Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ The Wikimedia Foundation _ Fundraising Survey (2009)

Posted by: thekohser

Get http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-June/052772.html in now!

QUOTE
(As this email may enact changes that affect the total Wikimedia
community, please feel free to forward or post this email on any and all
applicable lists. We would like as much feedback as possible.)

Wikimedians--

In advance of our Annual Fundraiser (starting in November), Wikimedia is
undertaking a survey of donors and potential donors in order to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of fundraising efforts of the Wikimedia
Foundation. The results from this survey will help us to better
understand donors and potential donors, and ultimately, will help to
increase donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. There are several basic
questions the survey is intended to answer:

* Who donates to the Wikimedia Foundation? What characteristics do
donors to the Wikimedia Foundation share?
* Are there different types of donors that can be segmented by common
characteristics?
* What motivates individuals to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation?
* What expectations do donors have about how their donations are used?
* What would (or how can Wikimedia) motivate current donors to increase
their contributions?
* Why don't more individuals donate to the Wikimedia Foundation?
* What is likely to motivate non-donors to become donors?

You can find the survey process, timeline, methodology, & questions
here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_Survey_2009

We would appreciate your input on the questions and how to make this
survey as effective as possible.

-Rand

--
Rand Montoya
Head of Community Giving
Wikimedia Foundation
www.wikimedia.org
Email: rand at wikimedia.org
Phone: 415.839.6885 x615
Fax: 415.882.0495
Cell: 510.685.7030

Posted by: thekohser

What a http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraising_2009/Survey&diff=1543480&oldid=1543469.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 6th July 2009, 2:46pm) *
What a http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraising_2009/Survey&diff=1543480&oldid=1543469.

Yeah, but your suggestions sound like... you know, work.

Wikipedia is supposed to be fun!

Fun fun fun! smile.gif

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Honestly, this looks like someone read a magazine article that said that they should have a donor survey, and so they threw one together after following directions they got out of a Crackerjack box.

Posted by: MZMcBride

Is there some sort requirement that pages at Meta be overly long, sporadically boldfaced, and entirely unreadable? Good grief.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Well, Brother McBride, why don't you call up one of the Golden Shower Experts
in the San Francisco office (specifically Mr. Montoya), and see if you can get
some coherent explanation? Report back if it makes a drop of sense.

Good luck, you'll need it. angry.gif

And as Greg pointed out to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fr33kman who responded (a Twinkle-running vandal fairy)--
the whole idea is already a failure, because the only commentor was Greg.
And the response?

QUOTE
I wouldn't say that community input has failed, merely that meta is a small wiki with a small community; many of whom might simply be uninterested in this topic. I'd still advise that if you think the process needs help to offer it. What's two hours in the grand scheme of the universe after all? It wouldn't be time wasted anyway; it might serve as a starting point for discussions on the next iteration of the survey. I agree that a scientific methodology would certainly lead to results that are unimpeachable. Personally, my expertise in survey design and statistics is medically based, not fund-raising. smile.gif fr33kman t - c 20:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


You interfered with his Jimbo-chant, Greg. Boo hoo.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 7th July 2009, 5:00am) *

Well, Brother McBride, why don't you call up one of the Golden Shower Experts
in the San Francisco office (specifically Mr. Montoya)...


I already left a voicemail message for Montoya yesterday afternoon, so we'll see if he's responsive to my offer to help or not.

Greg

Posted by: thekohser

I think that I've about http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFundraising_2009%2FSurvey&diff=1556592&oldid=1543526 on restructuring the survey so that it will most meaningfully capture data that informs the Wikimedia Foundation about its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in the contribution fundraising category.

A wiki is a horrible way to collaboratively design a survey questionnaire. If there had been other participants working as frequently as I in this process, we would have had edit conflicts galore, and there would not be the sense of continuity (of wording, of scales, etc.) that is so helpful for a respondent taking a survey. Fortunately, though, I was virtually a lone voice acting on this task -- despite trying to publicize it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organizations&diff=prev&oldid=301910428, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business&diff=prev&oldid=301910495, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies&diff=prev&oldid=301910553, a fruitless salvo. Now that I'm mentioning it here, though, I imagine my hard work will get the work-over and be torn to shreds.

I hope that you all will appreciate my "in-survey quiz" about the personnel of the WMF. It's not a joke -- rather, my attempt to gauge just how "in tune" is the Wikimedia project "community" with who actually runs the joint. I suspect the majority will think that Jimmy Wales or "Don't know" are the Executive Director and Chair of the Board of Trustees.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 16th July 2009, 11:19am) *
A wiki is a horrible way to collaboratively design a survey questionnaire.
A wiki is a horrible way to collaboratively design anything.

I suspect that wikis have about run their useful life. They work ok when you have an already close-knit group of people who already have internalized conflict management strategies. If you don't have such strategies in your working group, though, a wiki will just amplify those conflicts, without providing any sort of framework to focus such conflicts toward resolution.

Most successful wikis, from what I've seen, allow editing only by people who are already a part of the working group, and that working group already has a track record of successful collaboration. Either that, or they're just being used as a content engine, a role for which any number of other products would do just as well.

Posted by: thekohser

This weekend, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jpilisuk ("Marketing guru, eco-entrepreneur, social media junkie, health fanatic, coffee addict, and all around good-guy", according to http://twitter.com/ienso page), using an http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.245.30.55, accepted and (presumably) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Survey#Survey_Questions about 90% of my version of the Fundraising Survey.

Pretty amazing that a formerly banned troll would be given the reins in almost single-handedly guiding and massaging such an important research initiative. Thank you, Meta, for being the Wikimedia backwater that you are!

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 20th July 2009, 2:41pm) *

This weekend, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jpilisuk ("Marketing guru, eco-entrepreneur, social media junkie, health fanatic, coffee addict, and all around good-guy", according to http://twitter.com/ienso page), using an http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.245.30.55, accepted and (presumably) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Survey#Survey_Questions about 90% of my version of the Fundraising Survey.

Pretty amazing that a formerly banned troll would be given the reins in almost single-handedly guiding and massaging such an important research initiative. Thank you, Meta, for being the Wikimedia backwater that you are!


So, in other words, they used your valuable knowledge about marketing and business to get a professional survey for free.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Mon 20th July 2009, 9:29am) *
So, in other words, they used your valuable knowledge about marketing and business to get a professional survey for free.
Well, there's some small hope that a properly-written survey will convince them that they have to do something about the cesspit that is Wikipedia if they want to see an increase in donations.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 20th July 2009, 10:34am) *

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Mon 20th July 2009, 9:29am) *
So, in other words, they used your valuable knowledge about marketing and business to get a professional survey for free.
Well, there's some small hope that a properly-written survey will convince them that they have to do something about the cesspit that is Wikipedia if they want to see an increase in donations.


Yes, and bigger yes.

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 20th July 2009, 9:41am) *

Pretty amazing that a formerly banned troll would be given the reins in almost single-handedly guiding and massaging such an important research initiative. Thank you, Meta, for being the Wikimedia backwater that you are!


The input of critics can be extremely useful in such a project, where the aim is to try to appeal to people outside their normal circles.

Posted by: thekohser

Until today, I didn't know that Henrik's Traffic-o-Meter tool was able to measure within the Meta project space.

So, it's rather interesting to see the http://stats.grok.se/meta.m/200906/Talk%3AFundraising_2009/Survey traffic and the http://stats.grok.se/meta.m/200907/Talk%3AFundraising%202009/Survey traffic (especially after July 6th, when I discovered the Fundraising Survey page and announced it here).

In a nutshell, this is what it looks like when one paid WMF Staff member and one non-paid WMF volunteer "coordinator" get together and launch and barely promote the fact that a should-be-important survey about fundraising characteristics is about to take place. Then, post July 6th, you see the impact of one non-paid agitator/expert calling attention to the discussion and practically single-handedly re-designing and re-writing it.

Kind of makes me wonder.

Posted by: thekohser

For 2010, it looks like Rand Montoya tried a new approach to survey design:

Let a consultancy called http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundraising_2010/Survey&diff=prev&oldid=1910585, write the whole thing offline, then get a lackey to http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundraising_2010/Survey/Translation/en&diff=2017592&oldid=2006709, a fait accompli, with no significant discussion (http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraising_2010/Survey&diff=1925537&oldid=1910616), since you've banned all of those who are interested in its content.

Posted by: thekohser

Maybe Rand Montoya would http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-July/059710.html if he would have worked a little harder and listened to me a lot more.

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 14th July 2010, 1:55pm) *

Maybe Rand Montoya would http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-July/059710.html if he would have worked a little harder and listened to me a lot more.

Looks more like 'rat-leaving-sinking-ship' rather than a dismissal.

Posted by: thekohser

Kind of amusing how http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-July/059824.html didn't draw a single comment from the Hive members. I guess they're learning not to poke.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 15th July 2010, 11:11am) *
Kind of amusing how http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-July/059824.html 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.

Posted by: thekohser

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

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 15th July 2010, 11:11am) *
Kind of amusing how http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-July/059824.html 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..."

Posted by: thekohser

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 http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=%22q2+consulting%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS351US351&ie=UTF-8#q=%22q2%20consulting%22%20&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS351US351&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=RLusTOPzLoO8lQeL1b3WCA&ved=0CA8QpwU&fp=c0556fdb3c9947d5's ever heard of: Tulsa-based http://www.q2consulting.com/.

Anyway, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/b/b5/2010FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf -- 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... http://www.linkedin.com/in/philippebeaudette?

Posted by: EricBarbour

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

Except, in typical Wikimedia fashion, they gave it to an outfit that http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=%22q2+consulting%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS351US351&ie=UTF-8#q=%22q2%20consulting%22%20&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS351US351&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=RLusTOPzLoO8lQeL1b3WCA&ved=0CA8QpwU&fp=c0556fdb3c9947d5's ever heard of: Tulsa-based http://www.q2consulting.com/.
Anyway, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/b/b5/2010FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf -- 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... http://www.linkedin.com/in/philippebeaudette?

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

Their names are listed together http://www.whozat.com/person/b/b-df/b-df145.html

Ah! According to LinkedIn, he used to be a.....http://www.linkedin.com/ppl/webprofile?vmi=&id=44749486&pvs=pp&authToken=dCb8&authType=name&locale=en_US&trk=ppro_viewmore&lnk=vw_pprofile.
What a coinkydink! (You need a LinkedIn account to see that.)

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 6th October 2010, 1:05pm) *
Anyway, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/b/b5/2010FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf -- 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: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... http://www.linkedin.com/in/philippebeaudette?

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!)

Posted by: thekohser

We'll see how the Foundation-l mailing list responds to http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061456.html:

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

Posted by: thekohser

Since they wouldn't respond intelligently on the Foundation-l mailing list, the national news media had to http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-wires-biased-study-of-donors. It doesn't look very good for Mssrs. Beaudette and Montoya, as the piece pulls no punches.

Posted by: jayvdb

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 http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-wires-biased-study-of-donors. 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.

Posted by: thekohser

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, http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category;1/Top/News. 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.

Posted by: thekohser

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

In the http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/4/4f/2010_Donor_survey_report_excerpts.pdf, 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 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/b/b5/2010FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf. 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.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

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

Posted by: jayvdb

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, http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category;1/Top/News. 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?

Posted by: thekohser

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.

Posted by: thekohser

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061526.html... but how long before he too is "moderated" on the Foundation-l list?

Also, it looks like Geni is http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061528.html of my role as Wikimedia critic, but John Vandy http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061529.html her (?) in her place.

Posted by: thekohser

Seems that nobody at Q2 Consulting is answering their phones today. Likewise, they weren't responding to their "Contact Us" web form yesterday.

Posted by: Cedric

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

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061526.html... but how long before he too is "moderated" on the Foundation-l list?

Also, it looks like Geni is http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061528.html of my role as Wikimedia critic, but John Vandy http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061529.html her (?) in her place.

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

Image


Posted by: thekohser

This is really getting http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061551.html.

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?

Posted by: thekohser

Uh oh, looks like Birgitte http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061564.html for Blocksville.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

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

This is really getting http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061551.html.

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 http://web1.millercenter.org/debates/transcript/deb_2010_0518_internet.pdf.

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

Jon Image

Posted by: SB_Johnny

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

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

This is really getting http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061551.html.

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 http://web1.millercenter.org/debates/transcript/deb_2010_0518_internet.pdf.

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

Posted by: thekohser

Sue Gardner will take office hours http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061588.html. 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?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 13th October 2010, 2:51pm) *

Sue Gardner will take office hours http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061588.html. 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?


Good Grief, I'd been worried what happened to Peter Demon lately, thinking he might be ill, and now I see it's worse than I thought. noooo.gif ohnoes.gif scream.gif Someone please tear that ring out of his hand before SlimVirgin tips him into the SlimVolcano.

Jon unhappy.gif sad.gif

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 13th October 2010, 2:51pm) *

Sue Gardner will take office hours http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061588.html. 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?

Wish I could, but apparently these things are timed to exclude Americans with jobs.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 13th October 2010, 8:56pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 13th October 2010, 2:51pm) *

Sue Gardner will take office hours http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061588.html. 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?

Wish I could, but apparently these things are timed to exclude Americans with jobs.

And 99% of Australians. sad.gif

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Thu 14th October 2010, 3:56am) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 13th October 2010, 8:56pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 13th October 2010, 2:51pm) *

Sue Gardner will take office hours http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061588.html. 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?

Wish I could, but apparently these things are timed to exclude Americans with jobs.

And 99% of Australians. sad.gif

Maybe you should mention that on the mailinglist.

Assuming they haven't banned you, of course. laugh.gif

Posted by: thekohser

Well, I really have to hand it to the Wikimedia community. Maybe they are turning over a new leaf and becoming more cooperative and open.

For example, here is David Gerard http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061603.html:

QUOTE
On 13 October 2010 14:42, Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:

> I find it interesting that some 18 hours after Gerard's notification (and my
> posting a comment on The Australian's page), still not a single comment has
> been approved for publication. I wonder why that is? Is there some
> official policy within the "pro-Free Culture" movement that mandates
> suppression of critical viewpoints of the movement?


The answer obviously implied by your phrasing of your question is
indeed the correct one: it's because Wikimedia controls Rupert Murdoch
and News International as well as all those other newspapers. It
couldn't possibly be that you're just a dick. After all, my comment
wasn't published either.

- d.


And, I did actually have a few minutes to present my question about the 2010 Donor Study in the Sue Gardner "office hours" meeting on IRC. I think it went over very, very well!

QUOTE
/join #wikimedia-office

*** sgardner [~sgardner@wikimedia/Sue-Gardner] has joined #wikimedia-office
<Thekohser> QUESTION: The recently completed 2010 Donor Survey, by Q2 Consulting... was a competitive bid put out for that work, and if not, why not? If so, by what criteria were Q2 Consulting selected? How much did the project cost the Foundation?
*** killiondude changed the topic to: Office hours with Sue Gardner (Executive Director) | See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours for more info.
<killiondude> BOLD and all that.
<Nihiltres> ...
* guillom puts killiondude in /italics/
<killiondude> :-D
*** jowen [~jowen@wikimedia/James-Owen] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
*** jowen_ is now known as jowen
<guillom> Twisted.
<Jyothis> hello everyone
*** daisokawa [~disokawa@216.38.130.161] has joined #wikimedia-office
<Nihiltres> thekohser: I'm guessing on that last one that if no, it's because fair competitive bids are themselves a good deal of work
<sgardner> Okay! Good morning, folks. (Or at least, it is morning for me.)
*** mode/#wikimedia-office [+v sgardner] by ChanServ
*** bawolff [~bawolff@wikinews/bawolff] has joined #wikimedia-office
*** dphelps [~dphelps@216.38.130.166] has joined #wikimedia-office
*** mode/#wikimedia-office [+b *!*@gateway/web/cgi-irc/wikizine.org/ip.68.87.42.110] by Jamesofur
*** Thekohser was kicked from #wikimedia-office by Jamesofur [Thekohser]


For some reason, I lost my connection to the IRC shortly after that, and then my entire Firefox browser froze up, and then my computer crashes. I get a hard crash on my computer about once every three weeks or so, so I am certain that it couldn't have possibly had anything to do with the Foundation's access to my IP address or such.

Posted by: thekohser

A couple of other people ("meatpuppets" of mine?) asked the question again, anyway.

Here is Sue Gardner's irresponsible response:

QUOTE
1.
[11:02:50] <sgardner> So I think the question is, did we run an RFP for the process of picking a firm to help us with the fundraising. And the answer is no, we did not. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't have a policy for when we run RFPs versus when we have less-formal processes for selecting vendors. I think that's completely fine: there are a variety of factors that go into the decision each time, and I don't think it would be easy to write a really good,
2.
[11:02:51] <sgardner> robust policy designed to dictate the circumstances that require an RFP.
3.
[11:03:01] <sgardner> In this instance, we didn't run an RFP. We chose a firm that we thought would do a great job for Wikimedia – in part because we felt they could work well with our community, in an open setting. I don't regret that, and I don't think it was the wrong way to handle it.

Posted by: Versa


Did anyone ask either:

How much did the survey cost?

or

Who approved the expenditure?


Posted by: thekohser

More details then followed.

QUOTE
<sgardner> That's the gist, on Q2.
<sgardner> (Q2 is the name of the firm.)
<sgardner> Any follow-up questions on that -- I'd be happy to answer them, if there are any.,

<Nemo_bis> Do you usually run an RFP above some spending limit?

<sgardner> No, not necessarily.
<sgardner> (Nemo_bis)


<Werespielchqrs> Do you have a policy on what size of contract can be awarded without a bidding process?

<sgardner> The thing is that dollar-amount isn't necessarily the best indicator of whether an RFP is required/helpful.

<sgardner> Same question, Werespielchqrs, and it's the same answer.

<Nemo_bis> You can have exceptions. :-)

<sgardner> I think it's possible that in the fullness of time, we will develop policy for when to run an RFP.

<Nemo_bis> Obviously we should consider that time to run an RFP is a cost.

<sgardner> For example, at the CBC we certainly did have policy on this.

<Jamesofur> FYI: The log will be posted (unedited) smile.gif

<sgardner> But Nemo_bis is correct: it comes at a cost. Running an RFP is complicated and time-consuming, particularly if individual staffers need to run their own RFPs every time, rather than having support from for example a Purchasing Department.

<sgardner> In many ways, large organizations are better suited to running RFPs relative to small organizations.

<killiondude> How much did the research study cost, by chance?

<sgardner> I don't know how much it cost.
<sgardner> (Which means it was not a very, very large amount of money.)


And "Jimmy has never done anything wrong", right Sue?

Posted by: thekohser

This gets better.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2010-10-14 I was booted from "Office Hours":

QUOTE
[13:08] * Jamesofur sets mode: +v sgardner
[13:08] * Abbasjnr (c4c9daf1@gateway/web/cgi-irc/wikizine.org/ip.196.201.218.241) Quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (Ping timeout)�)
[13:08] * Sky2042_afk (~Sky2042@wikipedia/Izno) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:08] <Dakdadaah> Good evening from me
[13:08] <+sgardner> It's true! Someone is always awake :-)
[13:08] <killiondude> Why was he banned? I didn't think he was being obtuse.
[13:09] <aude> good morning sgardner!
[13:09] <killiondude> He actually came in to #wikimedia asking if that was okay to ask, and a few people thought it was okay.
[13:09] <Theo10011> Hi
[13:09] <dgultekin> Hey Theo
[13:09] * dferg (d4808a82@Wikimedia/Dferg) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:09] <+sgardner> Hi Katie, Theo :-)
[13:09] <+sgardner> Dakdadaah :-)
[13:09] * michi_cc (michi@pdpc/supporter/student/michi-cc) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:10] <@StevenW> Killiondude: There is a list of exactly two people that the WMF feels obliged never to engage with.
[13:10] <+sgardner> Steven's going to answer killiondude's question about Greg Kohs.
[13:10] <+sgardner> ooh, he is answering.
[13:10] <Nihiltres> killiondude: his question isn't intrinsically bad, but it's not helpful
[13:10] <@StevenW> Kohs and an IRL stalker that the office has had.
[13:10] <killiondude> Are these office hours ever helpful, Nihiltres?

[13:10] * DiegoGrez (ElPadrino@186.20.34.121) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:10] * apergos (~ariel@wiktionary/ArielGlenn) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] * meganrhernandez (~megan@216.38.130.162) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] * erwin (~erwin85@wikimedia/erwin) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] <Nihiltres> killiondude: I like to think so
[13:11] * Dragonfly6-7 (~test@bas1-montreal48-1176173479.dsl.bell.ca) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] <+sgardner> While Steven is typing, maybe I will say some other stuff also.
[13:11] <@StevenW> We didn't answer him on the mailing list for that reason, and IRC is no different.
[13:11] <killiondude> He was told to use IRC.

[13:11] * PeterSymonds (~Peter@wikimedia/PeterSymonds) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] <Dragonfly6-7> oh, but was kicked off?
[13:12] <@Jamesofur> the IRC discussion was meant for the mailing list as a whole

[13:12] <dferg> what's the topic for today's office hours, please? Thank you.
[13:12] * Abbasjnr (c4c9dafe@gateway/web/cgi-irc/wikizine.org/ip.196.201.218.254) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:12] <@StevenW> Killiondude: We were responding to John Vandenberg IIRC. Who is obviously a good faith Wikimedian who deserves to be answered.
[13:12] <killiondude> w/e, i don't care too much. I just find it disappointing. :-)

[13:12] * Theo10011 waves at dgultekin
[13:12] <+sgardner> So. The board met over the weekend, and SJ has published four resolutions from the meeting: one on Movement Roles II, one on trustee term length, one on fundraising principles and one on the five-year-targets. So I am happy to talk about that, or about any other topic associated with the board meeting.
[13:13] <+sgardner> And, I am happy to talk about any other topic as well, and I'm happy to answer the Greg Kohs question if you folks want me to.



Posted by: thekohser

I also learned that fielding "fair competitive bids" is very time consuming and "a good deal of work".

Strange, I issue an RFP to multiple vendors about once a week, and they take about 2 hours each to write, plus allowing vendors about 2-3 days to respond. These are for (typically) $35K to $50K research projects.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 14th October 2010, 4:51pm) *

I also learned that fielding "fair competitive bids" is very time consuming and "a good deal of work".

Strange, I issue an RFP to multiple vendors about once a week, and they take about 2 hours each to write, plus allowing vendors about 2-3 days to respond. These are for (typically) $35K to $50K research projects.


Funny how this New-Fangled Participatory Bureaucratic Runaround 2.0 is so much like the Old-Fangled Non-Participatory Bureaucratic Runaround 1.0 …

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 14th October 2010, 7:45pm) *

This gets better.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2010-10-14 I was booted from "Office Hours":

QUOTE
[13:08] * Jamesofur sets mode: +v sgardner
[13:08] * Abbasjnr (c4c9daf1@gateway/web/cgi-irc/wikizine.org/ip.196.201.218.241) Quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (Ping timeout)�)
[13:08] * Sky2042_afk (~Sky2042@wikipedia/Izno) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:08] <Dakdadaah> Good evening from me
[13:08] <+sgardner> It's true! Someone is always awake :-)
[13:08] <killiondude> Why was he banned? I didn't think he was being obtuse.
[13:09] <aude> good morning sgardner!
[13:09] <killiondude> He actually came in to #wikimedia asking if that was okay to ask, and a few people thought it was okay.
[13:09] <Theo10011> Hi
[13:09] <dgultekin> Hey Theo
[13:09] * dferg (d4808a82@Wikimedia/Dferg) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:09] <+sgardner> Hi Katie, Theo :-)
[13:09] <+sgardner> Dakdadaah :-)
[13:09] * michi_cc (michi@pdpc/supporter/student/michi-cc) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:10] <@StevenW> Killiondude: There is a list of exactly two people that the WMF feels obliged never to engage with.
[13:10] <+sgardner> Steven's going to answer killiondude's question about Greg Kohs.
[13:10] <+sgardner> ooh, he is answering.
[13:10] <Nihiltres> killiondude: his question isn't intrinsically bad, but it's not helpful
[13:10] <@StevenW> Kohs and an IRL stalker that the office has had.
[13:10] <killiondude> Are these office hours ever helpful, Nihiltres?

[13:10] * DiegoGrez (ElPadrino@186.20.34.121) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:10] * apergos (~ariel@wiktionary/ArielGlenn) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] * meganrhernandez (~megan@216.38.130.162) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] * erwin (~erwin85@wikimedia/erwin) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] <Nihiltres> killiondude: I like to think so
[13:11] * Dragonfly6-7 (~test@bas1-montreal48-1176173479.dsl.bell.ca) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] <+sgardner> While Steven is typing, maybe I will say some other stuff also.
[13:11] <@StevenW> We didn't answer him on the mailing list for that reason, and IRC is no different.
[13:11] <killiondude> He was told to use IRC.

[13:11] * PeterSymonds (~Peter@wikimedia/PeterSymonds) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:11] <Dragonfly6-7> oh, but was kicked off?
[13:12] <@Jamesofur> the IRC discussion was meant for the mailing list as a whole

[13:12] <dferg> what's the topic for today's office hours, please? Thank you.
[13:12] * Abbasjnr (c4c9dafe@gateway/web/cgi-irc/wikizine.org/ip.196.201.218.254) has joined #wikimedia-office
[13:12] <@StevenW> Killiondude: We were responding to John Vandenberg IIRC. Who is obviously a good faith Wikimedian who deserves to be answered.
[13:12] <killiondude> w/e, i don't care too much. I just find it disappointing. :-)

[13:12] * Theo10011 waves at dgultekin
[13:12] <+sgardner> So. The board met over the weekend, and SJ has published four resolutions from the meeting: one on Movement Roles II, one on trustee term length, one on fundraising principles and one on the five-year-targets. So I am happy to talk about that, or about any other topic associated with the board meeting.
[13:13] <+sgardner> And, I am happy to talk about any other topic as well, and I'm happy to answer the Greg Kohs question if you folks want me to.



StevenW ... it he this guy??
Image

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Thu 14th October 2010, 3:06pm) *

StevenW ... it he this guy??
Image

StevenW and VanTucky would appear different IRC users, unless they are socks.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mikhailov_Kusserow/IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/User_list

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 14th October 2010, 10:20pm) *

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Thu 14th October 2010, 3:06pm) *

StevenW ... it he this guy??
Image

StevenW and VanTucky would appear different IRC users, unless they are socks.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mikhailov_Kusserow/IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/User_list

The VanTucky link on that page goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steven_Walling, a WMF employee.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Thu 14th October 2010, 3:24pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 14th October 2010, 10:20pm) *

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Thu 14th October 2010, 3:06pm) *

StevenW ... it he this guy??
Image

StevenW and VanTucky would appear different IRC users, unless they are socks.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mikhailov_Kusserow/IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/User_list

The VanTucky link on that page goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steven_Walling, a WMF employee.

Doh! If you click on "StevenW" it goes to the same page. He's listed under two names on the IRC list. Silly me for assuming that two different listings and IRC names meant two separate users.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Ooh, Steven Walling! The humorless dork pops up again!

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28771 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=27470&view=findpost&p=206218 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28736&view=findpost&p=224180 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=26335 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=19507&view=findpost&p=117417 Steve!

(How does Jimbo's asscrack taste, Steve?)

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 14th October 2010, 3:45pm) *

This gets better.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2010-10-14 I was booted from “Office Hours”:

QUOTE

[13:10] <@StevenW> Killiondude: There is a list of exactly two people that the WMF feels obliged never to engage with.
[13:10] <@StevenW> Kohs and an IRL stalker that the office has had.
[13:11] <@StevenW> We didn't answer him on the mailing list for that reason, and IRC is no different.
[13:12] <@StevenW> Killiondude: We were responding to John Vandenberg IIRC. Who is obviously a good faith Wikimedian who deserves to be answered.




So what StewieW is saying is that the WikiMedia Foundation does not answer to The Public, but solely to “Good Faith” members of the cult.

I'm glad we finally cleared that up, but isn't that what we've been saying all along?

Jon Image

Posted by: thekohser

I missed this closing word from Spider Hands:

QUOTE
[14:09] <+sgardner> Anyway: upshot -- likely at some point in the future we will develop an RFP policy, but it's not imminent. And I think it's fine for us, at this point, to experiment a little -- sometimes running RFPs when we think circumstances warrant it, and sometimes not running them when we think it's not warranted. That way we can learn how much work it is, whether it leads to useful outcomes, and so forth. In general, our goal is to get the best possible outcomes, and if RFPs don't help us do that, I would be less inclined to use them as a tool.


Other than when you have a project that maybe costs less than $5,000, and you're on a deadline for completion within the next week or two, WHEN EXACTLY is an RFP process not going to help yield the best possible outcomes?

What am I missing here?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 14th October 2010, 11:10pm) *

What am I missing here?


Arachnophilia cthulhu.gif

Jon tongue.gif


Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 14th October 2010, 10:10pm) *
Other than when you have a project that maybe costs less than $5,000, and you're on a deadline for completion within the next week or two, WHEN EXACTLY is an RFP process not going to help yield the best possible outcomes?

Well, that depends on how you define "best," "possible," and "outcomes." Presumably in the WMF's case, "best" means "most likely to divert Foundation money to friends of Foundation employees." Meanwhile, "possible" means "whatever we can get away with." And, of course, "outcomes" means "the money's coming out, grab with both hands and bring your wheelbarrow!" smile.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 14th October 2010, 11:10pm) *

I missed this closing word from Spider Hands:

QUOTE

[14:09] <+sgardner> Anyway: upshot — likely at some point in the future we will develop a BOPT (Blow-Out Preventer Testing) policy, but it's not imminent. And I think it's fine for us, at this point, to experiment a little — sometimes running BOPTs when we think circumstances warrant it, and sometimes not running them when we think it's not warranted. That way we can learn how much work it is, whether it leads to useful outcomes, and so forth. In general, our goal is to get the best possible outcomes, and if BOPTs don't help us do that, I would be less inclined to use them as a tool.


Other than when you have a project that maybe costs less than $5,000, and you're on a deadline for completion within the next week or two, WHEN EXACTLY is an BOPT process not going to help yield the best possible outcomes?

What am I missing here?


Her future employment aspirations?

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 14th October 2010, 3:45pm) *

This gets better.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2010-10-14 I was booted from “Office Hours”:

QUOTE

[b][13:10] <@StevenW> Killiondude: There is a list of exactly two people that the WMF feels obliged never to engage with.
[13:10] <@StevenW> Kohs and an IRL stalker that the office has had.
[13:11] <@StevenW> We didn't answer him on the mailing list for that reason, and IRC is no different.



Kohs is on the short list with Andrew Morrow and nobody else? ohmy.gif blink.gif confused.gif

Oh man, oh man, Jimbo just REALLY must not like the trailer-park jokes.

Hey Kohs, GRAWP didn't even make that list. In Stevie Wonder's mind, anyway.

Posted by: thekohser

Meanwhile, Rand Montoya, the organizer of the failed 2009 Donor Study that never launched, http://www.linkedin.com/in/randm, even though his last day there was over two weeks ago.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 15th October 2010, 12:53am) *
Kohs is on the short list with Andrew Morrow and nobody else? ohmy.gif blink.gif confused.gif

So it seems. Greg has done a great job of pissing Wales off, it's almost a talent.

When someone, someday, writes an honest history of Wikipedia, Greg will deserve his own
chapter--not because he 'disrupted the glorious project", but because the treatment he received
from the Wiki-Faithful was more akin to a Stalinist purge than "dealing with a disruptor".
Even Grawp didn't receive such hatred.

Short form: there is no free speech on Wikipedia. Nor on anything run by Wikipedia people.
They are basically no better than book-burners.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 16th October 2010, 12:56am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 15th October 2010, 12:53am) *

Kohs is on the short list with Andrew Morrow and nobody else? ohmy.gif blink.gif confused.gif


So it seems. Greg has done a great job of pissing Wales off, it's almost a talent.

When someone, someday, writes an honest history of Wikipedia, Greg will deserve his own chapter — not because he 'disrupted the glorious project", but because the treatment he received from the Wiki-Faithful was more akin to a Stalinist purge than "dealing with a disruptor". Even Grawp didn't receive such hatred.

Short form: there is no free speech on Wikipedia. Nor on anything run by Wikipedia people. They are basically no better than book-burners.


This is the thing that Wikipediots never get — that people will treat Wikipediots exactly the way that Wikipediots treat them. There are whole WP essays speculating on the motives of their "disrupters", when it's perfectly clear to any outside observer what the motivation is — all they'd have to do is ask — but they just keep dancing around the simple answer because they don't want to know the truth.

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: thekohser

Anyone willing to be quoted on record about how the process for RFP/RFQ bidding is handled in your organization, please contact me at thekohser -at- gmail.com.

Thanks.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 15th October 2010, 7:11am) *

Meanwhile, Rand Montoya, the organizer of the failed 2009 Donor Study that never launched, http://www.linkedin.com/in/randm, even though his last day there was over two weeks ago.


It's been about eight months now... I wonder if Rand's money is starting to run out? He certainly has a http://www.webcitation.org/5z61yeECH on LinkedIn! But, it http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2009/262/119/2009-262119465-06152209-Z.pdf the CTN pays its directors or corporate secretary.

The Wikimedia Foundation certainly does have a history of former employees not moving on to anything more substantial, doesn't it? I'm thinking of Danny Wool, Carolyn Doran, Brad Patrick, Brion Vibber (who returned to the WMF fold), and Mike Godwin. Any others I've missed? Is this a sort of pattern, or am I just cherry-picking? It's kind of like former head coaches of the Detroit Lions -- none move up the totem pole after their stint in the Motor City.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 31st May 2011, 12:06pm) *
The Wikimedia Foundation certainly does have a history of former employees not moving on to anything more substantial, doesn't it? I'm thinking of Danny Wool, Carolyn Doran, Brad Patrick, Brion Vibber (who returned to the WMF fold), and Mike Godwin. Any others I've missed? Is this a sort of pattern, or am I just cherry-picking?

In all fairness, if there were WMF employees who had gone on to better jobs, we probably wouldn't hear about them. Most companies don't make a public show of their technical and fundraising hires anyway, and the newly-hired person himself/herself isn't likely to make a point of publicly saying, "look at me, I used to work for the Wikimedia Foundation and now I'm a junior executive for {name of better-run, more respectable organization}."

Then again, it probably depends on the company. Most colleges and universities announce new hires in nearly all areas, for example - but colleges and universities are probably less likely than most to hire people from an outfit like the WMF.

QUOTE
It's kind of like former head coaches of the Detroit Lions -- none move up the totem pole after their stint in the Motor City.

But Matt Millen and Steve Mariucci both do a good job as TV analysts, at least...?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 31st May 2011, 1:31pm) *

But Matt Millen...


That is a name that is never to be uttered, Somey. It brings great unrest to my household.

Posted by: thekohser

Okay, here we go...

In only 10 months, "http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=78721746&authType=OUT_OF_NETWORK&authToken=SoSk&locale=en_US&srchid=d4a13c6c-bda1-4d3a-8053-a5f11ef74908-0&srchindex=27&srchtotal=69&goback=.fps_PBCK_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_Wikimedia+Foundation_*51_PNC_I_us_*1_*1_false_3_R_true_N%2CI%2CED%2CL%2CFG%2CTE%2CFA%2CSE%2CP%2CCS%2CF%2CDR%2CCC%2CG%2CPC_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2&pvs=ps&trk=pp_profile_name_link" moved up from Executive Assistant at the WMF to Administrative Assistant at Facebook. (Horsey will approve.)