Sue's five-year plan, strategery in motion Options

[thekohser]

Sue Gardner has posted the new Five-Year Plan.

BayNewser sums it up as follows:

Wikimedia Not Going to Invest in China, Africa, Paid Editors

And my comment there:

In other words, the WMF will continue to geek out on hard drives, bandwidth, and marveling at how many page views they garner. But, they will do nothing to work responsibly and ethically toward building a higher-quality, reliable compendium of human knowledge. Thus driving home the truth that Wikipedia is a massive online role-playing game, not an educational charity project. In a word, fraudulent.

[Jon Awbrey]

Wut!? — No benchmarks for the wheat harvest?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dizzy.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Sue Gardner has posted the new Five-Year Plan.

BayNewser sums it up as follows:

Wikimedia Not Going to Invest in China, Africa, Paid Editors

And my comment there:

In other words, the WMF will continue to geek out on hard drives, bandwidth, and marveling at how many page views they garner. But, they will do nothing to work responsibly and ethically toward building a higher-quality, reliable compendium of human knowledge. Thus driving home the truth that Wikipedia is a massive online role-playing game, not an educational charity project. In a word, fraudulent.

The article was very good, especially in identifying what options where rejected. The odd thing about the plan is how divorced from budget it is. It is hard to see how a plan dominated by tech infrastructure can justify a budget in excess of 10 times what was spent prior to Gardner. After all the demand has only grown modestly and is leveling out, maybe even declining. Most technical challenges where met when the budget was at $300,000. Now at $10,000,000 they only have to update and maintain. Gardner is bringing WMF to a scale that could be used to seriously address programmatic and editorial issues. But she is not directing the funds in the right areas.

Well at least there is a planning process that could be turned toward programmatic issues. Plus, I love the Stalinist ring to "Five Year Plan." That has got to piss off the Randoids.

[TungstenCarbide]

Sue Gardner has posted the new Five-Year Plan.

BayNewser sums it up as follows:

Wikimedia Not Going to Invest in China, Africa, Paid Editors

And my comment there:

In other words, the WMF will continue to geek out on hard drives, bandwidth, and marveling at how many page views they garner. But, they will do nothing to work responsibly and ethically toward building a higher-quality, reliable compendium of human knowledge. Thus driving home the truth that Wikipedia is a massive online role-playing game, not an educational charity project. In a word, fraudulent.

I wonder how long she worked on that and how much it cost.

[A Horse With No Name]

Plus, I love the Stalinist ring to "Five Year Plan." That has got to piss off the Randoids.

When she starts to suggest letting 100 flowers bloom, it is time to move the servers to Formosa! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Wut!? — No benchmarks for the wheat harvest?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dizzy.gif)

I'm sure Short Brigade Harvester Boris is working towards it.

[Milton Roe]

Wut!? — No benchmarks for the wheat harvest?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dizzy.gif)

No. A wonderful new plan to divert all of WMF's resouces to growing ... sugarcane!

You know, in theory, with some data on server cost per power over the last decade, and the known chart of WMF article growth per year, it should in theory be possible to draw a curve with the correct SHAPE of WMF's actual expenditure need, if it was rational.

Of course, such a curve would need to be scaled, so it could be adjusted for best fit to WMF's equipment costs from 2001 to 2007 or something.

Then the fun begins, as we see how far the curve costs for technology THEN depart from theoretical need, under Sue's regime. Mark the gap "San Francisco sushi and parking."

[GlassBeadGame]

Then the fun begins, as we see how far the curve costs for technology THEN depart from theoretical need, under Sue's regime. Mark the gap "San Francisco sushi and parking."

What I like about Gardner is she clearly does not want to run an organization with a staff smaller than a 7/11 and a budget the size of an adult foster care home with six residents. There are of course many ways that she could build WMF into a significant organization, not the least is to staff it with people to address program and editorial needs. Her problem is that she would run into ideological roadblocks if she stood up and acted in a responsible manner. I think she needs representation on her board from the PRC. They are a quarter of humanity after all. Until then pass the sushi.

[Jon Awbrey]

Wut!? — No benchmarks for the wheat harvest?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dizzy.gif)

Mark the gap "San Francisco sushi and parking."

Just guessing, but I think you'll find that more and more donation dollars are going into raising more and more donation dollars, in other words, PR.

Anyone wanna buy a Golden Gate Bridgespan?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Then the fun begins, as we see how far the curve costs for technology THEN depart from theoretical need, under Sue's regime. Mark the gap "San Francisco sushi and parking."

What I like about Gardner is she clearly does not want to run an organization with a staff smaller than a 7/11 and a budget the size of an adult foster care home with six residents. There are of course many ways that she could build WMF into a significant organization, not the least is to staff it with people to address program and editorial needs. Her problem is that she would run into ideological roadblocks if she stood up and acted in a responsible manner. I think she needs representation on her board from the PRC. They are a quarter of humanity after all. Until then pass the sushi.

She has Wing/Ting from Taiwan. Perhaps he might be induced to speak for PRC. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

SRSLY, unless PRC lets WP actually legally INTO their country, I think they should get bubkis. Yes, HK, I know they are no different from the UK and probably better. It's just that they can be difficult when it comes to, well, basic freedoms. Probably my own bias.

[GlassBeadGame]

SRSLY, unless PRC lets WP actually legally INTO their country, I think they should get bubkis. Yes, HK, I know they are no different from the UK and probably better. It's just that they can be difficult when it comes to, well, basic freedoms. Probably my own bias.

I have no love lost for the PRC. I would find very amusing a board discussion in which community types explain how flagged revisions is difficult to implement to people who bulldoze monasteries or run over people with tanks.

[Kelly Martin]

It's very clear that the Foundation considers its most important metrics to be readership of and participation in the English Wikipedia, and it plans to focus all of its attention on increasing both of these numbers. This is, no doubt, because doing this will do more to increase donations than just about anything else they do.

It is clear that there is no interest in improving quality, and in fact they probably realize that quality measures will both reduce drama (which will reduce press attention and thus donations) and reduce participation (which will also reduce donations). So expect more of the same, and nothing new, from the WMF.

[victim of censorship]

Sue Gardner has posted the new Five-Year Plan.

BayNewser sums it up as follows:

Wikimedia Not Going to Invest in China, Africa, Paid Editors

And my comment there:

In other words, the WMF will continue to geek out on hard drives, bandwidth, and marveling at how many page views they garner. But, they will do nothing to work responsibly and ethically toward building a higher-quality, reliable compendium of human knowledge. Thus driving home the truth that Wikipedia is a massive online role-playing game, not an educational charity project. In a word, fraudulent.

WOW!

Then the fun begins, as we see how far the curve costs for technology THEN depart from theoretical need, under Sue's regime. Mark the gap "San Francisco sushi and parking."

What I like about Gardner is she clearly does not want to run an organization with a staff smaller than a 7/11 and a budget the size of an adult foster care home with six residents. There are of course many ways that she could build WMF into a significant organization, not the least is to staff it with people to address program and editorial needs. Her problem is that she would run into ideological roadblocks if she stood up and acted in a responsible manner. I think she needs representation on her board from the PRC. They are a quarter of humanity after all. Until then pass the sushi.

She needs to sustain her 1/2 mill each year..

[MBisanz]

Plus, I love the Stalinist ring to "Five Year Plan." That has got to piss off the Randoids.

When she starts to suggest letting 100 flowers bloom, it is time to move the servers to Formosa! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Five year plans are quite common in business. I would be somewhat disappointed with any major corporation that didn't have a long-term strategic plan with specific dated goals. To do otherwise would rob the management of accountability for meeting those goals.

[thekohser]

Sue Gardner said:

We've interviewed 65 people, including Board and Advisory Board members, staff, editors, onlookers, critics, supporters, and external subject-matter-experts...

I looked over the list of people interviewed, and I failed to see one "critic" of the Wikimedia Foundation. (Could someone help me if you do see one?)

So, I asked on the Discussion page, if someone could enlighten us as to which "critics" were interviewed.

Philippe's two-step response:

18:03, 20 January 2010 Critics? Which one(s)? Philippe (WMF) (Talk | contribs) Deleted (content was: 'The letter says that "critics" were engaged or interviewed by the Foundation strategy project. I'd like to know which one(s) in particular. Considering ho...' (and the only contributor was 'Thekohser2'))

(link)

17:40, 20 January 2010 Philippe (WMF) (Talk | contribs) blocked Thekohser2 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎

(link)

Someone needs to slap that little man-boy Philippe across the face.

Has it really come to the point that simply asking which critic(s) were engaged or interviewed by the Foundation strategy project is a censored and blockable offense?

I hereby call on every Wikimedian in good standing to go to that Discussion page, and ask the same question, until it is answered.

[thekohser]

I hereby call on every Wikimedian in good standing to go to that Discussion page, and ask the same question, until it is answered.

I guess this is the part where WR ignores me, too.

[Jon Awbrey]

I hereby call on every Wikimedian in good standing to go to that Discussion page, and ask the same question, until it is answered.

I guess this is the part where WR ignores me, too.

It's their board, Greg.

The more you act like it might have been legit, the more credibility you lend it.

Your time were better spent writing another exposé on Akahele.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[thekohser]

It's their board, Greg.

The more you act like it might have been legit, the more credibility you lend it.

Your time were better spent writing another exposé on Akahele.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

Yeah, in a way, you're right, Jonny.

Akahele's still getting, oh, a good 15 page views a day... though that's down from our glory days of 65 or 70 per day.

Anyway, it looks like someone has my back here. Thanks, "whoever you are".

[Jon Awbrey]

It's their board, Greg.

The more you act like it might have been legit, the more credibility you lend it.

Your time were better spent writing another exposé on Akahele.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

Yeah, in a way, you're right, Jonny.

Akahele's still getting, oh, a good 15 page views a day … though that's down from our glory days of 65 or 70 per day.

Anyway, it looks like someone has my back here. Thanks, "whoever you are".

It's pretty clear that the whole Strategic Planning thing is just a cover for a lot of PR. Maybe that Bridgespan Group honestly thinks they're being called in to help improve things, but they wouldn't be the first to be suckered by that.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

Akahele's still getting, oh, a good 15 page views a day... though that's down from our glory days of 65 or 70 per day.

Wow, dude, that's lame: my cheesy, sporadically updated blog about one of the most boring topics in the known universe gets an average 50 page views a day. What are you doing wrong? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)