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

[the fieryangel]

The best comments off of the public donors list

Anonymous - The proof that people is better without been ruled

Anonymous- "Knowledge Brings Fear"

<===Excuse me? Am I missing something here?

Anonymous -The Standard repository for all knowledge. Screw Douglas Adams

Michael Purvis - Please stop deleting articles!

<===Why did you give them money then???

Anonymous- 2012 is coming; free the info! Tue, 10/23/2007 - 02:11 USD 100

<===When Apocalypse theories and Free source software meet....

Anonymous - Most people don't realise how entertaining Wikipedia is! Tue, 10/23/2007 - 00:12 AUD 20 17.

<==Entertaining???

Anonymous - JIMBO'S EYES ARE REALLY SCARY Mon, 10/22/2007 - 23:33 USD 10

Anonymous - Heh heh heh, "autofellatio" Tue, 10/23/2007 - 11:19 NZD 10 7.

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

[Poetlister]

In London, "2012 is coming" means the 2012 Olympics.

[GlassBeadGame]

In London, "2012 is coming" means the 2012 Olympics.

And the end of the world according to the Mayan calendar.

[the fieryangel]

In London, "2012 is coming" means the 2012 Olympics.

And the end of the world according to the Mayan calendar.

Yeah, I think that's what they refering too...but you never can tell!

More gems

Anonymous
Information craves freedom.

<==File this one under "unfounded platitudes"....

Anonymous
Wikipedia is OUR encyclopedia, keep it free!

<==Except if you're banned...

Anonymous
let knowledge of the world bring happiness to every sentient being

<==I guess that explains why so many admins are unhappy then?

[thekohser]

The best comments off of the public donors list

Make sure you click the "filter contributions" link, and lower the threshold from $5 to $1. The $1 donors are a lot funnier. Example:

Jimmy Wales is a consummate liar and scam artist. Stop donating to his Wikia project vicariously through the WMF. Oust Wales from the Board of Directors!

That's worth a buck, don't you think?

Greg

[the fieryangel]

The best comments off of the public donors list

Make sure you click the "filter contributions" link, and lower the threshold from $5 to $1. The $1 donors are a lot funnier. Example:

Jimmy Wales is a consummate liar and scam artist. Stop donating to his Wikia project vicariously through the WMF. Oust Wales from the Board of Directors!

That's worth a buck, don't you think?

Greg

Here's one that's worth 20 quid :

Anonymous
Let the misinformation flow like wine into the mouths of people who never check references everywhere! I mean, with plenty of moderation, what are you, an alcoholic? Tue, 10/23/2007 - 13:28 GBP 20 40.

Now, who could that be???

[the fieryangel]

More gems :

Anonymous
To achieve a dream, you must wake up. Wikipedia is the worlds alarm clock to a better society.

<===I'd say that WP is more like the World's snooze button, myself....

Anonymous
I like big butts and I cannot lie, you other brothers can't deny.

Anonymous
Thanks for keeping the dream alive, Jimbo! Remember, admins, zoosexuality is harmful, and is antithetical to NPOV. And we have to get rid of the notability requirement—verifiablity=way more importan

[The Joy]

In London, "2012 is coming" means the 2012 Olympics.

And the end of the world according to the Mayan calendar.

Dec. 21, 2012 to be exact. At least we know WP won't be around after that!

[the fieryangel]

Manny Mamakas
To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it

<====Indeed!

Emanuel Mamakas
A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak. -Michael Garrett Marino

Anonymous
Wikipedia is reliable because of the standards of neutrality and verifiability; plus the implicit approval of every person who views an article and makes no changes to it.

<===Would you like another delicious glass of Koolaid??

Clemens van der Lelie
heal the world

<===Wikipedia + New Age = ???

Anonymous
BUNNIES GO RAWR

nicholas johnson
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

<====Yes, but what about Ayn Rand??

* edited by Nathan: typo

This post has been edited by Nathan:

[zscout370]

Anonymous: To all the mods who delete good articles: f... you! ($4.00) USD 4.00

This came off of the donation IRC channel, #wikimedia-donations. This is where the funds are keep on being tracked. At the time of this message, here are the unofficial stats:

Total donations: 5,375 (5.4%) -- Total USD: $139,266 -- Avg/person $25.91 -- Past 5 hours: $3,046 -- Total Anonymous: 3,375 ($88,070) -- Projected total: $2,591,000

[thekohser]

This came off of the donation IRC channel, #wikimedia-donations. This is where the funds are keep on being tracked. At the time of this message, here are the unofficial stats:

Total donations: 5,375 (5.4%) -- Total USD: $139,266 -- Avg/person $25.91 -- Past 5 hours: $3,046 -- Total Anonymous: 3,375 ($88,070) -- Projected total: $2,591,000

This is lining up with my initial suspicions. This campaign is not going to reach their goal. And, I believe they are fooling themselves that a campaign in 2007 is going to have the same legs as the one started in late 2006 -- before Essjay, before university bans, before Wikiscanner, before Andrew Keen, etc. Annual campaigns get tedious for those who've already donated before in the past.

The fact that they've only gotten about 6,000 of the 100,000 donors yet tells me that they're way behind. Most of the eager-beaver donors will make their contribution on first sight of Jimbo's blinky eyes and wringy hands. They've already donated! That leaves everybody else, who isn't so eager, who is more suspicious, more tired of this "Wikipedia craze".

Sure, they'll drum up some big-donor support in November, when they see they're going to miss projections by 50%. But it still isn't going to cover the budget. Which means the budget will have to be cut. And maybe some heads will roll.

Greg

[zscout370]

This came off of the donation IRC channel, #wikimedia-donations. This is where the funds are keep on being tracked. At the time of this message, here are the unofficial stats:

Total donations: 5,375 (5.4%) -- Total USD: $139,266 -- Avg/person $25.91 -- Past 5 hours: $3,046 -- Total Anonymous: 3,375 ($88,070) -- Projected total: $2,591,000

This is lining up with my initial suspicions. This campaign is not going to reach their goal. And, I believe they are fooling themselves that a campaign in 2007 is going to have the same legs as the one started in late 2006 -- before Essjay, before university bans, before Wikiscanner, before Andrew Keen, etc. Annual campaigns get tedious for those who've already donated before in the past.

The fact that they've only gotten about 6,000 of the 100,000 donors yet tells me that they're way behind. Most of the eager-beaver donors will make their contribution on first sight of Jimbo's blinky eyes and wringy hands. They've already donated! That leaves everybody else, who isn't so eager, who is more suspicious, more tired of this "Wikipedia craze".

Sure, they'll drum up some big-donor support in November, when they see they're going to miss projections by 50%. But it still isn't going to cover the budget. Which means the budget will have to be cut. And maybe some heads will roll.

Greg

Even on the site, there isn't a target goal of donors wanted, and from my chats with some of the Foundation folks, they didn't want a money tracker like last year. I wish I could break things down by currency, but those stats are being kept by few people. Our highest donation, to my knowledge, is about 1,500 USD from an anon. who gave his comment as a security hash.

[Jaranda]

Wow I never knew that some of the people who donate are so stupid.

[zscout370]

Keep in mind that, with this going on for about two months, tons of things can happen. I suspect that donations from my neck of the woods (it's on Brandt's site if you really wish find out), it is going to the fire relief effort. I am also seeing people in the US prepare for holiday shopping, so I don't huge donations to the extent of thousands. This is a constant problem I saw last year, not sure about 2005, since I did not pay attention to much of the Foundation matters then.

Anyways, the latest unofficial stats from the same IRC channel mentioned earlier:

Total donations: 6,379 (6.4%) -- Total USD: $166,247 -- Avg/person $26.06 -- Past 5 hours: $4,962 -- Total Anonymous: 3,959 ($103,268) -- Projected total: $2,606,000

[Derktar]

Keep in mind that, with this going on for about two months, tons of things can happen. I suspect that donations from my neck of the woods (it's on Brandt's site if you really wish find out), it is going to the fire relief effort. I am also seeing people in the US prepare for holiday shopping, so I don't huge donations to the extent of thousands. This is a constant problem I saw last year, not sure about 2005, since I did not pay attention to much of the Foundation matters then.

Anyways, the latest unofficial stats from the same IRC channel mentioned earlier:

Total donations: 6,379 (6.4%) -- Total USD: $166,247 -- Avg/person $26.06 -- Past 5 hours: $4,962 -- Total Anonymous: 3,959 ($103,268) -- Projected total: $2,606,000

Interesting, I didn't even think about the wildfires impacting potential fund raising but I imagine it will to some degree.

[zscout370]

Keep in mind that, with this going on for about two months, tons of things can happen. I suspect that donations from my neck of the woods (it's on Brandt's site if you really wish find out), it is going to the fire relief effort. I am also seeing people in the US prepare for holiday shopping, so I don't huge donations to the extent of thousands. This is a constant problem I saw last year, not sure about 2005, since I did not pay attention to much of the Foundation matters then.

Anyways, the latest unofficial stats from the same IRC channel mentioned earlier:

Total donations: 6,379 (6.4%) -- Total USD: $166,247 -- Avg/person $26.06 -- Past 5 hours: $4,962 -- Total Anonymous: 3,959 ($103,268) -- Projected total: $2,606,000

Interesting, I didn't even think about the wildfires impacting potential fund raising but I imagine it will to some degree.

Probably the same effect with Hurricane Katrina and the Tsunamis in Asia; donations will be slow, but can still be large from non-affected areas. I also do recall that such events like that have been put in the sitenotice to where people should send money. With both of those cases, the English Wikipedia chose the Red Cross. I know the French Wikipedia did something similar for Darfur, but I am not sure what organization they asked funds to be sent to.

[the fieryangel]

Probably the same effect with Hurricane Katrina and the Tsunamis in Asia; donations will be slow, but can still be large from non-affected areas. I also do recall that such events like that have been put in the sitenotice to where people should send money. With both of those cases, the English Wikipedia chose the Red Cross. I know the French Wikipedia did something similar for Darfur, but I am not sure what organization they asked funds to be sent to.

Hi Zscout! glad that you're here! I'm really sorry about your problems, but maybe our moral support will make you feel better?

Anyway, Jimbo claims that the rate of donations has never been better...

He might be stretching things a bit there...but their budget has never been larger and their operating expenses are way up over 2006 level. So, even if everybody who gave in 2006 gives more, they are not going to meet their goal...and their budget will have to be cut.

Maybe Floflo will have to pay for her own babysitter?

I think that relief for fire victims, Darfur and the like are probably a bit more important than buying baudwidth so that the Cabal can have unlimited flamewars, in the greater scheme of things....

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

[the fieryangel]

Yet more :

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

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

Jose M Guzmán Ibarra * The biggest event since Diderot

<===Never mind that atomic bomb business....

Anonymous * Genuflect before the mother brain!

<===Somebody's been watching too much Star Trek...

things are tricky - help me wiki!

Thanks from my unborn child.

<===He already has a credit card??

I am a poor college student. I barely pay my tuition. But I am willing to give up a meal to make the world a better place.

<===Oh, you're so kind. Here, have a glass of koolaid on us!...

Wikipedia is humanity's greatest achievement.

I am most likely to turn to Wiki for all of life's answers

(Are these people serious??? Man, how sad....)

[thekohser]

Keep in mind that, with this going on for about two months, tons of things can happen. I suspect that donations from my neck of the woods (it's on Brandt's site if you really wish find out), it is going to the fire relief effort. I am also seeing people in the US prepare for holiday shopping, so I don't huge donations to the extent of thousands. This is a constant problem I saw last year, not sure about 2005, since I did not pay attention to much of the Foundation matters then.

Anyways, the latest unofficial stats from the same IRC channel mentioned earlier:

Total donations: 6,379 (6.4%) -- Total USD: $166,247 -- Avg/person $26.06 -- Past 5 hours: $4,962 -- Total Anonymous: 3,959 ($103,268) -- Projected total: $2,606,000

I want to thank zscout370 for these invaluable updates on the Foundation's efforts to reach $4.6 million for 2008's budget. It isn't going to happen. Let's do the numbers...

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.

How will the Foundation possibly make up the difference without completely slashing the budget?

Oh, here's the answer!

If I send you a huge donation, do I get anything special?
Yes. This year, people who donate between USD 10,000 and 24,999 will get a personal phone call from Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. (You will need to include your phone number with your donation.) People who donate USD 25,000 or more will be treated to dinner with Jimmy.

Anyone want to venture a guess where that dinner might be held?

Another way you can get a personal phone call from Jimmy Wales is to set up a website similar to Wikipedia Review.com, and use the word "Wikipedia" in your sales pitch. That worked for me, anyway. I got a call real quickly.

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[the fieryangel]

Keep in mind that, with this going on for about two months, tons of things can happen. I suspect that donations from my neck of the woods (it's on Brandt's site if you really wish find out), it is going to the fire relief effort. I am also seeing people in the US prepare for holiday shopping, so I don't huge donations to the extent of thousands. This is a constant problem I saw last year, not sure about 2005, since I did not pay attention to much of the Foundation matters then.

Anyways, the latest unofficial stats from the same IRC channel mentioned earlier:

Total donations: 6,379 (6.4%) -- Total USD: $166,247 -- Avg/person $26.06 -- Past 5 hours: $4,962 -- Total Anonymous: 3,959 ($103,268) -- Projected total: $2,606,000

I want to thank zscout370 for these invaluable updates on the Foundation's efforts to reach $4.6 million for 2008's budget. It isn't going to happen. Let's do the numbers...

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.

How will the Foundation possibly make up the difference without completely slashing the budget?

Oh, here's the answer!

If I send you a huge donation, do I get anything special?
Yes. This year, people who donate between USD 10,000 and 24,999 will get a personal phone call from Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. (You will need to include your phone number with your donation.) People who donate USD 25,000 or more will be treated to dinner with Jimmy.

Anyone want to venture a guess where that dinner might be held?

Another way you can get a personal phone call from Jimmy Wales is to set up a website similar to Wikipedia Review.com, and use the word "Wikipedia" in your sales pitch. That worked for me, anyway. I got a call real quickly.

Greg

I'll bet that the telephone conversation would have been worth at least a USD 25,000 donataion....at least if you had taped it and sold it to the Enquirer or something....

Anyway, the numbers just don't add up. There ain't no well in Hell that they're going to come up with over four million bucks at this rate, even with "matching grants" which have yet to be announced.

So, who gets fired first?

[Derktar]

Interesting little tidbit

* Can I give you a targeted or restricted donation -- meaning, can I give you money to do something very specific, that can't be used for other purposes?

Charities based in the United States -- like the Wikimedia Foundation -- are required to honor restrictions requested by donors. That means if you specify your donation needs to be restricted for a specific use, we will either honor your request or return your donation. But before you decide to do that, please consider that unrestricted donations are much more useful for us. As quickly as Wikimedia's projects evolve, Wikimedia needs unrestricted donations to remain agile.

I wonder how many people actually read this. If people really didn't want their money going toward legal fees and trustee salaries they would request their donations only be used for hardware and bandwidth costs.

Oh and as for donor sayings, I particularly like this one...

"My college students depend on Wikipedia" — Anonymous

Arrrrrggghhh

This post has been edited by Derktar:

[Moulton]

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

[GlassBeadGame]

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

Any independent dispute resolution would be a major step toward social responsibility. It would be a curb on the unquestioned dominance of the dysfunctional social networking "community" and the blow to the last vestiges of the Cult of the God-king.

[Jonny Cache]

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

Any independent dispute resolution would be a major step toward social responsibility. It would be a curb on the unquestioned dominance of the dysfunctional social networking "community" and the blow to the last vestiges of the Cult of the God-King.

It would only go toward shoring up the fundamental delusion that Wikipedia Is Some Kinda Goobermint, instead of some kind of edited publication.

And that is the Φantasy that got them into the mess they're in.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

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

Any independent dispute resolution would be a major step toward social responsibility. It would be a curb on the unquestioned dominance of the dysfunctional social networking "community" and the blow to the last vestiges of the Cult of the God-King.

It would only go toward shoring up the fundamental delusion that Wikipedia Is Some Kinda Goobermint, instead of some kind of edited publication.

And that is the Φantasy that got them into the mess they're in.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Better to take your chances with a professional trained to listen than 2,000 pseudonymous adolescent amateurs playing social networking games. It would be nice if it was Magister Ludi 's Castalia all academic and monastic but it's more like Lord of Flies and some GooberMint seems like a good idea.

[Moulton]

I would like to see Wikipedia craft a functional social contract for establishing a more congenial climate for achieving and maintaining consensus on the issues which divide conflicted parties. The present architecture, which operates more like a high-intensity chess game than an orderly and sober process of civil negotiation, has proven to be needlessly aggravating, contentious, and interminable. I believe the Wikipedians would benefit from a more suitable framework, along the lines of a functional social contract, including some more functional protocols for conflict management and conflict resolution.

A social contract is a written document setting forth mutually agreeable terms of engagement and therefor (by definition) cannot be considered to be fiat imposed by one faction over another. A social contract represents a collection of promises that the parties have freely committed to, because they believe that it's in their mutual interest to adopt that framework. That is, a social contract is a consensus — a consensus on the terms of engagement. In the absence of mutually agreeable terms of engagement, the interpersonal dynamics of a cast of characters embroiled in conflict typically devolves into some form of a liminal social drama.

[GlassBeadGame]

I would like to see Wikipedia craft a functional social contract for establishing a more congenial climate for achieving and maintaining consensus on the issues which divide conflicted parties. The present architecture, which operates more like a high-intensity chess game than an orderly and sober process of civil negotiation, has proven to be needlessly aggravating, contentious, and interminable. I believe the Wikipedians would benefit from a more suitable framework, along the lines of a functional social contract, including some more functional protocols for conflict management and conflict resolution.

A social contract is a written document setting forth mutually agreeable terms of engagement and therefor (by definition) cannot be considered to be fiat imposed by one faction over another. A social contract represents a collection of promises that the parties have freely committed to, because they believe that it's in their mutual interest to adopt that framework. That is, a social contract is a consensus — a consensus on the terms of engagement. In the absence of mutually agreeable terms of engagement, the interpersonal dynamics of a cast of characters embroiled in conflict typically devolves into some form of a liminal social drama.

This is interesting. What would/might the contents of the contract be? Who would put it forward? How would it be enforced?

[Moulton]

What would/might the contents of the contract be? Who would put it forward? How would it be enforced?

A social contract typically includes a mission statement setting forth the purpose of the organization or project. This is typically followed by a pledge to work cooperatively toward the common goals. In addition to the express goals of the project, the social contract typically includes social and interpersonal goals for establishing a congenial climate of community. These would include goals of treating each other with courtesy and respect, fostering cooperation, and peaceable resolution of conflict in accordance with express conflict resolution protocols spelled out in the social contract.

It's crafted by the leadership of the community and ratified by the members of the community who agree to subscribe to it.

The concept of enforcement does not apply to a social contract, as the philosophy is not one of rules and punishments, but of peer promises and protocols for handling breaches of expectations in a non-judicial manner.

In terms of the Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder, social contracts operate at Stage 5 of Kohlberg's Ladder, several rungs above the Rules-and-Punishment paradigm. Social contracts thus require a level of maturity and responsibility a notch or two above the norm.

Lawrence Kohlberg's Six Stages of Moral Reasoning
Plus Carol Gilligan's Seventh Stage of Ethical Care

Stage 1: Punishment-avoidance and obedience — Individuals make moral decisions on the basis of what is best for themselves, without regard for the needs or feeling of others. They obey rules only if established by more powerful individuals; they disobey when they can do so without getting caught.

Stage 2: Exchange of favors — Individuals begin to recognize that others also have needs. They may attempt to satisfy the needs of others if their own needs are also met in the process. They continue to define right and wrong primarily in terms of consequences to themselves.

Stage 3: Good boy/good girl — Individuals make moral decisions on the basis of what actions will please others, especially authority figures. They are concerned about maintaining interpersonal relationships through sharing, trust, and loyalty. They now consider someone's intentions in determining innocence or guilt.

Stage 4: Law and order — Individuals look to society as a whole for guidelines concerning what is right or wrong. They perceive rules to be inflexible and believe that it is their "duty" to obey them.

Stage 5: Social Contract — Individuals recognize that rules represent an agreement among many people about appropriate behavior. They recognize that rules are flexible and can be changed if they no longer meet society's needs.

Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle — Individuals adhere to a small number of abstract, universal principles that transcend specific, concrete rules. They answer to an inner conscience and may break rules that violate their own ethical principles.

Stage 7: Ethics of Care — An obligation of care rests on the understanding of relationships as a response to another in terms of their special needs. Focuses on the moral value of being empathetic toward those dearly beloved persons with whom we have special and valuable relationships, and the moral importance of responding to such persons as unique individuals with characteristics that require custom-crafted responses to them that we do not normally extend to others.

[GlassBeadGame]

A social contract typically includes a mission statement setting forth the purpose of the organization or project. This is typically followed by a pledge to work cooperatively toward the common goals. In addition to the express goals of the project, the social contract typically includes social and interpersonal goals for establishing a congenial climate of community. These would include goals of treating each other with courtesy and respect, fostering cooperation, and peaceable resolution of conflict in accordance with express conflict resolution protocols spelled out in the social contract.

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?

[Moulton]

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.

[Jonny Cache]

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

Any independent dispute resolution would be a major step toward social responsibility. It would be a curb on the unquestioned dominance of the dysfunctional social networking "community" and the blow to the last vestiges of the Cult of the God-King.

It would only go toward shoring up the fundamental delusion that Wikipedia Is Some Kinda Goobermint, instead of some kind of edited publication.

And that is the Φantasy that got them into the mess they're in.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Better to take your chances with a professional trained to listen than 2,000 pseudonymous adolescent amateurs playing social networking games. It would be nice if it was Magister Ludi 's Castalia all academic and monastic but it's more like Lord of Flies and some GooberMint seems like a good idea.

BTDT, too many times already.

Wrote it all down for Larry Sanger while he still had a chance of doing a NewPedia instead of the SameOleSameOleTedia. Will try to save some of that time on my hands by going off to look up what I wrote before.

Don't know why you can't see that Your Third Coming Saviour And All Round Young Virgin Omnibusman will end up looking indiscernible from Your First Messiah and Your Second Co-Flounder before the Year is Out.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Moulton]

There are a few examples of open source projects that adopted the framework of a social contract, adhered to it, and developed into a world-class center of excellence. The Debian Linux Project is one that comes to mind. Google also has a social contract with its employees.

[Jonny Cache]

There are a few examples of open source projects that adopted the framework of a social contract, adhered to it, and developed into a world-class center of excellence. The Debian Linux Project is one that comes to mind. Google also has a social contract with its employees.

I thought from the title of this thread — oh, sorry, I forgot where I was for a moment there, nevermimd — that y'all were talking about a course correction for the brain-drain-train already in motion. Nope, too much MimboJimboMomentum there to keep it from going over the falls without a barrel — poor monkeys!

But if you are talking about starting from scratch, dumping that sorry site entire, well, dream on, dream on!

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[badlydrawnjeff]

Wikipedia Review should totally raise $30k - enough for a retired somebody to act as an ombudsman for a year, and enough to force Jimbo to meet with a couple people from here. Only $100 from each registered member!

[Moulton]

Rather than hire a negotiator, I think we would be better served by stepping up to a professional level of investigative journalism. I'd like to see an article in a prestigious magazine like Atlantic Monthly which fairly reported the issues that Wikipedia is confronting as a function of its structural problems.

[GlassBeadGame]

Wikipedia Review should totally raise $30k - enough for a retired somebody to act as an ombudsman for a year, and enough to force Jimbo to meet with a couple people from here. Only $100 from each registered member!

I don't understand the "force Jimbo to meet" part. Also I don't think Mr. Wales is the appropriate person to engage in any negotiations. Perhaps WMF B/T could designate a representative though.

[Jonny Cache]

Rather than hire a negotiator, I think we would be better served by stepping up to a professional level of investigative journalism. I'd like to see an article in a prestigious magazine like Atlantic Monthly which fairly reported the issues that Wikipedia is confronting as a function of its structural problems.

BTDT. Ask Greg Kohs to tell you what Marshall Poe is up to lately. A year ago you might have excused Yet Another Gee Whiz MainDream Journalist for writing what MP wrote then, but now he appears even more clueless than he did before.
No, I'm afraid the information will have to flow from places like this to places like that.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Moulton]

There is a progression in these observations that goes from disappointment to frustration to cynicism to bitterness.

Mebbe I should leap-frog you, Jonny, and go straight to bitterness.

[Jonny Cache]

There is a progression in these observations that goes from disappointment to frustration to cynicism to bitterness.

Mebbe I should leap-frog you, Jonny, and go straight to bitterness.

I prefer to think of it as Dis-Illusionment.

And, y'know, that can be A Good Thing.

Well, after you get out of the Wiki-Pokey.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Moulton]

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