| |
|
  |
 A Prophet Is W/O Profit In His Pwn Wikiland, Non-Profits Are Not W/O Honoraria, Fool !!! |
|
|
| privatemusings |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 214
Joined:
Member No.: 4,306
|
QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Wed 27th January 2010, 8:34am) 
Is it fair to say that Jimbo possibly really believes in Wikipedia's "mission"? Supposedly I heard that Wikipedia could rake in upwards of 500 million if it started running ads, so what motives would he have not to make it commercial. What's your own theory on why Wikipedia continues to remain ad-free.
I see Jimbo's role as a bit like a surfer on a large-ish wave - Jimbo's got the longest board he can get his hands on, and is gently trying to avoid being dumped, and is after the longest smoothest ride possible - he may have had an opportunity to own the beach many years ago, but that's long since passed (hence the 'smartest or dumbest thing I've ever done' multiple quotes re: establishing the foundation) I think it's Kelly Martin's arguments / points that I've regurgitated previously about the (financial, moral, ethical) opportunity cost of not commercialising (am I the only person who read of Bono's 'input' at the 'beachy' get together, and thought it sounded sensible?) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
It would be interesting to imagine an alternative reality.
Jimbo didn't create a non-profit Foundation, but kept Wikipedia as his own.
In 2003, he started running ads. Now, many anti-capitalist editors left, but the cash allowed him to employ a marketing officer to promote Wikipedia, and a score of developers to create an improved user interface and experience - the result was increased growth and venture capital investment.
By 2004/5 Wikimedia Inc. had employed 25 full-time OTRS respondants and complaints were being dealt with. Jimbo is now listed as a muti-millionare.
2005/6 Despite some concerns of the "User advisory committee", proprietor Jimbo, under pressure from sponsors and advertisers brought out a tough new BLP policy - marginally notable bios are eliminated. Full flagging is introduced. Hard-selling marketing and a deal with Google ensure that community numbers grow markedly, despite some leaving. Jimbo is Time man of the year. A New York lawyer called Brad is employed as editor-in-chief.
In 2007, a team of 50 people are employed to review all edits to BLPs. Jimbo buys a yaught.
2008/9, Google buys Wikimedia Inc for $700 million. Jimbo buys his jet - and sets up in a new business with Peter Stringfellow.
2010 Greg K is appointed business director of Google-Wikimedia Inc. (maybe not)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kwork |
|
Senior Member
Group: Special Contributors
Posts: 405
Joined:
Member No.: 16,782
|
QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Wed 27th January 2010, 7:34am)
Is it fair to say that Jimbo possibly really believes in Wikipedia's "mission"? Supposedly I heard that Wikipedia could rake in upwards of 500 million if it started running ads, so what motives would he have not to make it commercial. What's your own theory on why Wikipedia continues to remain ad-free.
As I understand it, non-profit is a tax option, with some organizational requirements. It does not mean the organization does not make a profit, just that the profits have to go back to something related to the organization's mission, instead of to share holders. Organization employees can make very good salaries, and they put that money into their own bank accounts. It is also allowed to form a separate section of the organization that is for profit, so that option is not lost. If Jimbo did not need investor money, setting things up as a non-profit so that contributors could take the tax write off for giving their money to a non-profit WP might have been a rational financial decision. I assume he draws a decent enough salary, as the head of the organization, to allowing him to lead a comfortable life. I know next to nothing about Jimbo, but it seems quite likely that he is intelligent enough to understand that becoming a billionaire would do nothing to make his life better than it is now. |
|
|
|
|
|
| MBisanz |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 478
Joined:
Member No.: 5,693
|
QUOTE(Kwork @ Wed 27th January 2010, 4:48pm) QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Wed 27th January 2010, 7:34am)
Is it fair to say that Jimbo possibly really believes in Wikipedia's "mission"? Supposedly I heard that Wikipedia could rake in upwards of 500 million if it started running ads, so what motives would he have not to make it commercial. What's your own theory on why Wikipedia continues to remain ad-free.
As I understand it, non-profit is a tax option, with some organizational requirements. It does not mean the organization does not make a profit, just that the profits have to go back to something related to the organization's mission, instead of to share holders. Organization employees can make very good salaries, and they put that money into their own bank accounts. It is also allowed to form a separate section of the organization that is for profit, so that option is not lost. If Jimbo did not need investor money, setting things up as a non-profit so that contributors could take the tax write off for giving their money to a non-profit WP might have been a rational financial decision. I assume he draws a decent enough salary, as the head of the organization, to allowing him to lead a comfortable life. I know next to nothing about Jimbo, but it seems quite likely that he is intelligent enough to understand that becoming a billionaire would do nothing to make his life better than it is now. You are probably thinking of UBTI (unrelated business taxable income), which permits non-profits to do things also done by for-profits (like run hospital gift shops, parking garages, etc) that they normally couldn't do because it isn't allowed under the non-profit laws. But, they still need to file a special tax form and pay a tax on those activities. Also, if their UBI activities become too large a part of their operation, they can lose their tax status. Is that what you mean? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kwork |
|
Senior Member
Group: Special Contributors
Posts: 405
Joined:
Member No.: 16,782
|
QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 27th January 2010, 3:53pm) QUOTE(Kwork @ Wed 27th January 2010, 4:48pm) QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Wed 27th January 2010, 7:34am)
Is it fair to say that Jimbo possibly really believes in Wikipedia's "mission"? Supposedly I heard that Wikipedia could rake in upwards of 500 million if it started running ads, so what motives would he have not to make it commercial. What's your own theory on why Wikipedia continues to remain ad-free.
As I understand it, non-profit is a tax option, with some organizational requirements. It does not mean the organization does not make a profit, just that the profits have to go back to something related to the organization's mission, instead of to share holders. Organization employees can make very good salaries, and they put that money into their own bank accounts. It is also allowed to form a separate section of the organization that is for profit, so that option is not lost. If Jimbo did not need investor money, setting things up as a non-profit so that contributors could take the tax write off for giving their money to a non-profit WP might have been a rational financial decision. I assume he draws a decent enough salary, as the head of the organization, to allowing him to lead a comfortable life. I know next to nothing about Jimbo, but it seems quite likely that he is intelligent enough to understand that becoming a billionaire would do nothing to make his life better than it is now. You are probably thinking of UBTI (unrelated business taxable income), which permits non-profits to do things also done by for-profits (like run hospital gift shops, parking garages, etc) that they normally couldn't do because it isn't allowed under the non-profit laws. But, they still need to file a special tax form and pay a tax on those activities. Also, if their UBI activities become too large a part of their operation, they can lose their tax status. Is that what you mean? NB: What I know about this is from a workshop given in NYC by Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts about fifteen years ago. Laws could have changed some in that time, and since my notes from it are in a box 3000 miles from here I am relying on my memory. Non-profit organization, and charitable organization, are not necessarily the same thing, although WP seems to be both. But even a single individual who has income that is non-employee compensation can set that up a non-profit. It is also possible to get an organization that already has non-profit status to act as your umbrella organization. None of that would make you a charitable organization allowing tax exempt donations. It is my understanding that a non-profit charitable organization can set up a branch that is for profit, and I do not think that would necessarily effect their tax exempt status as long as the income and taxes of the for profit section is kept separate. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kwork |
|
Senior Member
Group: Special Contributors
Posts: 405
Joined:
Member No.: 16,782
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th January 2010, 5:41pm) QUOTE(Kwork @ Wed 27th January 2010, 10:48am)
I know next to nothing about Jimbo, but ...
Why don't you go learn a bit more about Jimmy Wales, then you get back to us with your conclusions. The man does not particularly interest me. Does that disqualify me from this forum? Of course, I know there is plenty of criticism of Jimbo, but I choose to let others deal with the particulars. Until such a time as it seems necessary for me to inform myself, I will focus on other subjects that actually do interest me. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kwork |
|
Senior Member
Group: Special Contributors
Posts: 405
Joined:
Member No.: 16,782
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th January 2010, 8:01pm) QUOTE(Kwork @ Wed 27th January 2010, 1:07pm)
The man does not particularly interest me. Does that disqualify me from this forum? Of course, I know there is plenty of criticism of Jimbo, but I choose to let others deal with the particulars. Until such a time as it seems necessary for me to inform myself, I will focus on other subjects that actually do interest me.
Strange, then, that you would choose to participate in a thread that began, "Is it fair to say that Jimbo possibly really believes in Wikipedia's "mission"?"Why strange? My point was that making WP a non-profit could have been a rational decision no matter what his motivation. But there is no way we can actually know his motivation even if we read his explanations. Nor could we be sure even if we knew him personally. Its like Rashomon. Everyone sees the same thing but describes it differently, and each description promotes a personal interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_%28film%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
QUOTE(Kwork @ Wed 27th January 2010, 3:48pm) I know next to nothing about Jimbo, but it seems quite likely that he is intelligent enough to understand that becoming a billionaire would do nothing to make his life better than it is now. ?!? - strong oppose I suppose the philosophical amongst us, or even the comical, might ask, "would Jimbo's being a billionaire make him a better person than he is now?". I am sure he'd trade in all the hassle tomorrow if he could ... and if it did not make him big easy money.One aspect you ought to remind yourself of is that although the encyclopedia might be "not-for-profit", Jimbo still trades himself off the back of its "success". So he still has a financial interest in it. He whores himself out on the speakers circuit for big money and, last I read, he takes the full financial reward for himself. On Paidcontent.org, Jimmy Wales is listed as "Above $75,000". On a par with Jay Leno and Deepak Chopra, apparently. No doubt, going out and inspiring corporations that they too could get their workers, and their workers' children, to work for fee ... as long as they host a bit of amateur hard core pornography on their corporate website.Elsewhere, it was $30,000 to $90,000 per event. Jimmy is represented by The Harry Walker Agency ... and is still trading on the buzz of the now sunk Beasley-Wales Wikia search engine. Into this particular hubris steps Becky Betram of Covenant Technology Partners giving TheKohser a public dressing down for defending Dr Larry Sanger's role in the creation of the Wikipedia. Wow ... don't fuck with a Sharepoint Becky ... but what she does point outs which interests me is that unusually ... "due to contractual obligations" ... the Jimmy Wales lecture at her alma mater, Calvin College, will not be archived. What gives ...? Is Jimmy against free culture distribution of his own big buck speeches? Afraid if others hear them they wont buy them ... or not wanting quoted on Wikipedia Review? As Seth Finkelstein points out, here, that he is paid more for one buzzword session that the Chief Technical Officer is paid for a whole years work. Has this issue been raise again recent, or ever resolved ...? Personally, it looks like creaming off the backs of unpaid workers to me. A modest wage as a PR officer and all the income going back into the not-for-profit org or one of its charities would surely be the ethical resolution.Now, that would make him a better person. This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
