Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ The Wikimedia Foundation _ Wikimedia Fundraising
Posted by: The Joy
Ok, I'm confused. What's a Wikipedia Academy and how is it helping Africans?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
I'm getting tired of Jimbo and the Foundation touting itself as a charitable organization.
What has the Foundation done that is alleviating world suffering? When I edit WP, what am I giving to someone that I couldn't give any other way?
And why on earth would I donate to an organization just to send 3 students to Wikimania? What good will that do anyone?
If I ever donate to WP, I want 100% of my donations to go to the upkeep of the site, not paying the Great Flounder to go around the world eating caviar and saying "Ain't free information grand?" Couldn't he just e-mail people and say its great or write an essay instead of wasting donors' money?
Does the Foundation have a way I can see where my donation money is going?
I've said it before that it would be better to donate reading materials and computers to developing countries rather than saying "We're making a free online encyclopedia for the poor of the world." Oh really? I'm no expert on Africa (yet I can the African articles and say whatever. WP:POINT VIOLATION!) but the technology gap between developing and developed countries is very wide. Even if a kid from African could access WP, the information he receives will likely not be up to par with that of a peer-reviewed reference or written at a level the child can understand.
The fact is this: Don't waste your money and time on WP thinking it is stopping the Darfur crisis, world hunger, wars, etc.
There are better things you can do to help this world. Take that donation for WP and invest it in a reliable and accountable charity you've researched. Sponsor a child, donate materials, whatever, but don't waste your money on WP and expect it to help or save someone. Its a lie what the Foundation is trying to say.
Minor update: The site mentions sending books and materials to developing countries, but what kind of materials? Not just WP CDs, I hope.
Posted by: blissyu2
Darn it. I meant to post way before you did, but it seems that the post button wouldn't work for me for hours, so you beat me to it now. Anyway can someone merge the posts? Or just delete mine will do.
Posted by: D.A.F.
Not just WP CDs, I hope.
Hope not, developping country with no easy access to information could be stuck as having Wikipedia as sole source.
I am embarassed to admit that I already not once but twice contributed. I guess during my state of delusion believing Wikipedia could work.
Posted by: the fieryangel
Not just WP CDs, I hope.
Hope not, developping country with no easy access to information could be stuck as having Wikipedia as sole source.
I am embarassed to admit that I already not once but twice contributed. I guess during my state of delusion believing Wikipedia could work.
They're probably going to ask people to donate books, CDs and other items and then send thme to Africa. However, lots of other organizations already do this sort of thing, so it's hardly revolutionary.
Everyone needs to STOP giving these people money. If you really want to do something, there are plenty of other, real, charities that have a proven track record of actually doing something for the World....
Posted by: the fieryangel
Here's where they say the money is going, according to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Planned_Spending_Distribution_2007-2008
Technology ** 2,573 57%
Finance and Administration 699 15%
Office of the Executive Director* 509 11%
Program Services 185 4%
Legal 182 4%
Board of Trustees 201 4%
Wikimania Conference 150 3%
Communications 113 2%
TOTAL: $4,611 100%
*includes salaries of the ED, assistant, "one-time relocation expenses" and "consulting
**includes baudwidth, hardware, salaries
Posted by: LamontStormstar
They're probably going to ask people to donate books, CDs and other items and then send thme to Africa.
Donations to send to Africa? They should donate condoms! There is a huge AIDS epidemic combined with a population explosion.
Posted by: thekohser
Here's where they say the money is going, according to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Planned_Spending_Distribution_2007-2008
Technology ** 2,573 57%
Finance and Administration 699 15%
Office of the Executive Director* 509 11%
Program Services 185 4%
Legal 182 4%
Board of Trustees 201 4%
Wikimania Conference 150 3%
Communications 113 2%
TOTAL: $4,611 100%
*includes salaries of the ED, assistant, "one-time relocation expenses" and "consulting
**includes baudwidth, hardware, salaries
I'm not even going to make the joke that they're going to salary the Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED) -- we know that's the Executive Director (who still isn't yet the Executive Director) Sue Gardner. So, we're all crystal clear on Sue's approximate compensation, they are budgeting $509,000 for her and her "office"?
And, the Board of Trustees is getting a set-aside of $201,000? What the hell is that for? I serve on a Board of Directors of a non-profit, and I've yet to get paid or reimbursed for any of my travel, time, or expenses. If I had to guess if ANY on our board have been so compensated, it might come to a grand total of $500 -- not $201,000.
Oh, and "Legal" is $182,000? That's Godwin's per annum, I suppose? Or are there some other legal expenses and fees being thrown in there?
Please don't try to explain that many of the "costs" of administrating Wikipedia are also in these figures, because I will simply reply, "Then what the hell is the $699,000 covering in Finance and Administration?"
Keep donating, you clueless minions!
Greg
Posted by: blissyu2
As for helping "poor, starving people in Africa" by giving them Wikipedia, I think that a lot of people misunderstand what economic indicators really mean. Economic indicators, such as Gross Domestic Product and average wage are indicators of wealthy items, such as computers, TVs, luxury cars and the like, and are not an indicator of how many people are starving, the amount of actual luxury, or the difficulty to get by. I mean some countries live on US $100/year average income, while others live on US $40,000/year. Can you imagine living on US $100/year? It wouldn't happen. But in countries where you live on US $100/year, you can get a meal for US $0.05 . Truer indicators are such things as:
- What proportion of the average salary goes towards the basics (food, water, shelter)? If its under 1/3, it is a wealthy country, if its over 2/3 then it is a poor country.
- What proportion of the population starve to death? Under 5% is rich, over 10% is bad, over 20% is horrendous.
- What is the life expectancy?
- What is the average number of children born per parent? If its 3+ then you know that the infant mortality is far too high, ergo poverty.
Many parts of Africa, in real terms, are doing quite well. South Africa is going along quite fine, Kenya was going along fine until the Rwanda refugee thing but is still doing okay, Zimbabwe was good until the Mugabe era but economically is still not too bad, and many parts of Africa, whilst they live *differently* to the rest of the world, are not doing too badly. Of course there are poor regions, but that's not the entire place. There are parts of Africa where someone can live off the land, without a job, and live a relatively happy, peaceful life. Can you do that in USA? I don't think you can.
What Africa needs more than anything else is an acceptance for their way of life, to not have to tolerate people from other countries trying to force them to live the way that they want them to live. Africa doesn't want to be like America, they want to be like Africa. Let them do that. They have a culture that has survived for thousands of years. If they want to update, let them do it in their terms.
Beyond that, yes, they need to have clean running water, and some areas are lacking in that, and they need to have less violence in war torn countries and less corruption. Some places do need to have some international force come in and get rid of the bad guys, and sort things out. But other areas don't.
They do need to have access to better health care, and one of the sad things is that because African countries have their money devalued so significantly therefore they can't buy anything from places like America, hence products that aren't locally made, like condoms, are hard to come by. What they need isn't for condoms to be sent to them, but for them to be shown how to make their own condoms.
And whilst AIDS is rife and is destroying whole communities, a cultural issue is behind it more than condoms. Because so many places try to live traditionally, and traditionally condoms do not exist, and sexual partners are changed quite a lot. It is very difficult to tell people that they can't live traditionally, must use condoms and must have only one sexual partner when their whole culture, that they are clinging on to desperately, says not to do it. Many people would rather risk dying of AIDS than to lose their cultural identity.
Yes, it'd be great for Africa if they could have access to information. So if Wikipedia could be written in their native speech, and made audible rather than written because many places don't write, and then sent so that it didn't rely on technology, then it would be very helpful to many people.
What Wikipedia could perhaps do, if they really care about such a thing, is to set up Wikipedia tape recordings, in the local languages, and send them, along with a tape, to these starving African countries. That would be quite useful. One per village would suffice.
Then they could be seen to be doing something good.
Oh and most of Africa speaks either French (about 2/3) or English (about 1/3), although that is not always their first language. So translation in to French and English plus perhaps Arabic would probably suffice for most of Africa. Although of course not everyone in Africa learns to speak that 2nd language, but it can probably be translated by people in the village who do speak English.
Posted by: The Joy
They're probably going to ask people to donate books, CDs and other items and then send thme to Africa.
Donations to send to Africa? They should donate condoms! There is a huge AIDS epidemic combined with a population explosion.
Don't give Jimbo any more bright ideas, Lamont.
Posted by: The Joy
As for helping "poor, starving people in Africa" by giving them Wikipedia, I think that a lot of people misunderstand what economic indicators really mean. Economic indicators, such as Gross Domestic Product and average wage are indicators of wealthy items, such as computers, TVs, luxury cars and the like, and are not an indicator of how many people are starving, the amount of actual luxury, or the difficulty to get by. I mean some countries live on US $100/year average income, while others live on US $40,000/year. Can you imagine living on US $100/year? It wouldn't happen. But in countries where you live on US $100/year, you can get a meal for US $0.05 . Truer indicators are such things as:
- What proportion of the average salary goes towards the basics (food, water, shelter)? If its under 1/3, it is a wealthy country, if its over 2/3 then it is a poor country.
- What proportion of the population starve to death? Under 5% is rich, over 10% is bad, over 20% is horrendous.
- What is the life expectancy?
- What is the average number of children born per parent? If its 3+ then you know that the infant mortality is far too high, ergo poverty.
Many parts of Africa, in real terms, are doing quite well. South Africa is going along quite fine, Kenya was going along fine until the Rwanda refugee thing but is still doing okay, Zimbabwe was good until the Mugabe era but economically is still not too bad, and many parts of Africa, whilst they live *differently* to the rest of the world, are not doing too badly. Of course there are poor regions, but that's not the entire place. There are parts of Africa where someone can live off the land, without a job, and live a relatively happy, peaceful life. Can you do that in USA? I don't think you can.
What Africa needs more than anything else is an acceptance for their way of life, to not have to tolerate people from other countries trying to force them to live the way that they want them to live. Africa doesn't want to be like America, they want to be like Africa. Let them do that. They have a culture that has survived for thousands of years. If they want to update, let them do it in their terms.
Beyond that, yes, they need to have clean running water, and some areas are lacking in that, and they need to have less violence in war torn countries and less corruption. Some places do need to have some international force come in and get rid of the bad guys, and sort things out. But other areas don't.
They do need to have access to better health care, and one of the sad things is that because African countries have their money devalued so significantly therefore they can't buy anything from places like America, hence products that aren't locally made, like condoms, are hard to come by. What they need isn't for condoms to be sent to them, but for them to be shown how to make their own condoms.
And whilst AIDS is rife and is destroying whole communities, a cultural issue is behind it more than condoms. Because so many places try to live traditionally, and traditionally condoms do not exist, and sexual partners are changed quite a lot. It is very difficult to tell people that they can't live traditionally, must use condoms and must have only one sexual partner when their whole culture, that they are clinging on to desperately, says not to do it. Many people would rather risk dying of AIDS than to lose their cultural identity.
Yes, it'd be great for Africa if they could have access to information. So if Wikipedia could be written in their native speech, and made audible rather than written because many places don't write, and then sent so that it didn't rely on technology, then it would be very helpful to many people.
What Wikipedia could perhaps do, if they really care about such a thing, is to set up Wikipedia tape recordings, in the local languages, and send them, along with a tape, to these starving African countries. That would be quite useful. One per village would suffice.
Then they could be seen to be doing something good.
Oh and most of Africa speaks either French (about 2/3) or English (about 1/3), although that is not always their first language. So translation in to French and English plus perhaps Arabic would probably suffice for most of Africa. Although of course not everyone in Africa learns to speak that 2nd language, but it can probably be translated by people in the village who do speak English.
Westerners have a very stereotypical view of Africa. I feel blessed to be an American, but as someone who's studied history, I've learned not to judge countries or civilizations as "inferior" or "superior" as every country and civilization throughout history has had its share of triumphs and tragedies.
I can be optimistic and idealistic, but WP isn't the way to help others. I'd rather send money to Africa and know its helping someone directly with education or survival.
Posted by: KamrynMatika
As for helping "poor, starving people in Africa" by giving them Wikipedia, I think that a lot of people misunderstand what economic indicators really mean. Economic indicators, such as Gross Domestic Product and average wage are indicators of wealthy items, such as computers, TVs, luxury cars and the like, and are not an indicator of how many people are starving, the amount of actual luxury, or the difficulty to get by. I mean some countries live on US $100/year average income, while others live on US $40,000/year. Can you imagine living on US $100/year? It wouldn't happen. But in countries where you live on US $100/year, you can get a meal for US $0.05 . Truer indicators are such things as:
snip
Oh and most of Africa speaks either French (about 2/3) or English (about 1/3), although that is not always their first language. So translation in to French and English plus perhaps Arabic would probably suffice for most of Africa. Although of course not everyone in Africa learns to speak that 2nd language, but it can probably be translated by people in the village who do speak English.
The people in Africa who could use the kind of information WP provides already have access to it [and much better alternatives, I would guess]. The average stereotypical poor starving African child would be much better off with, I don't know, food, clean water, a place to live, things like that.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
As for helping "poor, starving people in Africa" by giving them Wikipedia, I think that a lot of people misunderstand what economic indicators really mean. Economic indicators, such as Gross Domestic Product and average wage are indicators of wealthy items, such as computers, TVs, luxury cars and the like, and are not an indicator of how many people are starving, the amount of actual luxury, or the difficulty to get by. I mean some countries live on US $100/year average income, while others live on US $40,000/year. Can you imagine living on US $100/year? It wouldn't happen. But in countries where you live on US $100/year, you can get a meal for US $0.05 . Truer indicators are such things as:
- What proportion of the average salary goes towards the basics (food, water, shelter)? If its under 1/3, it is a wealthy country, if its over 2/3 then it is a poor country.
- What proportion of the population starve to death? Under 5% is rich, over 10% is bad, over 20% is horrendous.
- What is the life expectancy?
- What is the average number of children born per parent? If its 3+ then you know that the infant mortality is far too high, ergo poverty.
Many parts of Africa, in real terms, are doing quite well. South Africa is going along quite fine, Kenya was going along fine until the Rwanda refugee thing but is still doing okay, Zimbabwe was good until the Mugabe era but economically is still not too bad, and many parts of Africa, whilst they live *differently* to the rest of the world, are not doing too badly. Of course there are poor regions, but that's not the entire place. There are parts of Africa where someone can live off the land, without a job, and live a relatively happy, peaceful life. Can you do that in USA? I don't think you can.
What Africa needs more than anything else is an acceptance for their way of life, to not have to tolerate people from other countries trying to force them to live the way that they want them to live. Africa doesn't want to be like America, they want to be like Africa. Let them do that. They have a culture that has survived for thousands of years. If they want to update, let them do it in their terms.
Beyond that, yes, they need to have clean running water, and some areas are lacking in that, and they need to have less violence in war torn countries and less corruption. Some places do need to have some international force come in and get rid of the bad guys, and sort things out. But other areas don't.
They do need to have access to better health care, and one of the sad things is that because African countries have their money devalued so significantly therefore they can't buy anything from places like America, hence products that aren't locally made, like condoms, are hard to come by. What they need isn't for condoms to be sent to them, but for them to be shown how to make their own condoms.
And whilst AIDS is rife and is destroying whole communities, a cultural issue is behind it more than condoms. Because so many places try to live traditionally, and traditionally condoms do not exist, and sexual partners are changed quite a lot. It is very difficult to tell people that they can't live traditionally, must use condoms and must have only one sexual partner when their whole culture, that they are clinging on to desperately, says not to do it. Many people would rather risk dying of AIDS than to lose their cultural identity.
Yes, it'd be great for Africa if they could have access to information. So if Wikipedia could be written in their native speech, and made audible rather than written because many places don't write, and then sent so that it didn't rely on technology, then it would be very helpful to many people.
What Wikipedia could perhaps do, if they really care about such a thing, is to set up Wikipedia tape recordings, in the local languages, and send them, along with a tape, to these starving African countries. That would be quite useful. One per village would suffice.
Then they could be seen to be doing something good.
Oh and most of Africa speaks either French (about 2/3) or English (about 1/3), although that is not always their first language. So translation in to French and English plus perhaps Arabic would probably suffice for most of Africa. Although of course not everyone in Africa learns to speak that 2nd language, but it can probably be translated by people in the village who do speak English.
Westerners have a very stereotypical view of Africa. I feel blessed to be an American, but as someone who's studied history, I've learned not to judge countries or civilizations as "inferior" or "superior" as every country and civilization throughout history has had its share of triumphs and tragedies.
I can be optimistic and idealistic, but WP isn't the way to help others. I'd rather send money to Africa and know its helping someone directly with education or survival.
Half of Africa's population is Muslim. If WP wanted to be an acceptable resource for African peoples it would need to address it massive anti-Muslim bias.
Posted by: thekohser
I can be optimistic and idealistic, but WP isn't the way to help others. I'd rather send money to Africa and know its helping someone directly with education or survival.
What?! You blasphemer, Joy. I believe it would be much better to send $182,000 to WikiLawyer, Mike Godwin, so that he can come up with a brilliant and legal way to save Africa.
Greg
Posted by: The Joy
I can be optimistic and idealistic, but WP isn't the way to help others. I'd rather send money to Africa and know its helping someone directly with education or survival.
What?! You blasphemer, Joy. I believe it would be much better to send $182,000 to WikiLawyer, Mike Godwin, so that he can come up with a brilliant and legal way to save Africa.
Greg
I guess Mike Godwin never said that he believed enough in free information that he was willing to work to defend WP for free?
I don't understand Jimbo at all. He comes across as this altruistic hippie trying to save the world but his business ventures and dictatorial attitude on the English WP reveals an entirely different person. He preaches about kindness and "wikilove" yet he allows the most merciless and incompetent to be in his inner circle and effectively control WP with brutal methods.
Is this whole "free information" and "save Africa" spiel simply just side business to Jimbo's primary goal of making profit off of WP? Is he just giving token assurances that WP is a force for good changing the world for the better when in reality he's a businessman motivated more by the promise of profits?
No one's told me what these "Wikipedia Academies" are in Africa and if they're changing people's lives. I don't want some BS "free love for all" philosophy thrown back in my face. I want proof: unbiased testimonies, pictures, videos, government statements, charity endorsements (or the opposite), any kind of evidence that WP is truly changing less developed countries for the better.
Posted by: the fieryangel
Here's where they say the money is going, according to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Planned_Spending_Distribution_2007-2008
Technology ** 2,573 57%
Finance and Administration 699 15%
Office of the Executive Director* 509 11%
Program Services 185 4%
Legal 182 4%
Board of Trustees 201 4%
Wikimania Conference 150 3%
Communications 113 2%
TOTAL: $4,611 100%
*includes salaries of the ED, assistant, "one-time relocation expenses" and "consulting
**includes baudwidth, hardware, salaries
I'm not even going to make the joke that they're going to salary the Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED) -- we know that's the Executive Director (who still isn't yet the Executive Director) Sue Gardner. So, we're all crystal clear on Sue's approximate compensation, they are budgeting $509,000 for her and her "office"?
And, the Board of Trustees is getting a set-aside of $201,000? What the hell is that for? I serve on a Board of Directors of a non-profit, and I've yet to get paid or reimbursed for any of my travel, time, or expenses. If I had to guess if ANY on our board have been so compensated, it might come to a grand total of $500 -- not $201,000.
Oh, and "Legal" is $182,000? That's Godwin's per annum, I suppose? Or are there some other legal expenses and fees being thrown in there?
Please don't try to explain that many of the "costs" of administrating Wikipedia are also in these figures, because I will simply reply, "Then what the hell is the $699,000 covering in Finance and Administration?"
Keep donating, you clueless minions!
Greg
Yes, the percentages seem reasonable, until you start considering the sums involved...and then you sort of go "wait a second here..."
What is "finance and admistration"? and what about the $2.557.570 in "technology". Okay, they do have baudwidth costs, but that's an awfully large sum....
This doesn't add up at all...
Posted by: The Joy
http://icommons.org/nodes/wikipedia-academy-south-africa
Ah, the purpose of Wikipedia Academies is to teach people how to edit WP in their own languages.
What... the.... cr...?
Posted by: guy
I don't understand Jimbo at all. He comes across as this altruistic hippie trying to save the world but his business ventures and dictatorial attitude on the English WP reveals an entirely different person. He preaches about kindness and "wikilove" yet he allows the most merciless and incompetent to be in his inner circle and effectively control WP with brutal methods.
So he's a good actor who knows how to talk the talk.
Posted by: the fieryangel
Madame Wikiwiki puts her foot down....
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>> On 10/23/07, Matthew Britton <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, what is silly about threatening a fork? Is that not
>>> one of the key arguments (in theory at least) for free
>>> content, and thus the whole point of the Wikimedia
>>> projects' existence? Or does the Foundation no longer care
>>> about that either?
>>>
>> I understand your frustration, but it is misplaced. This is not about
>> "the Foundation vs. the community", it is about a community trying to
>> find the best ways to sustain itself.
>>
>
> I've been here for nearly 5 years and *I'm* not even sold on that, so I
> could see why not everyone else is either. The servers at
> *.wikipedia.org are not going to shut down if the fundraiser comes short
> of funds, so "sustain itself" is not quite the right word. Furthermore,
> if we were anywhere near having to shut down due to lack of funds to pay
> bandwidth bills, there are plenty of folks standing by ready to make
> major in-kind donations; Jimmy himself mentioned on this mailing list
> that he's had conversations with Google where they've told him they're
> ready to offer anytime we feel like asking.
>
> So it sounds like the money is needed for something else besides simply
> sustaining the site, yet this has never really been "sold" to the
> community in a way that most of us are on board with.
>
> -Mark
I am amazed by this comment Mark.
You are complaining about a sitenotice you 1) do not like and 2)
consider you were not asked opinion about, and you consider that in case
we would lack funds, we'll be in no problems because corporations such
as Google as offered to help.
Now, let's get real a moment. If we get into big financial troubles and
we contact Google to help us, what do you think will happen ? Do you
really think big corporations will nicely help us and give big bucks
without anything in return ? Na, the day we need to call for help for
any big corporation or any venture capitalist, we'll sell our soul.
We'll get big advertisement plastered on the website, we'll support
certain causes and not others, and I doubt very much that you will have
even a say on the text written at the top of the website in the site notice.
Note that I am fine with you not liking the current site notice, I am
not so fine with you pretending that the community was not involved
(Sabine tried pretty desperately to involve you guys, with very little
feedback), and I am definitly NOT fine with you shrugging the issue away
and saying that if we need something, we can wait for Google to help.
As much as we can, we should strive for independance and stick to what
we believe in.
Ant
Now, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings
Where is this money coming from, since Madame Wikiwiki says http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/034238.html?
Posted by: blissyu2
Actually a few weeks ago we sent a bunch of children's books to various parts of Africa, because apparently they have a lack of quality resources for teachers. Something like Wikipedia, even in print form, would be quite useful. Whilst there are a lot of people that can't read English (or French, or Arabic), an awful lot can, so it is apparently of quite good use to do that. If Wikipedia were in printed form, it would be useful to send it there. Then perhaps people could become more educated about such things as how to resolve the AIDS epidemic and help to sort out ways to deal with that that cope with the fact that condoms aren't manufactured in their country and hence cost a week's salary for a single condom (would you buy one if they cost that much?) and that it goes against their customs to use them, and that customarily they would rather die of AIDS than to use one in a lot of cases. The customs are the number 1 barrier, the second is the fact that they don't make them themselves. Simply sending condoms is pointless.
The same is true with water. You are far better off to teach them how to make pumps and such than you are to send down buckets of water, which is good for a one off system. You are better off to teach them how to make pumps than you are to make them yourself.
The problem is that what Africans lack more than anything else are computers, fancy cars, TV sets and luxury items. Items that they don't necessarily want. Wikipedia, or an information source, is useful. But the fact that it has to be on a computer, which in many cases costs several years of wages to buy, makes it completely and utterly useless. If it was on paper, then it is worthwhile. If it was on a tape recording, then it is useful. Also of course lets not forget Wikipedia's cultural bias. As stated above, Africans are predominantly muslim (or based on their traditional beliefs, and usually a combination of both), and whilst christianity has a strong foothold (thanks largely to missionaries), it can't be seen as the dominant religion. Is Wikipedia written in a way that is culturally sensitive towards Africans and muslims? Can it be rewritten in that way?
If not, of course they'll cope. They'll cope if it is written in English, French and Arabic rather than their first language.
But also what information is going to be the most useful? An instructional guide as to how to build a dam, or the complete history of Spongebob Squarepants? Do they want to know all about the AIDS epidemic and hence what they can do to try to deal with it or would they rather perhaps find out whether or not Jennifer Lopez has had plastic surgery? And of course it is useful for them to find out about corruption, to help to deal with their own government's corruption, but amidst a Wikipedia that refuses to allow experts to write, and punishes people for being right, whilst sweeping under the carpet some of the most important issues, I really can't see it being all that useful.
And I suppose the most important element is to find out whether people in Africa want your help. If they don't, then it shouldn't be forced on them.
Children's books they apparently want though. I have that on good authority.
Posted by: w.marsh
It looks like the administrative overhead accounts for at least 43% of the budget. If you read the fine print, it doesn't even include work they've contracted out... so apparently on top of the $182k in-house legal expenses, they've apparently paid money to outside law firms for advice.
"We are setting aside a small amount of money to commission work that can't be done by the staff, for either capacity or expertise reasons. For example, we've occasionally been hiring project managers, developers, legal firms, and analysts/advisors/consultants of various kinds." --Sue Gardner in http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Talk:Planned_Spending_Distribution_2007-2008
Mark's quoted comment above is pretty good... naturally it sparked outrage on the mailing list. I wonder how many people donating really know they're giving $182k to legal counsel that Wikipedia admins can't reliably ask questions to, when they need advice? $201k to whatever the trustees expenses are? etc. The point is, the community never seems to get asked how they feel about this... and some people are angry when we do have an opinion on it.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
Now, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings
Where is this money coming from, since Madame Wikiwiki says http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/034238.html?
This is interesting. Under Sue Gardner's leadership WMF seems intent on going from a lean, understaffed, troubled non-profit to a bloated, top-heavy troubled non-profit. Note that none of the new positions do anything at all to address the need to assure responsible editorial guidance is imposed on the volunteer editor/admin "community."
It is no wonder that WMF is not seeking grants. This bloating is about the only thing that could have made WMF less attractive to foundations. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?keyword_list=Wiki+Media+Foundation&Submit2=GO&bay=search.results as far as the giving community is concerned. Maybe real charities can't make the mental leap required to view WP as a legitimate charitable project.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
Here's where they say the money is going, according to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Planned_Spending_Distribution_2007-2008
Technology ** 2,573 57%
Finance and Administration 699 15%
Office of the Executive Director* 509 11%
Program Services 185 4%
Legal 182 4%
Board of Trustees 201 4%
Wikimania Conference 150 3%
Communications 113 2%
TOTAL: $4,611 100%
*includes salaries of the ED, assistant, "one-time relocation expenses" and "consulting
**includes baudwidth, hardware, salaries
I'm not even going to make the joke that they're going to salary the Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED) -- we know that's the Executive Director (who still isn't yet the Executive Director) Sue Gardner. So, we're all crystal clear on Sue's approximate compensation, they are budgeting $509,000 for her and her "office"?
And, the Board of Trustees is getting a set-aside of $201,000? What the hell is that for? I serve on a Board of Directors of a non-profit, and I've yet to get paid or reimbursed for any of my travel, time, or expenses. If I had to guess if ANY on our board have been so compensated, it might come to a grand total of $500 -- not $201,000.
Oh, and "Legal" is $182,000? That's Godwin's per annum, I suppose? Or are there some other legal expenses and fees being thrown in there?
Please don't try to explain that many of the "costs" of administrating Wikipedia are also in these figures, because I will simply reply, "Then what the hell is the $699,000 covering in Finance and Administration?"
Keep donating, you clueless minions!
Greg
The real outrage her is only 4% is for "program services." This would be staff and effort directed at providing editorial guidance for the project.
- encyclopedia 4.0%
- web site 57.0%
- scam 39.0%
Posted by: D.A.F.
If they allowed more, it would be interference against the community work. What are you expecting? Them to pay experts to check accuracy?..., it would be better, but it would not be Wikipedia anymore. 
Here's where they say the money is going, according to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Planned_Spending_Distribution_2007-2008
Technology ** 2,573 57%
Finance and Administration 699 15%
Office of the Executive Director* 509 11%
Program Services 185 4%
Legal 182 4%
Board of Trustees 201 4%
Wikimania Conference 150 3%
Communications 113 2%
TOTAL: $4,611 100%
*includes salaries of the ED, assistant, "one-time relocation expenses" and "consulting
**includes baudwidth, hardware, salaries
I'm not even going to make the joke that they're going to salary the Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED) -- we know that's the Executive Director (who still isn't yet the Executive Director) Sue Gardner. So, we're all crystal clear on Sue's approximate compensation, they are budgeting $509,000 for her and her "office"?
And, the Board of Trustees is getting a set-aside of $201,000? What the hell is that for? I serve on a Board of Directors of a non-profit, and I've yet to get paid or reimbursed for any of my travel, time, or expenses. If I had to guess if ANY on our board have been so compensated, it might come to a grand total of $500 -- not $201,000.
Oh, and "Legal" is $182,000? That's Godwin's per annum, I suppose? Or are there some other legal expenses and fees being thrown in there?
Please don't try to explain that many of the "costs" of administrating Wikipedia are also in these figures, because I will simply reply, "Then what the hell is the $699,000 covering in Finance and Administration?"
Keep donating, you clueless minions!
Greg
The real outrage her is only 4% is for "program services." This would be staff and effort directed at providing editorial guidance for the project.
- encyclopedia 4.0%
- web site 57.0%
- scam 39.0%
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
If they allowed more, it would be interference against the community work. What are you expecting? Them to pay experts to check accuracy?..., it would be better, but it would not be Wikipedia anymore.
I don't think they would have to pay experts to check accuracy, but they certainly need to "interfere with community work." You do seem to be on to my overall method.
Posted by: D.A.F.
If they allowed more, it would be interference against the community work. What are you expecting? Them to pay experts to check accuracy?..., it would be better, but it would not be Wikipedia anymore.
but they certainly need to "interfere with community work."
Cash flown wasted paying human resources? While it is a non profit, the distribution of the $$$ is done mostly where it counts to extend the project and accumulate more $$$ (their sole indicator for success), where it counts for Wikia. For Wikipedia, popularity counts, not accuracy, this is the only way Wikia will cash.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
Here's where they say the money is going, according to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Planned_Spending_Distribution_2007-2008
Technology ** 2,573 57%
Finance and Administration 699 15%
Office of the Executive Director* 509 11%
Program Services 185 4%
Legal 182 4%
Board of Trustees 201 4%
Wikimania Conference 150 3%
Communications 113 2%
TOTAL: $4,611 100%
*includes salaries of the ED, assistant, "one-time relocation expenses" and "consulting
**includes baudwidth, hardware, salaries
I'm not even going to make the joke that they're going to salary the Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED) -- we know that's the Executive Director (who still isn't yet the Executive Director) Sue Gardner. So, we're all crystal clear on Sue's approximate compensation, they are budgeting $509,000 for her and her "office"?
And, the Board of Trustees is getting a set-aside of $201,000? What the hell is that for? I serve on a Board of Directors of a non-profit, and I've yet to get paid or reimbursed for any of my travel, time, or expenses. If I had to guess if ANY on our board have been so compensated, it might come to a grand total of $500 -- not $201,000.
Oh, and "Legal" is $182,000? That's Godwin's per annum, I suppose? Or are there some other legal expenses and fees being thrown in there?
Please don't try to explain that many of the "costs" of administrating Wikipedia are also in these figures, because I will simply reply, "Then what the hell is the $699,000 covering in Finance and Administration?"
Keep donating, you clueless minions!
Greg
Yes, the percentages seem reasonable, until you start considering the sums involved...and then you sort of go "wait a second here..."
What is "finance and admistration"? and what about the $2.557.570 in "technology". Okay, they do have baudwidth costs, but that's an awfully large sum....
This doesn't add up at all...
That is a good observation. Here is what I think might be at work: This line item might take the form of "inkind" contributions of servers, IT staff and other related resources. Because it "inkind" rather than cash it's value can be inflated. This becomes a greater tax benefit for the donor and makes the non-profit appear to be a more substantial entity.
Posted by: blissyu2
It looks like the administrative overhead accounts for at least 43% of the budget. If you read the fine print, it doesn't even include work they've contracted out... so apparently on top of the $182k in-house legal expenses, they've apparently paid money to outside law firms for advice.
"We are setting aside a small amount of money to commission work that can't be done by the staff, for either capacity or expertise reasons. For example, we've occasionally been hiring project managers, developers, legal firms, and analysts/advisors/consultants of various kinds." --Sue Gardner in http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Talk:Planned_Spending_Distribution_2007-2008
Mark's quoted comment above is pretty good... naturally it sparked outrage on the mailing list. I wonder how many people donating really know they're giving $182k to legal counsel that Wikipedia admins can't reliably ask questions to, when they need advice? $201k to whatever the trustees expenses are? etc. The point is, the community never seems to get asked how they feel about this... and some people are angry when we do have an opinion on it.
That's an interesting point. I guess that Wikipedia is a legal minefield after all.
The real outrage her is only 4% is for "program services." This would be staff and effort directed at providing editorial guidance for the project.
- encyclopedia 4.0%
- web site 57.0%
- scam 39.0%
I'm not clear what the 57% for "Technology" is for. Is that for hard ware and software to make sure that the thing doesn't crash? If so, what is the 4% for? I thought that people all donated their input freely.
Realistically, any respectable person, when getting that much money flowing in, would find some way to pocket a little bit. Just imagine Jimbo turning to his friends, "Hey I am involved in a top 10 web site that gets millions in donations every year". "Oh? How much do you get?" "Uh, nothing, because its non profit". Whilst now Jimbo can say "Packets, because I've got this scam where I mix it up with Wikia, I have this agreement with Google Adsense, and of course I get all of my travel expenses and such paid for. I'm living the high life. And that's not to mention the various governments and private individuals who pay me to, shall we say, protect their interests." The people from Craigslist are making heaps, as are Amazon and Google and all of the other big web sites. So why can't Jimbo? Perhaps because, unlike the others, he does it dishonestly, whilst pretending to be non profit.
Posted by: D.A.F.
Realistically, any respectable person, when getting that much money flowing in, would find some way to pocket a little bit. Just imagine Jimbo turning to his friends, "Hey I am involved in a top 10 web site that gets millions in donations every year". "Oh? How much do you get?" "Uh, nothing, because its non profit". Whilst now Jimbo can say "Packets, because I've got this scam where I mix it up with Wikia, I have this agreement with Google Adsense, and of course I get all of my travel expenses and such paid for. I'm living the high life. And that's not to mention the various governments and private individuals who pay me to, shall we say, protect their interests." The people from Craigslist are making heaps, as are Amazon and Google and all of the other big web sites. So why can't Jimbo? Perhaps because, unlike the others, he does it dishonestly, whilst pretending to be non profit.
Not necessarly, it is indeed non profit, but the money serves for the developpement of the system which directly impact Wikia. Wikipedia goal is to expend, and this directly impact on how many money they raise, and this money goes to the expention and developpement (software etc.) which will then serve Wikia. Wikia is directly advantaged... They may ''give up'' CD's etc., to poor countries, but this is actually publicity and impact their expention. And this is just one aspect.
Posted by: w.marsh
The bandwidth costs for Wikipedia are probably steep, I mean, it gets the 9th most traffic of any website. Then it has crazy hardware costs, too... notice how most Wikis tend to be pretty slow and crash often? Wikipedia, if nothing else, is fast and reliable. That's not cheap. Wikipedia is always going to need a ton of cash just to keep online, even with no non-technical employees, no travel expenses, etc.
It's remarkably hard to find a recent detailed (item-by-item) budget though.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Budget
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Budget
Just lists through 2005. But already you see $100,000/year in bandwidth and more than that in hardware costs.
Posted by: D.A.F.
It would be interesting to have the updated numbers, should not be hard, they are non-profit afteral.
The bandwidth costs for Wikipedia are probably steep, I mean, it gets the 9th most traffic of any website. Then it has crazy hardware costs, too... notice how most Wikis tend to be pretty slow and crash often? Wikipedia, if nothing else, is fast and reliable. That's not cheap. Wikipedia is always going to need a ton of cash just to keep online, even with no non-technical employees, no travel expenses, etc.
It's remarkably hard to find a recent detailed (item-by-item) budget though.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Budget
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Budget
Just lists through 2005. But already you see $100,000/year in bandwidth and more than that in hardware costs.
Posted by: thekohser
The Wikimedia Foundation says it has earmarked $201,000 for the Board of Trustees.
Jimmy Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=167057983:
What is the $201,000 going toward, then? Travel reimbursement, I suppose. This is ridiculous. I just looked up airfares (round-trip) from Paris to San Francisco in mid-January. $648. Three-star hotels can be found for $80 a night, even in Union Square. Even with meals and taxis reimbursed, a trip by FloFlo for 4 days for Board crap should not cost the Foundation more than $1300. Multiply that by three Board members from Europe, and even four more from America itself -- you get maybe $9,000 per meet-up. Do they plan to have more than 20 Board meetings per year?
This is insane.
Someone is lying. Or, someone is deficient in mathematics.
Greg
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Someone is lying. Or, someone is deficient in mathematics.
Greg
Needles to say, they are not mutually exclusive categories.
Jonny
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
The Wikimedia Foundation says it has earmarked $201,000 for the Board of Trustees.
Jimmy Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=167057983:
What is the $201,000 going toward, then? Travel reimbursement, I suppose. This is ridiculous. I just looked up airfares (round-trip) from Paris to San Francisco in mid-January. $648. Three-star hotels can be found for $80 a night, even in Union Square. Even with meals and taxis reimbursed, a trip by FloFlo for 4 days for Board crap should not cost the Foundation more than $1300. Multiply that by three Board members from Europe, and even four more from America itself -- you get maybe $9,000 per meet-up. Do they plan to have more than 20 Board meetings per year?
This is insane.
Someone is lying. Or, someone is deficient in mathematics.
Greg
Doesn't seem likely they would have +20 meetings. According to the http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings, they had five B/T and one Advisory Committee meeting in 2007, they had six B/T meetings in 2007. They also meet weekly by IRC.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
The Wikimedia Foundation says it has earmarked $201,000 for the Board of Trustees.
Jimmy Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=167057983:
The board is entirely uncompensated. Stop trolling. [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 20:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the $201,000 going toward, then? Travel reimbursement, I suppose. This is ridiculous. I just looked up airfares (round-trip) from Paris to San Francisco in mid-January. $648. Three-star hotels can be found for $80 a night, even in Union Square. Even with meals and taxis reimbursed, a trip by FloFlo for 4 days for Board crap should not cost the Foundation more than $1300. Multiply that by three Board members from Europe, and even four more from America itself -- you get maybe $9,000 per meet-up. Do they plan to have more than 20 Board meetings per year?
This is insane.
Someone is lying. Or, someone is deficient in mathematics.
Greg
Doesn't seem likely they would have +20 meetings. According to the http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings, they had five B/T and one Advisory Committee meeting in 2007, they had six B/T meetings in 2007. They also meet weekly by IRC.
Maybe they're buying their own fleet of seaplanes —
Des Plaines !!! Des Plaines !!!
Jonny
Posted by: badlydrawnjeff
Sorry to butt in, but when did the Wikipedia leadership looking clueless and being worthless become news to anyone involved?
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Sorry to butt in, but when did the Wikipedia leadership looking clueless and being worthless become news to anyone involved?
In Related Non-News —
We're really more concerned with the general public and the mainstream media being so clueless.
Jonny
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
Foundations can grow in size to become vast financial empires.
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation now rivals the size of most small countries in financial net worth...(i.e., over $100 billion U.S. dollars, inclusive of the contribution of $42 billion (U.S.) from Warren Buffett.)
If done correctly, and with the right people, these entities are very powerful machines.
Bill and Melinda are doing wonderful things all over the world.
If Jimmy Wales has a very profitable enterprise, as does Bill Gates (in Microsoft), to fund the foundation, he could take the foundation to the moon. Unfortunately, Jimmy did not think this whole thing through from the beginning. He must take back full control and quite possibly change the status of WP in order to profit from it; then he can start a foundation and fund it with real money. If he cannot get substantial support for the foundation, it will fail. The hiring makes sense if what I have said will happen, is, in fact, happening. 
Posted by: thekohser
Sorry to butt in, but when did the Wikipedia leadership looking clueless and being worthless become news to anyone involved?
Damn, Jeff -- don't pop the balloon. I'm speaking, of course, to the 16 new visitors per day here. Not our "involved" veterans.
(Sorry I'm ragging on WR traffic counts. I'm just depressed that this story, along with the false/incorrect/weasly Form 990 issue, had not been picked up on by the mainstream media. Maybe I need to e-mail Bergstein.)
Greg
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
Sorry to butt in, but when did the Wikipedia leadership looking clueless and being worthless become news to anyone involved?
Damn, Jeff -- don't pop the balloon. I'm speaking, of course, to the 16 new visitors per day here. Not our "involved" veterans.
(Sorry I'm ragging on WR traffic counts. I'm just depressed that this story, along with the false/incorrect/weasly Form 990 issue, had not been picked up on by the mainstream media. Maybe I need to e-mail Bergstein.)
Greg
Frankly, I am a bit surprised that the archive monsters are allowing the story to stay up there so long! That issue has teeth and it will sink in eventually.
Posted by: The Joy
We know where the Foundation says the money is going, but how do we know it is going to where they say it is?
I remember that their "accountant" wasn't even a certified accountant, was he? He did something else and was just a friend or someone that just volunteered to do it despite having no training. I think he retired or was retiring.
Maybe the word "charity" hasn't been used, but "non-profit" says to me that it is on the equivalent level of the Red Cross or the United Way. What does the Foundation say it does that makes in non-profit? I mean, what good for mankind are they claiming to do to get a non-profit, untaxable designation?
Its sad that Anthere is losing her health and her other jobs just to be the chair of the Foundation. Yet, Jimbo can go around the world, create these "academies" to teach people how to edit WP in their own language, and receive money for being a Chairman Emeritus.
Posted by: guy
Maybe the word "charity" hasn't been used, but "non-profit" says to me that it is on the equivalent level of the Red Cross or the United Way.
Tha doesn't follow. Certainly in English law, we have public schools like Eton or the personal tax shelters of multi-millionaires given virtual charity status.
Posted by: The Joy
Maybe the word "charity" hasn't been used, but "non-profit" says to me that it is on the equivalent level of the Red Cross or the United Way.
Tha doesn't follow. Certainly in English law, we have public schools like Eton or the personal tax shelters of multi-millionaires given virtual charity status.
Well, you do have a point (no, not that WP:POINT).
What burns my biscuits is that the Foundation makes it sound like they are giving something valuable to the world like a charity when what they are giving won't improve the lives of people.
Off-topic: "Public schools" are privately funded in Britain, right? Public schools in the US usually are funded by taxes from the public mainly through property taxes. I always get confused when I read the BBC online.
Posted by: Joseph100
Maybe the word "charity" hasn't been used, but "non-profit" says to me that it is on the equivalent level of the Red Cross or the United Way.
Tha doesn't follow. Certainly in English law, we have public schools like Eton or the personal tax shelters of multi-millionaires given virtual charity status.
Well, you do have a point (no, not that WP:POINT).
What burns my biscuits is that the Foundation makes it sound like they are giving something valuable to the world like a charity when what they are giving won't improve the lives of people.
Off-topic: "Public schools" are privately funded in Britain, right? Public schools in the US usually are funded by taxes from the public mainly through property taxes. I always get confused when I read the BBC online.
To give to Wiki foundation is to feather the nest of Jimbo Wales, the pornographer.(Bomis)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69880
DONT GIVE MONEY TO A FAILED IDEA THAT HURTS SO MANY...
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
Maybe the word "charity" hasn't been used, but "non-profit" says to me that it is on the equivalent level of the Red Cross or the United Way.
Tha doesn't follow. Certainly in English law, we have public schools like Eton or the personal tax shelters of multi-millionaires given virtual charity status.
Well, you do have a point (no, not that WP:POINT).
What burns my biscuits is that the Foundation makes it sound like they are giving something valuable to the world like a charity when what they are giving won't improve the lives of people.
Off-topic: "Public schools" are privately funded in Britain, right? Public schools in the US usually are funded by taxes from the public mainly through property taxes. I always get confused when I read the BBC online.
To give to Wiki foundation is to feather the nest of Jimbo Wales, the pornographer.(Bomis)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69880
DONT GIVE MONEY TO A FAILED IDEA THAT HURTS SO MANY...
The Register article, while a little old, is the first I've heard of EB's response to the much flaunted "WP as good as EB" study. Good spot Joseph.
Posted by: guy
Off-topic: "Public schools" are privately funded in Britain, right? Public schools in the US usually are funded by taxes from the public mainly through property taxes. I always get confused when I read the BBC online.
Right. Tax-funded schools are state schools.
Posted by: Joseph100
Maybe the word "charity" hasn't been used, but "non-profit" says to me that it is on the equivalent level of the Red Cross or the United Way.
Tha doesn't follow. Certainly in English law, we have public schools like Eton or the personal tax shelters of multi-millionaires given virtual charity status.
Well, you do have a point (no, not that WP:POINT).
What burns my biscuits is that the Foundation makes it sound like they are giving something valuable to the world like a charity when what they are giving won't improve the lives of people.
Off-topic: "Public schools" are privately funded in Britain, right? Public schools in the US usually are funded by taxes from the public mainly through property taxes. I always get confused when I read the BBC online.
To give to Wiki foundation is to feather the nest of Jimbo Wales, the pornographer.(Bomis)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69880
DONT GIVE MONEY TO A FAILED IDEA THAT HURTS SO MANY...
The Register article, while a little old, is the first I've heard of EB's response to the much flaunted "WP as good as EB" study. Good spot Joseph.
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
In rebutting Nature’s work, we in no way mean to imply that Britannica is error-free; we have never
made such a claim. We have a reputation not for unattainable perfection but for strong scholarship,
sound judgment, and disciplined editorial review. These practices are the foundation of any reliable
reference work, and Nature’s careless analysis demeaned them.
Translation..our (Britannica) contributers have real degrees and real scholarship ves Wikipedia's
PhD's....http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Essjay
And mature and wise contributors..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DerHexer
Posted by: zscout370
The Wikimedia Foundation says it has earmarked $201,000 for the Board of Trustees.
Jimmy Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=167057983:
What is the $201,000 going toward, then? Travel reimbursement, I suppose. This is ridiculous. I just looked up airfares (round-trip) from Paris to San Francisco in mid-January. $648. Three-star hotels can be found for $80 a night, even in Union Square. Even with meals and taxis reimbursed, a trip by FloFlo for 4 days for Board crap should not cost the Foundation more than $1300. Multiply that by three Board members from Europe, and even four more from America itself -- you get maybe $9,000 per meet-up. Do they plan to have more than 20 Board meetings per year?
This is insane.
Someone is lying. Or, someone is deficient in mathematics.
Greg
They could always use Skype or log the IRC. Cost = pretty much little to none. As for the relocation fees, I am still surprised that they want to move to San Francisco, where not only the cost of living is higher, but as you could tell earlier this week, the state is a tinderbox.
Posted by: The Joy
Has anyone noticed the new donor banner on the top of WP? It is ugly! I thought I had somehow ended up on one of those "financial mortgage" sites or something like that.
Posted by: Cobalt
Wow, talk about throwing away money...
Information should be free and accessible! Fri, 11/02/2007 - 14:02 USD 10,000.00 $10,000.00
I do apologize if this is noted elsewhere.
Posted by: The Joy
Do any these people even edit WP and engage in the Community?
Posted by: Firsfron of Ronchester
Citizendium is now http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page for donations on the top of their main page. Like Wikipedia's, it's a banner at the top of the page. For an organization trying to distance itself from Wikipedia, the folks at CZ seem to follow WP's example an awful lot. To their credit, though, they're asking for much less money ($10K) to support the site. I predict that even without the traffic WP receives, CZ will reach their monetary goal faster than WP's outrageous $4.6m.
The "collaborative kegger" they're advertising for tomorrow makes me imagine editors getting drunk as they write CZ articles.
Posted by: The Joy
Citizendium is now http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page for donations on the top of their main page. Like Wikipedia's, it's a banner at the top of the page. For an organization trying to distance itself from Wikipedia, the folks at CZ seem to follow WP's example an awful lot. To their credit, though, they're asking for much less money ($10K) to support the site. I predict that even without the traffic WP receives, CZ will reach their monetary goal faster than WP's outrageous $4.6m.
The "collaborative kegger" they're advertising for tomorrow makes me imagine editors getting drunk as they write CZ articles.
Recent evidence (i.e. VintageKits and Aldebaer) indicates that WP admins are more lenient towards drunk editors.
Perhaps CZ's going in that direction also?
Posted by: JohnA
Citizendium will never achieve anything like the penetration and mindset of WP while it adheres to WP's ruinous and reckless business model.
So like WP, donations will go straight into the ever increasing black hole called "Hosting and Bandwidth costs"
Posted by: Firsfron of Ronchester
Has anyone noticed the new donor banner on the top of WP? It is ugly! I thought I had somehow ended up on one of those "financial mortgage" sites or something like that.
I think it's Planned Ugliness. That brown button is dark enough to contrast against the white page and reddish enough to attract the human eye.
Posted by: Emperor
I finally got around to watching the Jimbo video. Yikes. What's with the "feed the children" stuff?
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
I finally got around to watching the Jimbo video. Yikes. What's with the "feed the children" stuff?
He's cluing into the development aspect of the spin. It is tragic, but this is pretty normal in that field. Just that it doesnt need another sinkhole. I needs more good work. Let Jimbo go to Darfur, and try to pass off the use of his encyclopedia as useful.
What good does Wikipedia do for the poor of poor countries? What they need is new wells, or consistently running electricity (huge problems) or basic medication and relief from malaria, AIDS, ringworm, etc. Give them scholarships to higher education in Europe or the US, and incentive to return so there is no braindrain (like help create jobs in the home economy). If Jimbo was a real philanthropist, his African contacts would be raising such funds, and calling them "Wikipedia scholarships", and asking the recipients to donate some time to Wikipedia as a goodwill gratefulness gesture. Not just trained Africans (or wherever else) to type in the encyclopedia. That is so weak.
Wikipedia asks everyone (rich or poor) for free work! It doesnt teach contributors to type (a useful skill that they could develop in Africa). It doesn't teach them to research. Wikipedia is for people with free time. The poor of African dont have free time! They work! Sometimes to carry water for their daily needs! (!)
If poor people want to use Wikipedia, when they have no other resource (like, they get confused by Google, which means that they's be MORE confused by Wikipedia), GREAT. Just dont ask them to work for free and call it feeding them.
Sheesh.
Reminds me when he claimed he was in India, unable to access internet, and he was in a modern, rife-with-broadband conference centre in Tamil Nadu. Yeah. More like he was distracted, high on himself, and didnt think the press would notice he hired a fraud.
Posted by: The Joy
The things people are saying the donor banner aren't very smart most of the time.
I'm pretty sure I saw "F--- the Long Tail" by an anon. Isn't there a moderator watching this stuff?
I also went to Uncyclopedia and thought "Gee, most of the comments on the donor banner here are worse than those on the various Wikipedias."
Then, I realized, I had been had!
Posted by: Castle Rock
The things people are saying the donor banner aren't very smart most of the time.
I'm pretty sure I saw "F--- the Long Tail" by an anon. Isn't there a moderator watching this stuff?
I also went to Uncyclopedia and thought "Gee, most of the comments on the donor banner here are worse than those on the various Wikipedias."
Then, I realized, I had been had!
My favorite comment ever was "I hope you choke and die on paypal fees."
Posted by: The Joy
The things people are saying the donor banner aren't very smart most of the time.
I'm pretty sure I saw "F--- the Long Tail" by an anon. Isn't there a moderator watching this stuff?
I also went to Uncyclopedia and thought "Gee, most of the comments on the donor banner here are worse than those on the various Wikipedias."
Then, I realized, I had been had!
My favorite comment ever was "I hope you choke and die on paypal fees."
Was that on WP or UN? What's sad is I can't tell the difference half the time!
Posted by: KamrynMatika
From WP: "Woooo! Cheaper than college!" — Anon.
Posted by: the fieryangel
I finally got around to watching the Jimbo video. Yikes. What's with the "feed the children" stuff?
He's cluing into the development aspect of the spin. It is tragic, but this is pretty normal in that field. Just that it doesnt need another sinkhole. I needs more good work. Let Jimbo go to Darfur, and try to pass off the use of his encyclopedia as useful.
All of this reminds me of being in the former Soviet States just after the wall went down and running into an American woman who was trying to get everybody to turn Vegan. The problem was that all you could get at the market were unidentified sausages and cabbage. You couldn't even get potatoes.
As we were having our delicious lunch at the State subsidized hotel where you could get anything as long as you were a foreigner (and even if you were a guest, you weren't allowed to invite natives...believe me, I tried! I ended up leaving about six months of cash for the chamber maid at the hotel because I couldn't spend the money that they gave me.), I pointed out to her that perhaps people needed to eat sausage because they couldn't just live on cabbage. She simply refused to even consider what I was talking about.
That's kind of the same issue with Wikipedia: they're so convinced that they're right that even if you put the truth in their face, they won't even consider that maybe, just maybe, they're simply wrong.
And sometimes, when you're dealing with life and death situations, wrong is more than simply wrong. It's morally wrong.
Jimbo's pitch is just that: it's morally wrong. Africans don't need the USA approved version of the "sum of human knowledge". They need the power to create their own society with proper health care, food and water. Anything else and you start to get into "colonialism"...and don't get me started on that...
Posted by: Emperor
From WP: "Woooo! Cheaper than college!" — Anon.
Good one!