| |
|
  |
 "Wikipedia Forever" - fundraising campaign, or non-stop laff riot? |
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 10th November 2009, 5:47pm) 
Rand Montoya seems to donate $1.00 a lot[/url]. What's up with that?
He's in charge of fundraising, and also in charge of delegating responsibility of the Fundraising Survey to volunteers who (prior to my aid) didn't know how to field a proper survey, so I suspect he's just field testing his various rotating fundraising notices on various Wikimedia projects. (He'll probably submit those donation receipts to petty cash for reimbursement.) Also, Sue Gardner's breakin' out the big bucks... donating at least one-third of one percent of her annual income (not including travel benefits!) back to the Foundation: QUOTE Ms. Susan Gardner
Wikipedia is a treasure! I am happy to support the work of the people who built this amazing repository of information, the biggest the world has ever known. 20:38, 10 November 2009
USD 500.00 "Treasure" or "treasure chest"? Also, it would seem that she's never heard of Google or the Library of Congress (at 20 terabytes, not including manuscripts, photographs, maps, and sound recordings; compare to Wikipedia at 10 to 15 terabytes). This post has been edited by thekohser: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:05pm) QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 11th November 2009, 3:46pm) This comment is a classic! QUOTE
John Hevelin
Wikipedia is indispensable for my historical and autobiographical projects. I use this site daily. 02:08, 11 November 2009 USD 100.00
… at least he gave a hundred bucks … He doesn't have a BLP. I wonder what his autobiographical projects consist of? And how many might there be? Reminds me of that old IQ test question … maybe it was MMPI — - What would you do if you were walking along the street and found a stamped, self-addressed envelope lying on the sidewalk?
Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/idea.gif) Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/banned.gif) Ja |
|
|
|
|
|
| the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 12th November 2009, 4:02pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:52pm) Someone dislikes thekohser enough to spend US$6.66. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) I am hurt by this defamatory affront to my good name, and I have notified the Wikimedia Foundation that they may either remove the hurtful comment, or they may release to me the personally identifying info related to the donor (typical anonymous coward). Quite: don't they know the difference between banned and indefinitely blocked by Teh Community? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) The Fool (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Casliber |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 3,559
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 13th November 2009, 10:31am) As I was working on the Eurasian Land Bridge article, I found that there are a lot more articles on the subject that are not currently available on the free web. I assume that this is the case for many other subjects. Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount? The Foundation would be able to keep the proceeds that exceed the cost of buying the site license. Wiki-project participants would be motivated by being able to obtain the access at a discount, and could use the access for their own personal activities like school projects, as well as for building articles in Wikipedia. I would think that article quality would greatly improve because editors would have ready access to more sources of information. Now that would be a damn fine idea. I come across this problem repeatedly. I can access articles of many (but by no means most) medical journals quite easily but other stuff is frustratingly hard. Cas |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 13th November 2009, 1:30am) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 12th November 2009, 11:31pm)
Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount?
That was extensively discussed on wikien-l last December. Of course nothing came of it, because "the community" has virtually no say on how the Foundation uses the donations they receive. Well, I once worked for an organization which had a Lexis/Nexis site license. From what I understand, the license was fairly expensive. I don't know how much the ProQuest site license is, but it may be cheaper because NewsStand, I believe, has less capability than Lexis/Nexis. NewsStand covers about 350 newspapers while Lexis/Nexis covers a number of newspapers and magazines, if I understand correctly. I would think that an organization trying to use volunteers to build a credible encyclopedia would try to help them out with it in some way, but again, the Foundation seems to keep trying to prove that Greg's criticisms of them are right. |
|
|
|
|
|
| carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
I don't want to read too much into Brion's responses here, but I do detect a faint hint of "fuck you, Erik"? QUOTE Also, can I ask explicitly: what exactly is the 2009 funding drive doing to secure the long-term ("forever") future of Wikipedia? It sounds a bizarre promise to make, like a toothbrush giving you eternal life. But if there is a long-term plan being funded, shouldn't the landing page at least try to explain it? Right now it's "Wikipedia forever" / Click / "Huh? What happened to forever?" Why did you use a "forever" hook and then not even try to justify it? Rd232 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC) As far as I know there's nothing particularly different about the actual fundraising or spending targets from previous years; as before the targets are for covering next year's budget and maybe a little extra. --brion 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
So "forever" is just marketing? There's no special long-term planning substance? That doesn't really matter as long as you've got something to point to try and justify the hook. But if you don't even try it makes the claim really weird (quite separate from the linguistic criticisms made, that "Wikipedia forever" sounds tweeny). Rd232 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I've asked Rand to provide some details on this; all I can do myself is point at the FAQ which indicates we're targeting about 3/4 of this fiscal year's budgeted expenses for the public donation campaign. --brion 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Anonymous editor |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 678
Joined:
Member No.: 7,398
|
hilariously awful ads. I laughed at reading the discussion. Several users thought the banner was vandalism/a hack. Idiotic decision. The community's input was requested, they clearly opposed it, and it was put up anyway. Someone should start an article about some of the memorably terrible Wikipedia ad campaigns. There appear to be sufficient reliable sources to draw from. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Blocked CODE upload.wikimedia.org/centralnotice and it's gone, thankfully. This post has been edited by Anonymous editor: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Brutus |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 96
Joined:
Member No.: 3,898
|
They seem to list corporate donations here. Donate/BenefactorsIs the Foundation choosy from who they take money from? Maybe Hustler Magazine or some Japanese whale meat company could donate, (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| MZMcBride |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 671
Joined:
Member No.: 10,962
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th November 2009, 4:49pm) Proof that Wikipedia is a cult: Domas Mituzas' pledge. QUOTE Domas Mituzas
consider taking my soul too. It appears this donation has been removed. |
|
|
|
|
|
| carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sat 14th November 2009, 12:47pm)
It appears this donation has been removed.
I wonder how long this one will stay? QUOTE WARREN JEFFORDS
Save Energy, cut Emissions, purify Water, increase Farm, Orchard, and Dairy Production, improve Health and Wellness. Claims, products proven in Mexico. See"Library" in www.EcoRadiantMarketing.Com If I were him, I'd ask for my $75 back if they remove it... |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sat 14th November 2009, 9:03am) QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sat 14th November 2009, 12:47pm)
It appears this donation has been removed.
I wonder how long this one will stay? QUOTE WARREN JEFFORDS
Save Energy, cut Emissions, purify Water, increase Farm, Orchard, and Dairy Production, improve Health and Wellness. Claims, products proven in Mexico. See"Library" in www.EcoRadiantMarketing.Com If I were him, I'd ask for my $75 back if they remove it... Ad revenues are taxable, even for otherwise tax-exempt corporations. |
|
|
|
|
|
| victim of censorship |
|
Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined:
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640
|
QUOTE(Brutus @ Fri 13th November 2009, 7:52am) They seem to list corporate donations here. Donate/BenefactorsIs the Foundation choosy from who they take money from? Maybe Hustler Magazine or some Japanese whale meat company could donate, (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) I wonder if these people would appreciate Best Buy Children's Foundation Tag Team Awards the works of SKANKBONE User:TwoWings and the other Namblers, and Peds who are active on the mighty wiki. The Childrens Foundation would appreciate the articles and photos which would be available to all young school children like this one A how to pictureGot to love the frenchies(NOT) This post has been edited by victim of censorship: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cedric |
|
General Gato
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined:
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116
|
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Sun 15th November 2009, 1:18pm) I wonder if these people would appreciate Best Buy Children's Foundation Tag Team Awards the works of SKANKBONE and the other Namblers, and Peds who are active on the mighty wiki. The Childrens Foundation would appreciate the articles and photos which would be available to all young school children like this one A how to pictureGot to love the frenchies(NOT) As much as I hate to defend Slim Shanky (and I do hate it), it isn't playing fair to lump him in with pedos and purveyors of child porn just because of his sexual orientation. While the available evidence strongly supports the idea that Shanky is a thoroughgoing narcissist, relentless self-promoter and, well, an asshole, there is simply no evidence to suggest that he is a pedo or an apologist for pedos. His interest in porn is definitely in the category of adult and gay. That being said, I do agree with your apparent argument that WP is choc full of images that are not suitable for viewing by children. I started a thread on the potential legal implications of this nearly a year ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
| victim of censorship |
|
Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined:
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640
|
QUOTE(Cedric @ Sun 15th November 2009, 9:10pm) QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Sun 15th November 2009, 1:18pm) I wonder if these people would appreciate Best Buy Children's Foundation Tag Team Awards the works of SKANKBONE and the other Namblers, and Peds who are active on the mighty wiki. The Childrens Foundation would appreciate the articles and photos which would be available to all young school children like this one A how to pictureGot to love the frenchies(NOT) As much as I hate to defend Slim Shanky (and I do hate it), it isn't playing fair to lump him in with pedos and purveyors of child porn just because of his sexual orientation. While the available evidence strongly supports the idea that Shanky is a thoroughgoing narcissist, relentless self-promoter and, well, an asshole, there is simply no evidence to suggest that he is a pedo or an apologist for pedos. His interest in porn is definitely in the category of adult and gay. That being said, I do agree with your apparent argument that WP is choc full of images that are not suitable for viewing by children. I started a thread on the potential legal implications of this nearly a year ago. But they stand, as a block, defending this dribble? So the net effect is "yes" they are. Besides, Gay porn is not what the"The Childrens Foundation" has bought in to anyway, iirespective of the type of porn Wikpeidia is allowing. This post has been edited by victim of censorship: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Apathetic |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 594
Joined:
Member No.: 7,383
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Mon 16th November 2009, 11:00am) Um, if there was a proposal to ban Eloquence there, it's now gone. "Archived" my ass---it's gone. This was the last diff I could find. Crotalus appears to have started it. QUOTE Community consensus is nearly unanimous that this year's fundraising banners are atrocious. In accordance with this consensus, the messages were disabled in the site-wide Common.css file. Unfortunately, that change was rolled back by User:Eloquence, under the claim that "fundraiser sitenotices aren't subject to community consensus". Other statements by this user, who apparently was appointed to some kind of position by Jimbo, exhibit further contempt for the Wikipedia community. Examples: [89] ("community members hating a banner tells us very little about how well it works or how the general public perceives it ... removal of the site-wide fundraising messages by community members isn't OK"), [90] ("fundraising banners have always been Foundation decisions"), [91] ("the parts of a message or banner that make you hate it are also the ones that make it work"), [92] (insisting that banners need to be as obtrusive as possible).
We must emphasize that this site belongs to the Wikipedia community, not Jimbo's cronies. At this point in time, it appears that the only way to effectively communicate the depth of our feelings in this matter is to community-ban Erik Moller, aka Eloquence, from the English Wikipedia. Time to reassert ourselves and take back this site. It's a drastic step, but it is the only thing we can do, unless Wikipedia is to degenerate into just another closed, top-down website. *** Crotalus *** 18:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
* Erik Möller is the deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation. –xenotalk 18:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
* This is the wrong venue for these concerns. WMF has the right to execute official actions on WMF sites. This site is literally owned by WMF. Administrators here do not have the power to overrule official actions. Please take your concerns to WMF. I am closing this discussion as it is not an incident that can be handled here. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. And poof, as soon as I finished entering the above, it reappeared...... This post has been edited by EricBarbour: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Gazimoff @ Mon 16th November 2009, 3:31pm)
You would have thought that one of the most basic things they could have included alongside the campaign banner was a like/dislike button, in a similar style to Facebook and something that almost every ad supplier except Google seems to be picking up. Voila, instant feedback from your readers about why they do or don't like the banner concept. Collect the data, phase out unpopular ads and replicate concepts used in the popular ones.
Is this stuff really that hard?
It is when you don't really actually give a shit about the reader. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) This is why large corporations that actually sell products, have one set of people who engineer and code and whatnot, and quite another set of people who do the complaint dept, focus groups, and advertising. Do not let programmers run your fund drives. Make the company too small and don't pay attention to the division of labor, and you end up with products that have a hidden on/off switch, and many other trickily programmable features hidden far down in a decision tree which you cannot access without a special command in the manual. Which User Manual appears to have been stolen from a late term paper, written angrily at the last minute by a guy taking Communications 301: Nerdliness as a Way of Being. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Krimpet |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 402
Joined:
From: Rochester, NY
Member No.: 1,975
|
The phrase "(ad-)free forever" keeps reminding me of those gawd-awful "Evony: Free Forever" ads that are plastered all over Google's ad network. (If the WMF is interested in heading in that direction, I'm sure they've got plenty of cheesecake pictures to use on Commons. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)) Thankfully, they haven't brought back the <marquee> from their 2007 fundraising ad campaign. If the intent was to shock people via an epileptic seizure into whipping out their credit card, it was a smashing success. |
|
|
|
|
|
| grievous |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 129
Joined:
Member No.: 171
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 12th November 2009, 7:40pm) QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 12th November 2009, 5:36pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 12th November 2009, 1:39pm) I received a reply from Anya, that the comment will be taken down from their site within an hour. (If it's anything like the flagged revisions estimated time to process, the comment will be down in March or April.) The comment has been removed. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Ahhh Ha HA HA HAAAAAAH ! ! ! Somebody just wasted $6.66 out of their allowance! How much is that in AUS$ at current conversion rates? Adrian may have to eat his cat now. This post has been edited by grievous: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Brutus |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 96
Joined:
Member No.: 3,898
|
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Mon 16th November 2009, 6:18am) QUOTE(Brutus @ Fri 13th November 2009, 7:52am) They seem to list corporate donations here. Donate/BenefactorsIs the Foundation choosy from who they take money from? Maybe Hustler Magazine or some Japanese whale meat company could donate, (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) I wonder if these people would appreciate Best Buy Children's Foundation Tag Team Awards the works of SKANKBONE User:TwoWings and the other Namblers, and Peds who are active on the mighty wiki. The Childrens Foundation would appreciate the articles and photos which would be available to all young school children like this one A how to pictureGot to love the frenchies(NOT) I recall(?) Jimbo made a decree on images like those, any images which required age record keeping were to be immediately deleted. Send all of above plus any others to your local elected official, school board, etc etc. Porn Pictures. |
|
|
|
|
|
| One |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th November 2009, 12:40am) QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 12th November 2009, 5:36pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 12th November 2009, 1:39pm) I received a reply from Anya, that the comment will be taken down from their site within an hour. (If it's anything like the flagged revisions estimated time to process, the comment will be down in March or April.) The comment has been removed. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Ahhh Ha HA HA HAAAAAAH ! ! ! Somebody just wasted $6.66 out of their allowance! Um, it still seems to be there. QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 13th November 2009, 8:09am)
It would be great to see the foundation adopt proposals like that. I know I could do quite a bit more work if I had access to a site like Lexis-Nexis.
Go to law school then. |
|
|
|
|
|
| MZMcBride |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 671
Joined:
Member No.: 10,962
|
QUOTE(One @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 11:48am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th November 2009, 12:40am) QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 12th November 2009, 5:36pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 12th November 2009, 1:39pm) I received a reply from Anya, that the comment will be taken down from their site within an hour. (If it's anything like the flagged revisions estimated time to process, the comment will be down in March or April.) The comment has been removed. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Ahhh Ha HA HA HAAAAAAH ! ! ! Somebody just wasted $6.66 out of their allowance! Um, it still seems to be there. If I had to guess, I'd say they restored some backup and forgot to re-remove the deleted comments, though I'm simply speculating. It's Sunday, so nobody is really around right now. I sent an e-mail to the relevant people asking them to re-delete it. |
|
|
|
|
|
| victim of censorship |
|
Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined:
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 16th November 2009, 3:33pm) Another idiot business owner who will need to buy my e-book. QUOTE Ben NicolasIs it possible to create a Wikipedia entry for my small business? I'm a Real Estate Broker in Los Angeles, CA www.ietrealestate.com You should put Ben in touch with Lisa Baur aka Durova and her Sekret ways of wiki. Also, I collected some notable pages like this to show the local pta, the value of "Sum of all human knowledge" available for the children of my local school district and the list of notable donors, so as, these donors can take full credit for the the array of informative articles on World wide Jimmy juice dispenser. other notable articles noted below, which a typical american school board should love... food playFingeringsnowballingpeggingcreampieSo on and so forth, all the words are innocent enough, but some kid types it in the DIRTY WIKI SEWER lake, and they will have " THE SUM OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE" right there, in the face. The PTA will be pleased that Wikipedia give a RATS ass what any one thinks. They will be please that Clownhead administrators will ignore and dismiss any one to dare question the MIGHTY WIKI. WIKIPEDIA should be banned from all school, libraries and colleges, due to the fact it has no accountability, responsible over-site, or answers to any authority, other then it own warped gang of thugs. Wikipedia in nothing more then a cancer and site of hate and filth, masquerading as some kind of noble enterprise. Wikipedia is nothing more then a fecal lake of hate, lies and evil. Any that gives money to Wikipedia are enablers all of the evil. This post has been edited by victim of censorship: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 12:39pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 16th November 2009, 3:33pm) Another idiot business owner who will need to buy my e-book. QUOTE Ben NicolasIs it possible to create a Wikipedia entry for my small business? I'm a Real Estate Broker in Los Angeles, CA www.ietrealestate.com You should put Ben in touch with Lisa Baur aka Durova and her Sekret ways of wiki. Who needs Lisa? Dear Ben: You need to contact Jimbo Wales to have him use your brokerage, then write a stub on it, like he did for Mzoli's. Then you try to delete it as being non-notable. In no time at all, people who wish to osculate Jimbo's gluteals on WP will expand the entry on your business into a full fledged article. Now as to the matter of getting Jimbo to come see you. Do you have an attractive sister? Wife? Daughter? Unattractive ones? Any large female dogs? |
|
|
|
|
|
| One |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
|
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 6:45pm) QUOTE(One @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 11:48am) Um, it still seems to be there. If I had to guess, I'd say they restored some backup and forgot to re-remove the deleted comments, though I'm simply speculating. It's Sunday, so nobody is really around right now. I sent an e-mail to the relevant people asking them to re-delete it. I'm not one to mindlessly criticize WMF, but how is it that every fundraising drive is marred with technical problems? It's not as if these now-annual drives are planned at the last minute, but they always seem to suffer crashes, payment problems, and frankly insane discord from the "community." |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(One @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 12:00pm) I'm not one to mindlessly criticize WMF, but how is it that every fundraising drive is marred with technical problems? It's not as if these now-annual drives are planned at the last minute, but they always seem to suffer crashes, payment problems, and frankly insane discord from the "community." And if you, an Arbcommer, can ask this question, please ask yourself: why aren't more of the Wiki-Freakies asking the same question? And if you find the reasons, please share them with us. Because we're just as mystified as you are. (Don't forget to take it up with other Arbcom people, past or present.) This post has been edited by EricBarbour: |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 8:34pm) QUOTE(One @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 12:00pm) I'm not one to mindlessly criticize WMF, but how is it that every fundraising drive is marred with technical problems? It's not as if these now-annual drives are planned at the last minute, but they always seem to suffer crashes, payment problems, and frankly insane discord from the "community." And if you, an Arbcommer, can ask this question, please ask yourself: why aren't more of the Wiki-Freakies asking the same question? And if you find the reasons, please share them with us. Because we're just as mystified as you are. (Don't forget to take it up with other Arbcom people, past or present.) I don't know about the technical problem but I think I understand the "community" part. Did you ever play the board game Risk? It is a game of collaboration, up to a certain point. Then broken alliances and betrayal have to occur to move the game forward to a conclusion. Wikipedia's community is something like this, with the players forming alliances for mutual MMORPG gain up to a point and then...drama. The most important difference between Wikipedia and the board game is the potential for seemingly endless iterations on Wikipedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th November 2009, 10:19pm) Also, Sue Gardner's breakin' out the big bucks … donating at least one-third of one percent of her annual income (not including travel benefits!) back to the Foundation: QUOTE
Ms. Susan Gardner
Wikipedia is a treasure! I am happy to support the work of the people who built this amazing repository of information, the biggest the world has ever known. — 20:38, 10 November 2009
USD 500.00
"Treasure" or "treasure chest"? Also, it would seem that she's never heard of Google or the Library of Congress (at 20 terabytes, not including manuscripts, photographs, maps, and sound recordings; compare to Wikipedia at 10 to 15 terabytes). Yeah, but she misspelled suppository … Ja Ja (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Krimpet |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 402
Joined:
From: Rochester, NY
Member No.: 1,975
|
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 1:42pm)
As far as I know donating money to WMF generally does not help players advance in the MMOWPG, though some seem conditioned to expect that. I think most would rather donate time anyway.
Are you sure? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| MZMcBride |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 671
Joined:
Member No.: 10,962
|
QUOTE(One @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 3:00pm) QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 6:45pm) QUOTE(One @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 11:48am) Um, it still seems to be there. If I had to guess, I'd say they restored some backup and forgot to re-remove the deleted comments, though I'm simply speculating. It's Sunday, so nobody is really around right now. I sent an e-mail to the relevant people asking them to re-delete it. I'm not one to mindlessly criticize WMF, but how is it that every fundraising drive is marred with technical problems? It's not as if these now-annual drives are planned at the last minute, but they always seem to suffer crashes, payment problems, and frankly insane discord from the "community." Good question. They announced the upcoming banners in October. They were met with a massive amount of criticism, but they pressed forward. On the talk page, there were several people (including the Chair of the Wikimedia Board) criticizing the banners. After they put the "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" banner live on the English Wikipedia (and everywhere else), the criticisms grew enormously. In all my time following Wikimedia-related drama, I've never seen the English Wikipedia community so unanimously against something as it was here. They pulled the banners the following day after repeated reports that users using Internet Explorer couldn't click them. The relaunch was a few days later with a more limited scope (putting the Wikipedia logo on every Wiktionary was deemed a bit retarded, go figure) and with fewer capital letters. That's most of the background that you may or may not have missed in your absence (welcome back, by the way). As for why the Wikimedia Foundation is so incompetent, it's pretty unclear. It's not simply a perception that they don't have their shit together—it's the honest-to-God truth. Anthere's comment at Meta captured a lot of the frustration. For an organization that's existed for close to six years now, it's simply unacceptable how mismanaged and amateurish things are. P.S. Got an e-mail back from one of the Wikimedia Foundation staffers. Seems the PayPal API sent data back to Wikimedia causing the bad comments to be reinserted, or so I'm told. Hopefully this and other inappropriate comments will be removed in the next day or so, though it's about to be Thanksgiving in the U.S., so we'll see. |
|
|
|
|
|
| grievous |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 129
Joined:
Member No.: 171
|
QUOTE(Krimpet @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 11:25pm) QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 1:42pm)
As far as I know donating money to WMF generally does not help players advance in the MMOWPG, though some seem conditioned to expect that. I think most would rather donate time anyway.
Are you sure? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) A lot of drama could have been avoided if only Daniel Brandt had known that all it would have taken was $5K to delete his bio. Surprised how no one has pointed out how ludicrous the claim of "ad free forever" is when the banners themselves are ads. Even PBS has dropped the claim of being ad free from their bi-monthly pledge drives. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Gazimoff |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 52
Joined:
Member No.: 10,884
|
Is it me or is this precisely the kind of thing you don't want to see in the middle of a fundraising drive? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Gazimoff |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 52
Joined:
Member No.: 10,884
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 3:02pm) QUOTE(Gazimoff @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 7:36am) Is it me or is this precisely the kind of thing you don't want to see in the middle of a fundraising drive? The Comments are certainly worth reading. Indeed. It's fantastic material for two bits of research I'm doing at the moment - one is on producing a better user experience for readers, while the other talks about how to then convert those readers into contributors. Also interesting is that others are beginning to suggest that something better may eventually come along, as I've also mentioned in my response to your blogpost comment. I think this is the WMFs biggest risk. Interestingly, I recently got asked if I was anti-Wikpedia. I still don't think I am - I like the idea of a crowdsourced project that creates a free to access source of information. What I am against is intransigence stifling innovation - where something is so obviously broken that it stares everyone in the face, yet the mountain of rules and regulations act almost like a safety blanket that people cling on to. |
|
|
|
|
|
| grievous |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 129
Joined:
Member No.: 171
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 10:02am) QUOTE(Gazimoff @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 7:36am) Is it me or is this precisely the kind of thing you don't want to see in the middle of a fundraising drive? The Comments are certainly worth reading. Unfortunately, the rest of the article requires a subscription. But the video is free here. If I were a loyal editor, I'd have to admit that I'd be just a little disenchanted to learn about Sue Gardner's $500k paycheck from a non-profit. But as an ex-editor I'm simply appalled. This reminds me of the picture of a snake eating its own tail. This post has been edited by grievous: |
|
|
|
|
|
| CharlotteWebb |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined:
Member No.: 1,727
|
QUOTE(Krimpet @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 4:25am) QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 1:42pm)
As far as I know donating money to WMF generally does not help players advance in the MMOWPG, though some seem conditioned to expect that. I think most would rather donate time anyway.
Are you sure? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Hey, I did make a point to say "generally". Obviously somebody's lying there, I don't know which. I only know better than to take either of these gentlemen at their word. What I meant is donating money will never give normal, non-famous editors (you, me, and Randy-from-Boise) the upper hand in anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
| MZMcBride |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 671
Joined:
Member No.: 10,962
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 10:02am) QUOTE(Gazimoff @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 7:36am) Is it me or is this precisely the kind of thing you don't want to see in the middle of a fundraising drive? The Comments are certainly worth reading. Some of the comments were interesting, I suppose. Most of them seem to accurately define butthurt, though. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 1:06pm) Some of the comments were interesting, I suppose. Most of them seem to accurately define butthurt, though. Typical attitude... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) In any group of individuals who are active on the interwebs, you're going to have increasing numbers of anti-Wikipedia voices appearing over time - that's because Wikipedia is, by nature, the sort of endeavor that's highly inclusionary to begin with, and then reaches a "critical mass" point at which it gradually becomes more and more exclusionary. That happened to WP in 2006... This will all become more obvious during the Lockdown Phase™, which will probably begin in about 2-3 years, or sooner if WP starts running banner ads. In fact, one might even call the Lockdown Phase the "Exclusionary Phase," and the Growth Phase (already in the past) the "Inclusionary Phase," but that's only from the WP user's perspective, not from the more general perspective of readers/websurfers. But the way to postpone (or even theoretically prevent) the Lockdown Phase is to actually listen to those who feel they've been excluded and figure out if there's a way to address their concerns. Wikipedians don't really do that anymore - they were sort of doing it half-heartedly for a while, about a year or so ago, but mostly they're no longer interested now. (Perhaps this is because they're far more worried about how attrition will affect the future maintenance effort, or perhaps they've had too many bad experiences, from their perspective, with trying to be fair to those they consider "spammers.") Obviously, I personally think the sooner the Lockdown Phase occurs, the better, but in order to encourage it I should probably start calling it the "Stabilization Phase" or the "Integrity Phase" or something like that. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 2:19pm)
Obviously, I personally think the sooner the Lockdown Phase occurs, the better, but in order to encourage it I should probably start calling it the "Stabilization Phase" or the "Integrity Phase" or something like that.
I have a vague recollection of people I know in Organizational Development referring to phases of freezing and unfreezing, but they usually regard these stages as being cyclic, at least, under normal circumstances — maybe because they prefer to study mostly viable organizations. Engineers in materials science and, by analogy, software development, refer to a process of annealing. Jon |
|
|
|
|
|
| One |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
|
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 8:34am) QUOTE(One @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 3:00pm)
I'm not one to mindlessly criticize WMF, but how is it that every fundraising drive is marred with technical problems? It's not as if these now-annual drives are planned at the last minute, but they always seem to suffer crashes, payment problems, and frankly insane discord from the "community."
... That's most of the background that you may or may not have missed in your absence (welcome back, by the way). As for why the Wikimedia Foundation is so incompetent, it's pretty unclear. It's not simply a perception that they don't have their shit together—it's the honest-to-God truth. Anthere's comment at Meta captured a lot of the frustration. For an organization that's existed for close to six years now, it's simply unacceptable how mismanaged and amateurish things are. P.S. Got an e-mail back from one of the Wikimedia Foundation staffers. Seems the PayPal API sent data back to Wikimedia causing the bad comments to be reinserted, or so I'm told. Hopefully this and other inappropriate comments will be removed in the next day or so, though it's about to be Thanksgiving in the U.S., so we'll see. Looks like they took it down again. Huzzah, I guess. As for the rest of it, I completely agree with you. Its one thing to criticize the foundation for paying staff too much, or for relocating to an absurdly expensive part of the country, or for failing to support the volunteer contributors (which it doesn't even consider to be volunteers). But when the Foundation can't even manage it's supposed core competence, I have to wonder how deep the problem extends. At any rate, for those of you without subscriptions, here are some highlights of " Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages": QUOTE [...]
Volunteers have been departing the project that bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" faster than new ones have been joining, and the net losses have accelerated over the past year. In the first three months of 2009, the English-language Wikipedia suffered a net loss of more than 49,000 editors, compared to a net loss of 4,900 during the same period a year earlier, according to Spanish researcher Felipe Ortega, who analyzed Wikipedia's data on the editing histories of its more than three million active contributors in 10 languages.
Eight years after Wikipedia began with a goal to provide everyone in the world free access to "the sum of all human knowledge," the declines in participation have raised questions about the encyclopedia's ability to continue expanding its breadth and improving its accuracy. Errors and deliberate insertions of false information by vandals have undermined its reliability.
[...]
Executives at the Wikimedia Foundation, which finances and oversees the nonprofit venture, acknowledge the declines, but believe they can continue to build a useful encyclopedia with a smaller pool of contributors. "We need sufficient people to do the work that needs to be done," says Sue Gardner, executive director of the foundation. "But the purpose of the project is not participation."
[...]
Wikipedia contributors have been debating widely what is behind the declines in volunteers. One factor is that many topics already have been written about. Another is the plethora of rules Wikipedia has adopted to bring order to its unruly universe -- particularly to reduce infighting among contributors about write-ups of controversial subjects and polarizing figures.
"Wikipedia is becoming a more hostile environment," contends Mr. Ortega, a project manager at Libresoft, a research group at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid. "Many people are getting burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain articles again and again."
[...]
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, who is chairman emeritus of the foundation, acknowledges participation has been declining. But he says it still isn't clear to him what the "right" number of volunteer "Wikipedians" should be. "If people think Wikipedia is done," he says, meaning that with three million articles it is hard to find new things to write about, "that's substantial. But if the community has become more hostile to newbies, that's a correctable problem."
Mr. Wales says his top priority is to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia's articles. He's pushing a new feature that would require top editors to approve all edits before they are displayed on the site. The idea is to prevent the kind of vandalism that in January declared Sen. Edward Kennedy's death months before his actual passing.
[...]
The Wikimedia Foundation employs a staff of 34, mostly in San Francisco, to run the site's computers, guide its planning and serve as its public face. In its fiscal year ended in June, it reported expenses of $5.6 million. It funds its operations mostly through donations. Earlier this month, it launched a campaign to raise $7.5 million from users.
Wikipedia's popularity has strained its consensus-building culture to the breaking point. Wikipedia is now a constant target for vandals who spray virtual graffiti throughout the site -- everything from political views presented as facts to jokes about their friends -- and spammers who try to insert marketing messages into articles.
In 2005, journalist John Seigenthaler Sr. wrote about his own Wikipedia write-up, which unjustly accused him of murder. The resulting bad press was a wake-up call. Wikipedians began getting more aggressive about patrolling for vandals and blocking suspicious edits, according to Andrew Lih, a professor at the University of Southern California and a regular Wikipedia contributor.
That helped transform the site into a more hierarchical society where volunteers had to negotiate a thicket of new rules. Wikipedia rolled out new antivandalism features, including "semiprotection," which prevents newcomers from editing certain controversial articles.
"It was easier when I joined in 2004," says Kat Walsh, a longtime contributor who serves on Wikimedia's board of trustees. "Everything was a little less complicated. . . . It's harder and harder for new people to adjust."
In 2008, Wikipedia's editors deleted one in four contributions from infrequent contributors, up sharply from one in 10 in 2005, according to data compiled by social-computing researcher Ed Chi of Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center.
[...]
The Wikimedia Foundation says it is seeking to increase participation, but that growing the overall number of participants isn't its main focus.
"The early days were a gold rush," says Ms. Gardner, the foundation's executive director. "They attracted lots and lots of people, because a new person could write about anything." The encyclopedia isn't finished, she says, but the "easy work" of contributing is done.
To attract new recruits to help with the remaining work, Ms. Gardner has hired an outreach team, held seminars to train editors in overlooked categories, and launched task forces to seek ways to increase participation in markets such as India. The foundation also invested $890,000 in a new design for the site, slated to go live in the next few months, that aims to make editing easier for contributors who aren't computer-savvy.
She says increasing contributor diversity is her top goal. A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.
Much of the task of making Wikipedia more welcoming to newcomers falls to Frank Schulenburg, the foundation's head of public outreach. An academic, he began contributing to articles about French philosophers on the German Wikipedia in 2005.
[...]
In Germany, to recruit more academics, Mr. Schulenburg had devised an educational program called Wikipedia Academy. In July, he conducted the first such program in the U.S., for scientists and administrators at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. His goal was to entice the scientists to contribute.
Wikipedia already attracts lots of academics, but science isn't its strength. By its own internal grading standards, the article on Louis Pasteur, one of the founders of microbiology, for example, is lower in quality than its article on James T. Kirk, the fictional "Star Trek" captain.
For the July event, Mr. Schulenburg got about 100 scientists and NIH staffers to spend the day listening to arguments about why they should bother contributing to Wikipedia, despite the fact that it doesn't pay, won't help them get a grant or even win them applause from their peers.
His audience was skeptical about the lack of credentials among Wikipedia editors. "One of my concerns is not knowing who the editor is," said Lakshmi Grama, a communications official from the National Cancer Institute.
Several participants started contributing to Wikipedia right after the event. The NIH says it is considering whether to adopt formal policies to encourage its staff to contribute while at work.
Each year, Wikipedians from around the world gather at a conference they call Wikimania. At this year's meeting in Buenos Aires in August, participants at one session debated the implications of the demographic shifts.
"The number one headline I have been seeing for five years is that Wikipedia is dying," said Mathias Schindler, a board member of Wikimedia Germany. He argued that Wikipedia needed to focus less on the total number of articles and more on "smarter metrics" such as article quality.
He said he disagreed with dire views about the project's future. "I don't expect to see Wikipedia follow the rule of any curve or any projection QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 7:06pm) Some of the comments were interesting, I suppose. Most of them seem to accurately define butthurt, though. Actually, I think most of the comments are interesting. The comment about oversight seems off-the-mark though. When ranking Wikipedia's numerous problems, the problem of excessive oversight ranks about #78 in my view. This post has been edited by One: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(One @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 8:30pm) At any rate, for those of you without subscriptions, here are some highlights of " Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages": To my mind, your selection omitted the most interesting part, which was. QUOTE
Wikipedia's struggles raise questions about the evolution of "crowdsourcing," one of the Internet era's most cherished principles. Crowdsourcing posits that there is wisdom in aggregating independent contributions from multitudes of Web users. It has been promoted as a new and better way for large numbers of individuals to collaborate on tasks, without the rules and hierarchies of traditional organizations.
QUOTE
"People generally have this idea that the wisdom of crowds is a pixie dust that you sprinkle on a system and magical things happen," says Aniket Kittur, an assistant professor of human-computer interaction at Carnegie Mellon University who has studied Wikipedia and other large online community projects. "Yet the more people you throw at a problem, the more difficulty you are going to have with coordinating those people. It's too many cooks in the kitchen."
This is exactly what an old fart like me who knows nothing about computers or Web 2.0 would have said. In fact it's blindingly obvious. Why wasn't it obvious to the Internet Generation? I also noted Wales's stupid argument that 3 million articles is just about 'done'. Old farts know that quantity is not to be confused with quality. |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
Here's a version of the WSJ article that avoids the paywall. This part really cracked me up, partly because I donated money to Paley to help her get her "Sita Sings The Blues" cartoon finished. QUOTE Nina Paley, a New York cartoonist who calls herself an "information radical," had no luck when she tried to post her syndicated comic strips from the '90s. She does not copyright their artwork but instead makes money on ancillary products and services, making her perfect for Wikipedia's free-content culture.
It took her a few days to decipher Wikipedia's software."I figured out how to do it with this really weird, ugly code," she says. "I went to bed feeling so proud of myself, and I woke up and found it had been deleted because it was 'out of scope.'"
A Wikipedia editor had decided that Ms. Paley's comics didn't meet the criteria for educational art. Another editor weighed in with questions about whether she had copyright permission for the photo of herself that she uploaded. She did.
Ultimately, it was decided that Ms. Paley's comics were suitable for the site. Samuel Klein, a veteran Wikipedian who serves on the board of trustees, intervened and restored her contributions. Mr. Klein says experiences like Ms. Paley's happen too often. Mr. Klein says that the Wikipedia community needs to rein in so-called deletionists -- editors who shoot first and ask questions later. Nice work, assholes. You just chased away Nina Paley--just the kind of creative person your nutso-pedia needs more of. Congrats on the "weird, ugly code" too. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| grievous |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 129
Joined:
Member No.: 171
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 4:54pm) QUOTE(grievous @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 3:54am) A lot of drama could have been avoided if only Daniel Brandt had known that all it would have taken was $5K to delete his bio. I'm fairly certain that blackmail is, you know, um, kind of illegal...... Well I suppose that threatening to disclose personally identifiable information unless one gets their way would fall under the definition of blackmail too, but who's counting. A $5k contribution seems to have been proven to be a much easier route to deletion. Much easier and effective than blow jobs in 5-star hotels on the WMF dime. But at least if that doesn't work you can sell the residuals on eBay. |
|
|
|
|
|
| the_undertow |
|
Played by the ConArbtists
Group: Contributors
Posts: 284
Joined:
Member No.: 4,634
|
Not since I audited Hilton have I ever seen this much slight of hand in a 'financial report.' If there are other public accountants here, please don't let me take the limelight. Report here Not only is this quite unacceptable in the business realm, but the lack of annotation, and the focus on imagery is what one would expect from a company that owns an image farm. Actually, thinking about Commons, this is what shareholders are given. This is what they expect. This is why donations are called upon, because investors would rather see a Shankbone shot of a vagina (not sure that exisits) then what Wikimedia considers to be a financial report. When the US goes IASB, fuck us all, and when I say that, I mean this endeavor may be strong as not for profit, fail as 'one uses it everyday' and even worse for what can pass as a business. 14 employees, with 'hopes' to gain 6 more, makes this nothing more than a site that has top rankings in Google, and nothing else. I'm certainly not dogging out those who contribute, but if my own contribution can show how financial papers look like a Kinko's copy of doom - it will only be allowed until the rest of the world forces the US to produce a decent FAR. This is a joke. A sick joke. And when wales says that many rely on WP 'every day,' God help us if we, who have doctors, lawyers, and parents, actually do rely on a site where you may be in the middle of a hysterectomy, but you are relying on a generally stable article, where another editor, IP or registered, has changed the venue, before you make that final stitch. |
|
|
|
|
|
| victim of censorship |
|
Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined:
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640
|
QUOTE(the_undertow @ Tue 24th November 2009, 11:00am) Not since I audited Hilton have I ever seen this much slight of hand in a 'financial report.' If there are other public accountants here, please don't let me take the limelight. Report here Not only is this quite unacceptable in the business realm, but the lack of annotation, and the focus on imagery is what one would expect from a company that owns an image farm. Actually, thinking about Commons, this is what shareholders are given. This is what they expect. This is why donations are called upon, because investors would rather see a Shankbone shot of a vagina (not sure that exisits) then what Wikimedia considers to be a financial report. When the US goes IASB, fuck us all, and when I say that, I mean this endeavor may be strong as not for profit, fail as 'one uses it everyday' and even worse for what can pass as a business. 14 employees, with 'hopes' to gain 6 more, makes this nothing more than a site that has top rankings in Google, and nothing else. I'm certainly not dogging out those who contribute, but if my own contribution can show how financial papers look like a Kinko's copy of doom - it will only be allowed until the rest of the world forces the US to produce a decent FAR. This is a joke. A sick joke. And when wales says that many rely on WP 'every day,' God help us if we, who have doctors, lawyers, and parents, actually do rely on a site where you may be in the middle of a hysterectomy, but you are relying on a generally stable article, where another editor, IP or registered, has changed the venue, before you make that final stitch. A resurrected classic... ************************************************************ If surgery was like Wikipedia: Several surgipedians have gathered in an operation theater. On the table lies an unconscious man whos left leg looks dark. Surgipedian #1 grabs a sheet prepared by the patient's doctor that details the problem. Surgipedian #1: "Whoa, he's been lying here for 26 hours, we sure got a backlog again. It also says on this that he has a 'claudication' and a 'chronic venous insufficiency' in the left leg", looks at right leg, "and we are asked to do a 'leg segmental arterial doppler ultrasound exam'. Whatever that is. His leg looks pretty good to me". Surgipedian #2: "You looked at the wrong leg. It says the left one". Surgipedian #1: "I looked at the left and it's looking totally normal!" Surgipedian #2: "The left from his point of view! Do you know where your left leg is?" Surgipedian #3: "No need for shouting, #2, please remember Surgipedia guideline 'Assume Good Faith'. #1 was just trying to be constructive!" Surgipedian #2: "I was only trying to be constructive, too!" Surgipedian #3: "Well, let's just get to back to this guy." Surgipedian #1, feeling securely at the helm again: "I remember something I read once on a website about heart diseases; when your arms or legs turn dark, you got a heart problem". Surgipedian #3: "Yup, you are right. It's something about the veins in the heart being clogged up." Surgipedian #2, feeling outdone: "I think it's something about having not enough oxygen in your blood!" Surgipedian #1: "Can you cite a source for that?" Surgipedian #2: "My aunt Thelma had something like that and I wrote a paper about it for my biology class at school!" Surgipedian #3: "Please remember Surgipedia guideline: No Original Research! Let's get back to the man's heart problem! What should we do?" Surgipedian #1: "I think you need to cut open his ribs and give him a heart massage or clean the veins or something". Surgipedian #3: "Sounds reasonable. After all, when you get a massage to your back, the blood there flows better as well. I just wrote an article about it". Surgipedian #2: "Heh, that is original research, too!" Surgipedian #3: "Several surgipedians agreed on that article to be correct. Are you trying to be a nuisance or do you want to do that man some good?" Surgipedian #2: "Of course!" Surgipedian #2: "Then please stay constructive! How do we cut the man's ribs?" Surgipedian #1: "You need a saw or something." Surgipedian #3: "A saw? Surgeons use scalpels when they operate. I think you just need to cut a hole and poke your fingers through". Without further ado, he grabs a scalpel and cuts a hole approximately where the heart is and sticks two fingers through. Surgipedian #3: "I can't reach the heart, my fingers are not long enough!" Surgipedian #2: "Then do that thing with the veins!" Surgipedian #3: "How do you do that?" Surgipedian #2 "Well, my aunt Thelma finally had something they call a bypass and they cut open the veins, I think". Surgipedian #3: "But that is orig..., well let's try it. But I will have to push in the scalpel pretty deep to reach the heart. Shall we do it?" Surgipedian #1, #2: "Support". Surgipedian #3 remembers Surgipedia guideline "Be Bold!", grabs the scalpel in his fist and swings his arm in preparation of a deep push into the hole, but at that moment a surgeon comes by. Surgeon: "Stop! What in the world are you doing?" Surgipedian #3: The man has a problem in his leg and we are going to cut his heart veins open". Surgeon: "What? All I see is a man with vascular problem in his leg and another that wields a scalpel like a knife. Are you aware that pushing a scalpel into someone's heart will kill that person?" Surgipedian #1: "We have decided by majority that this is the proper thing to do. Besides, can you prove that pushing a scalpel into someones heart is deadly?" Surgeon: "You decided by MAJORITY? Are you all nuts?" Surgipedian #2 feels that there is finally someone besides him to put down: "Please, no personal attacks!" Surgeon: "I will fucking personal attack you if you endanger someones life!" Surgipedian #3: "We need to call an admin!" Surgeon: "Alright, do that, but put that scalpel down!" An admin comes by. Admin: "I have heard that a guest is violating Surgipedia rules". Surgeon: "I am a surgeon and these people are about to kill this man by pushing a knife into his heart!" Admin: "Reviewing the archived discussion, you are in violation of rules Surgipedia: Assume Good Faith, Surgipedia: Vandalism, Surgipedia: Neutral Point of View, Surgipedia: No Personal Attacks, Surgipedia: Avoid Weasel Words and Surgipedia: Do not disrupt Surgipedia to make a point. You will be blocked from accessing Surgipedia for one week. Please use the time to review Surgipedia guidelines and rules". Admin and desperate Surgeon leave. Surgipedian #3: "Okay, where were we?" Surgipedian #2: "You were about to cut his heart." Surgipedian #3: "Yup. I propose that so-called 'surgeon' was just a troll and we should go ahead." Surgipedian #1 and #2: "Agree". Surgipedian #3 slams the scalpel into the man's heart, who is dead within moments. Surgipedian #3: "Why did he die?" Surgipedian #1: "It's his fault. There was nothing WE did wrong!" [All guidelines and policies mentioned in this satire do exist in Wikipedia. ************************************************************ Wikipedia has evolved to this very evil and hateful enterprise. The lies, the misdeeds, the hurt Wikipedia causes, every single day, is piling up and some day, the protection and the abuse of said protection (section 230) will be modified to allow Wikipedia to be exposed and accountable to the people. QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 24th November 2009, 1:02am) QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 10:00pm)
I also noted Wales's stupid argument that 3 million articles is just about 'done'. Old farts know that quantity is not to be confused with quality.
Three million articles might well be "just about done", if they were the right three million articles. Yeah... Quality articles, for the children like this one about Snowballing . This post has been edited by victim of censorship: |
|
|
|
|
|
| victim of censorship |
|
Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined:
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640
|
A true apologist. People, like you, are like the mother who cries.... Johnnie not a bad boy, while Johnnie is on trial for mass murder.
The Wikipedia operations fund is just a personal slush fund for BIG SUE, JIMMY, and all the meatballs at the wiki club house. Proper accounting and accountable to the money is not a concept what would fit well with the lifestyle of an internet rock star.
Lets have no mistake or mis-understanding, Wikipedia has no system of governance, no rules. The only system Wikipedia has is gang rule, corruption, and jungle law.
Think of Wikipedia to be a failed state, run like Somalia. The rule of guns, gangs, and warlords.
This post has been edited by victim of censorship:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sarcasticidealist |
|
Head exploded.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined:
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536
|
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 24th November 2009, 10:16am) A true apologist. People, like you, are like the mother who cries.... Johnnie not a bad boy, while Johnnie is on trial for mass murder.
Lets have no mistake or mis-understanding, Wikipedia has no system of governance, no rules. The only system Wikipedia has is gang rule, corruption, and jungle law.
Think of Wikipedia to be a failed state, run like Somalia. The rule of guns, gangs, and warlords. There's a school of thought that holds that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a statist institution, enhancing the power of courts to impose social change without the request or consent of the populace. That school of thought overlooks, though, that the Charter is designed to empower the individual in the face of the state; the only entities subject to it are public entities (i.e. organs of the state), and in virtually all cases the restrictions it imposes prevent those entities from infringing on individual freedoms. |
|
|
|
|
|
| victim of censorship |
|
Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined:
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640
|
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 24th November 2009, 1:20pm) QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 24th November 2009, 10:16am) A true apologist. People, like you, are like the mother who cries.... Johnnie not a bad boy, while Johnnie is on trial for mass murder.
Lets have no mistake or mis-understanding, Wikipedia has no system of governance, no rules. The only system Wikipedia has is gang rule, corruption, and jungle law.
Think of Wikipedia to be a failed state, run like Somalia. The rule of guns, gangs, and warlords. There's a school of thought that holds that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a statist institution, enhancing the power of courts to impose social change without the request or consent of the populace. That school of thought overlooks, though, that the Charter is designed to empower the individual in the face of the state; the only entities subject to it are public entities (i.e. organs of the state), and in virtually all cases the restrictions it imposes prevent those entities from infringing on individual freedoms. So your implying that Wikipedia a "sovereign state" which supersedes the law of the United States of America? |
|
|
|
|
|
| victim of censorship |
|
Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined:
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640
|
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 24th November 2009, 1:26pm) QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 24th November 2009, 10:23am) So your implying that Wikipedia a "sovereign state" which supersedes the law of the United States of America? Oh, no, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a contest to see who could come up with the comment that was least related to the post to which it was putatively replying. redirection... a trait I seen used a great deal on wiki... THE POINT, for the unknowing is this.... WIKIPEDIA is a JUNGLE of Lies, Misappropriation, Slander, Liable. Wikipedia run by irresponsible, power drunk assholes, whose over-site, over a web site with such dominion on the internet, is a disgrace. This post has been edited by victim of censorship: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sarcasticidealist |
|
Head exploded.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined:
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536
|
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 24th November 2009, 10:31am) QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 24th November 2009, 1:26pm) Oh, no, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a contest to see who could come up with the comment that was least related to the post to which it was putatively replying. WIKIPEDIA is a JUNGLE of Lies, Misappropriation, Slander, Liable. Wikipedia run by irresponsible, power drunk assholes, whose over-site, over a web site with such dominion on the internet, is a disgrace. You're very good at this. |
|
|
|
|
|
| One |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
|
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 24th November 2009, 1:09pm) QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 24th November 2009, 1:00pm) QUOTE(the_undertow @ Tue 24th November 2009, 8:00am)
Not since I audited Hilton have I ever seen this much slight of hand in a 'financial report.'
Um, does the professional association to which you presumably belong have any ethical code at all? The concept of "ethical code" used to describe "Wikipeidia" is a laughable oxymoron. QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 24th November 2009, 1:20pm) QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 24th November 2009, 10:16am) A true apologist. People, like you, are like the mother who cries.... Johnnie not a bad boy, while Johnnie is on trial for mass murder.
Lets have no mistake or mis-understanding, Wikipedia has no system of governance, no rules. The only system Wikipedia has is gang rule, corruption, and jungle law.
Think of Wikipedia to be a failed state, run like Somalia. The rule of guns, gangs, and warlords. There's a school of thought that holds that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a statist institution, enhancing the power of courts to impose social change without the request or consent of the populace. That school of thought overlooks, though, that the Charter is designed to empower the individual in the face of the state; the only entities subject to it are public entities (i.e. organs of the state), and in virtually all cases the restrictions it imposes prevent those entities from infringing on individual freedoms. QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 24th November 2009, 1:26pm)
Oh, no, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a contest to see who could come up with the comment that was least related to the post to which it was putatively replying.
Heh. This post has been edited by One: |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RDH(Ghost In The Machine) |
|
And the admins broke Piggy's glasses...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 613
Joined:
From: Hell, Your Majesty...
Member No.: 15,578
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 29th December 2009, 9:52pm) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) I gave $20 back in August 05 when I was a naive n00b. I've felt like a sucker ever since. Especially after Danny later stated that every donation of $20 or more back then got a personal thank you-a-gram...I never got mine (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
