Abd, blah, blah, blan. How long before indef? A day. A year? A lifetime? Options Rating

[jayvdb]

I am proud to be part of Wikimedia Australia as I believe that the Wikimedia chapters, which are associations of members, are important to the health of the Wikimedia movement. .

The Wikimedia movement splashed down in the toilet bowl some time ago, it's time to flush that turd.

Almost every stat shows that it continues to grow. As far as I can see, Wikipedia is here to stay, whether you like it or not. I half expect that there will be major controversies in its future, but I doubt that they would result in the projects dying.
The people who want to see "Wikipedia" die should be funding technology which will either surpass mediawiki or Google. Most people and organisations who donate content or money to Wikimedia don't care about "Wikimedia" or even "free content" - they care about having reasonable quality information accessible from their search results, without charge.

[Abd]

Almost every stat shows that it continues to grow.

Cancers continue to grow, too.

Look, there are vast swaths of Wikipedia that are in primitive condition. This may continue to improve. But, by definition, these are not the most used parts. And the structure is radically inefficient by design. It burns people out, unless they are, essentially, crazy.

[jayvdb]

Almost every stat shows that it continues to grow.

Cancers continue to grow, too.

Look, there are vast swaths of Wikipedia that are in primitive condition. This may continue to improve. But, by definition, these are not the most used parts. And the structure is radically inefficient by design. It burns people out, unless they are, essentially, crazy.

I mostly agree with all of that.

Either Wikipedia will slowly incorporate better design, or someone will launch a project which is leap years ahead, and the content and/or community will jump ship. My guess is that a replacement project would also be free content and will be seeded with the Wikipedia content. Time will tell.

[The Adversary]

Either Wikipedia will slowly incorporate better design, or someone will launch a project which is leap years ahead, and the content and/or community will jump ship. My guess is that a replacement project would also be free content and will be seeded with the Wikipedia content. Time will tell.

Yepp.

Remember altavisa? I can still recall how excited a colleague of mine was when he told me about it. Coolest thing in the whole world! Imagine, a web-site which searched the web! ....and then came google, and the rest is history.

I am still waiting for that "google of online encyclopedia".
I guess the reason we have not seen yet is that others, like Jimbo, have found no way of making serious money of the idea.

Kelly Martin words about "the encyclopedia which anyone can edit is a great way to start an encyclopedia, but a terrible way to finish it" also comes to mind.

[Milton Roe]

This year I'm not putting nearly as much effort into reform of Wikipedia.

This year? 2011 is more than halfway over...what year are you living in?

Considering the stock market's performance today, I guess back in 2010.

[SB_Johnny]

I'm starting to have a greater respect for the folks at meta. One more door closes for our overly verbose hero.

[Abd]

I'm starting to have a greater respect for the folks at meta. One more door closes for our overly verbose hero.

You wish. Thanks for sharing.

I'm not blocked until I try to edit and can't. Hasn't happened yet, haven't seen that screen. Haven't requested unblock. I'm far more interested in seeing who shows up. Like you did, SBJ.

Good luck, you aren't exactly solidifying your Wikiversity future, there, if anyone ever becomes seriously interested in taking you out, you have effectively come out and revealed yourself as a self-centered enemy of the project, just as inconsistent with you being a 'crat as it was for a certain steward to respond to a question as he responded.

I won't bother explaining. Not interested in being verbose. If you want to know what happened at meta, look at my last edits there. At this point I have this devious strategy: Do nothing. I'm interested to see if they will attempt to ban me for doing nothing. Wouldn't be surprising at all.

[Kelly Martin]

\I am proud to be part of Wikimedia Australia as I believe that the Wikimedia chapters, which are associations of members, are important to the health of the Wikimedia movement. Wikimedia would look very different if the WMF had been established as an association of members back in 2006.

You do realize that it was originally established as a membership organization, and disestablished as such by Jimmy Wales with the full consent of the Board (and on advice of counsel) in 2006, over the objections of several people in the community including myself, despite determined effort by Jimbo and company to do the dirty deed as quietly as possible?

Wikimedia will never be or become a membership organization, at least not as long as Jimmy's alive and kicking.

[SB_Johnny]

\I am proud to be part of Wikimedia Australia as I believe that the Wikimedia chapters, which are associations of members, are important to the health of the Wikimedia movement. Wikimedia would look very different if the WMF had been established as an association of members back in 2006.

You do realize that it was originally established as a membership organization, and disestablished as such by Jimmy Wales with the full consent of the Board (and on advice of counsel) in 2006, over the objections of several people in the community including myself, despite determined effort by Jimbo and company to do the dirty deed as quietly as possible?

Wikimedia will never be or become a membership organization, at least not as long as Jimmy's alive and kicking.

Interesting. Did they ever explain their reasoning for that, or was it a "because Jimmy said so" thing?

[Kelly Martin]

Interesting. Did they ever explain their reasoning for that, or was it a "because Jimmy said so" thing?

Not publicly, at least not with any clarity. But the real reason was to limit Jimmy's personal liability. Under Florida law, the directors of a nonprofit organization with members can potentially be sued by the members (singly or in combination) in order to enforce certain rights under the charter. By eliminating the members, they virtually eliminated the possibility of Jimmy (and the other directors) being sued for failing to faithfully comply with the organization's bylaws and the requirements imposed by state statute (which Wikimedia fairly regularly failed at in its early years). The Attorney General of the State of Florida can still sue in the event that (s)he concludes that the public interest requires it, but the likelihood of that is essentially nil.

The entire process of discarding the membership provisions was itself conducted illegally, but they got away with it mainly because there was no way anybody could have proven they were a member: the organization never maintained a membership roster (itself a violation of state statute). Since the original bylaws defined anyone who had contributed to a Wikimedia project as a registered user as a "member", it is certain that there were members at the time the bylaws were amended; those members should have been given opportunity to object to the change, introduce alternative proposals, or decertify the directors prior to the change taking place. The Board (on the advice of counsel) took the farcical position that the only identifiable members were the five directors, thereby undercutting all the safeguards that supposedly existed within Florida corporation law.

Talk to Alex Roshuk if you want a solid earful on this issue. He wrote Wikimedia's original bylaws, and was one of the most vocal critics of the decision to jettison the concept of having members.

[thekohser]

...someone will launch a project which is leap years ahead...

How many leap years? Are we talking maybe 3 or 4 leap years ahead? So, quantified, this would be a project that is 3/365ths or 4/365ths better than Wikipedia?

[Detective]

How many leap years? Are we talking maybe 3 or 4 leap years ahead? So, quantified, this would be a project that is 3/365ths or 4/365ths better than Wikipedia?

No, a leap year is a whole year, indeed slightly longer than an ordinary year. It isn't just one day. Thus three or four leap years (following the usual style rule that small number should be spelt out, not written as digits) would be slightly more than three or four years. If Jayvdb means "a period during which three or four leap years occur", that could be as little as nine years, e.g. 2000-2008 inclusive. It could also be as much as 19 years, e.g. 2001-2019 inclusive. (Over the long term, we must remember that 1900 wasn't a leap year, but let's not go there. )

[SB_Johnny]

I'm not blocked until I try to edit and can't.

That's like somebody with "ED" saying they're not impotent as long as they don't try to fuck.

[jayvdb]

I am proud to be part of Wikimedia Australia as I believe that the Wikimedia chapters, which are associations of members, are important to the health of the Wikimedia movement. Wikimedia would look very different if the WMF had been established as an association of members back in 2006.

You do realize that it was originally established as a membership organization, and disestablished as such by Jimmy Wales with the full consent of the Board (and on advice of counsel) in 2006, over the objections of several people in the community including myself, despite determined effort by Jimbo and company to do the dirty deed as quietly as possible?

Wikimedia will never be or become a membership organization, at least not as long as Jimmy's alive and kicking.

I was aware that originally there were plans for WMF to be a membership organisation, and I've seen more than a few pages of retired users who could not continue donating their time when the WMF changed course. I haven't looked into the early history of WMF, and the Wikipedia page is very vague. There is no time like the present.

Do you know which act they were originally established under? At Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation/Archive_2#Nonsense_about_membership, Erik says the problem was FL Statutes - Title XXXVI Business Organizations Section 617.01011 He also says that "The Foundation never had any members". The FL statute says that organisations can have zero members, so maybe that is true.

(According to an uncited paragraph on the Wikipedia article about WMF) They were already registered by IRS in 2005, so they must have been structured in compliance with the applicable laws then. Surely? Did they have zero members? That doesn't sound appropriate for an organisation that is more than a year old. Here in Australia, organisations established under state acts need to have a board consisting of members, except in the first year (it might be 15 months).

I'm having a hard time believing that it was impossible for WMF to be a member based organisation in Florida. Maybe it was international membership that would have presented a problem..?

(p.s. could a mod please move this discussion to a new thread titled "Wikimedia Foundation early structure" or similar)

[Kelly Martin]

I was aware that originally there were plans for WMF to be a membership organisation, and I've seen more than a few pages of retired users who could not continue donating their time when the WMF changed course. I haven't looked into the early history of WMF, and the Wikipedia page is very vague. There is no time like the present.

Do you know which act they were originally established under? At Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation/Archive_2#Nonsense_about_membership, Erik says the problem was FL Statutes - Title XXXVI Business Organizations Section 617.01011 He also says that "The Foundation never had any members". The FL statute says that organisations can have zero members, so maybe that is true.

(According to an uncited paragraph on the Wikipedia article about WMF) They were already registered by IRS in 2005, so they must have been structured in compliance with the applicable laws then. Surely? Did they have zero members? That doesn't sound appropriate for an organisation that is more than a year old. Here in Australia, organisations established under state acts need to have a board consisting of members, except in the first year (it might be 15 months).

I'm having a hard time believing that it was impossible for WMF to be a member based organisation in Florida. Maybe it was international membership that would have presented a problem..?

(p.s. could a mod please move this discussion to a new thread titled "Wikimedia Foundation early structure" or similar)

Wikimedia has been continuously since its founding established under the same Florida laws. Up until the 2006 revision of the bylaws, it had members. Jimmy Wales was designated as a "life member" by the original bylaws, so if nothing else he was a member. If Erik claims it "never had members", he is either misinformed or lying (and my money is on the latter). Anyone who claims that it is "impossible" for a nonprofit in Florida to have member is also misinformed or lying. Nor is there any prohibition on members being noncitizens or nonresidents.

My experience is that the powers that be routinely lie about the transition of Wikimedia from membership to nonmembership. Why exactly this is is not clear to me.