been known to do so? And, if someone can explain, why?

I don't know if this helps you or not, but there is this list of the most foolish people and organizations on our planet.

Once I saw that list, I closed my accounts at Fidelity and moved them to Vanguard. I'll never buy a Dell computer, either.

Greg

Uh Oh, we're getting into dangerous territory here. You see, I don't personally think that Wikiabuse was shut down because of all the dirt that we dug up about admins and incidents. I think that WMF could really care less about that.

I think it got shut down because we had started organizing wikipages using this page and had started making pages with each of these "benefactors" and their corporate giving policies and issues that they supported. Since the evil admins were being sorted by perceived bias, the next step would have been to match the corporate benefactor's issues with the number of admins who were working against their policies. This could have been deadly to any WMF funding campaign, so I think that's when the bells started going off...

Anyway, I wonder if they all know that they're funding the Cleveland Steamer article?

Anyone is welcome to test (re-test?) that theory on Centiare.com.

Greg

I thought the scraper sites that take text from WP and use it for the for-profit sites were the ones most angered by WikiAbuse?

They have the most to lose dollar-wise if WP is brought down.

I thought the scraper sites that take text from WP and use it for the for-profit sites were the ones most angered by WikiAbuse?

They have the most to lose dollar-wise if WP is brought down.

Well, that was one theory, but I really think that WMF got a few phone calls by the subjects of thse pages who didn't like to see their foundations attached to this kind of site and prompted them to take out the trash....

that's just my theory, but it seems to be confirmed by what was posted after that site went down....

William Magowan * I wouldn't pay a corporation, but I will donate to Wiki

<===Just ignore that man behind the Wikia curtain...

that's all too easy to do for the majority. A lot of people don't seem to notice that Jimbo Wales has got rich off the back of WIKIPEDIA not Wikia, and that the foundation is ran by a for-profit company. :/