Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Wikipedia Review _ The Wikimedia Foundation _ Sue's five-year plan

Posted by: thekohser Wed 20th January 2010, 3:43pm

Sue Gardner has http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Feb_2010_Letter_to_the_Board the new Five-Year Plan.

BayNewser http://www.mediabistro.com/baynewser/wikipedia/wikimedia_not_going_to_invest_in_china_africa_paid_editors_149337.asp as follows:

QUOTE
Wikimedia Not Going to Invest in China, Africa, Paid Editors


And my comment there:

QUOTE
In other words, the WMF will continue to geek out on hard drives, bandwidth, and marveling at how many page views they garner. But, they will do nothing to work responsibly and ethically toward building a higher-quality, reliable compendium of human knowledge. Thus driving home the truth that Wikipedia is a massive online role-playing game, not an educational charity project. In a word, fraudulent.


Posted by: Jon Awbrey Wed 20th January 2010, 3:56pm

Wut!? — No benchmarks for the wheat harvest?

Jon dizzy.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Wed 20th January 2010, 4:06pm

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 20th January 2010, 10:43am) *

Sue Gardner has http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Feb_2010_Letter_to_the_Board the new Five-Year Plan.

BayNewser http://www.mediabistro.com/baynewser/wikipedia/wikimedia_not_going_to_invest_in_china_africa_paid_editors_149337.asp as follows:

QUOTE
Wikimedia Not Going to Invest in China, Africa, Paid Editors


And my comment there:

QUOTE
In other words, the WMF will continue to geek out on hard drives, bandwidth, and marveling at how many page views they garner. But, they will do nothing to work responsibly and ethically toward building a higher-quality, reliable compendium of human knowledge. Thus driving home the truth that Wikipedia is a massive online role-playing game, not an educational charity project. In a word, fraudulent.



The article was very good, especially in identifying what options where rejected. The odd thing about the plan is how divorced from budget it is. It is hard to see how a plan dominated by tech infrastructure can justify a budget in excess of 10 times what was spent prior to Gardner. After all the demand has only grown modestly and is leveling out, maybe even declining. Most technical challenges where met when the budget was at $300,000. Now at $10,000,000 they only have to update and maintain. Gardner is bringing WMF to a scale that could be used to seriously address programmatic and editorial issues. But she is not directing the funds in the right areas.

Well at least there is a planning process that could be turned toward programmatic issues. Plus, I love the Stalinist ring to "Five Year Plan." That has got to piss off the Randoids.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide Wed 20th January 2010, 4:08pm

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 20th January 2010, 3:43pm) *

Sue Gardner has http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Feb_2010_Letter_to_the_Board the new Five-Year Plan.

BayNewser http://www.mediabistro.com/baynewser/wikipedia/wikimedia_not_going_to_invest_in_china_africa_paid_editors_149337.asp as follows:

QUOTE
Wikimedia Not Going to Invest in China, Africa, Paid Editors


And my comment there:

QUOTE
In other words, the WMF will continue to geek out on hard drives, bandwidth, and marveling at how many page views they garner. But, they will do nothing to work responsibly and ethically toward building a higher-quality, reliable compendium of human knowledge. Thus driving home the truth that Wikipedia is a massive online role-playing game, not an educational charity project. In a word, fraudulent.

I wonder how long she worked on that and how much it cost.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name Wed 20th January 2010, 4:10pm

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 20th January 2010, 11:06am) *
Plus, I love the Stalinist ring to "Five Year Plan." That has got to piss off the Randoids.


When she starts to suggest letting 100 flowers bloom, it is time to move the servers to Formosa! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine) Wed 20th January 2010, 4:30pm

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 20th January 2010, 3:56pm) *

Wut!? — No benchmarks for the wheat harvest?

Jon dizzy.gif


I'm sure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris_(original) is working towards it.

Posted by: Milton Roe Wed 20th January 2010, 5:01pm

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 20th January 2010, 8:56am) *

Wut!? — No benchmarks for the wheat harvest?

Jon dizzy.gif

No. A wonderful new plan to divert all of WMF's resouces to growing ... sugarcane!

You know, in theory, with some data on server cost per power over the last decade, and the known chart of WMF article growth per year, it should in theory be possible to draw a curve with the correct SHAPE of WMF's actual expenditure need, if it was rational.

Of course, such a curve would need to be scaled, so it could be adjusted for best fit to WMF's equipment costs from 2001 to 2007 or something.

Then the fun begins, as we see how far the curve costs for technology THEN depart from theoretical need, under Sue's regime. Mark the gap "San Francisco sushi and parking."

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Wed 20th January 2010, 5:55pm

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 20th January 2010, 12:01pm) *



Then the fun begins, as we see how far the curve costs for technology THEN depart from theoretical need, under Sue's regime. Mark the gap "San Francisco sushi and parking."


What I like about Gardner is she clearly does not want to run an organization with a staff smaller than a 7/11 and a budget the size of an adult foster care home with six residents. There are of course many ways that she could build WMF into a significant organization, not the least is to staff it with people to address program and editorial needs. Her problem is that she would run into ideological roadblocks if she stood up and acted in a responsible manner. I think she needs representation on her board from the PRC. They are a quarter of humanity after all. Until then pass the sushi.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey Wed 20th January 2010, 6:38pm

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 20th January 2010, 12:01pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 20th January 2010, 8:56am) *

Wut!? — No benchmarks for the wheat harvest?

Jon dizzy.gif


Mark the gap "San Francisco sushi and parking."


Just guessing, but I think you'll find that more and more donation dollars are going into raising more and more donation dollars, in other words, PR.

Anyone wanna buy a Golden Gate http://www.bridgespan.org/?

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe Wed 20th January 2010, 6:44pm

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 20th January 2010, 10:55am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 20th January 2010, 12:01pm) *



Then the fun begins, as we see how far the curve costs for technology THEN depart from theoretical need, under Sue's regime. Mark the gap "San Francisco sushi and parking."


What I like about Gardner is she clearly does not want to run an organization with a staff smaller than a 7/11 and a budget the size of an adult foster care home with six residents. There are of course many ways that she could build WMF into a significant organization, not the least is to staff it with people to address program and editorial needs. Her problem is that she would run into ideological roadblocks if she stood up and acted in a responsible manner. I think she needs representation on her board from the PRC. They are a quarter of humanity after all. Until then pass the sushi.

She has Wing/Ting from Taiwan. Perhaps he might be induced to speak for PRC. wink.gif

SRSLY, unless PRC lets WP actually legally INTO their country, I think they should get bubkis. Yes, HK, I know they are no different from the UK and probably better. It's just that they can be difficult when it comes to, well, basic freedoms. Probably my own bias.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Wed 20th January 2010, 7:46pm

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 20th January 2010, 1:44pm) *



SRSLY, unless PRC lets WP actually legally INTO their country, I think they should get bubkis. Yes, HK, I know they are no different from the UK and probably better. It's just that they can be difficult when it comes to, well, basic freedoms. Probably my own bias.


I have no love lost for the PRC. I would find very amusing a board discussion in which community types explain how flagged revisions is difficult to implement to people who bulldoze monasteries or run over people with tanks.

Posted by: Kelly Martin Wed 20th January 2010, 8:24pm

It's very clear that the Foundation considers its most important metrics to be readership of and participation in the English Wikipedia, and it plans to focus all of its attention on increasing both of these numbers. This is, no doubt, because doing this will do more to increase donations than just about anything else they do.

It is clear that there is no interest in improving quality, and in fact they probably realize that quality measures will both reduce drama (which will reduce press attention and thus donations) and reduce participation (which will also reduce donations). So expect more of the same, and nothing new, from the WMF.

Posted by: victim of censorship Wed 20th January 2010, 8:59pm

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 20th January 2010, 3:43pm) *

Sue Gardner has http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Feb_2010_Letter_to_the_Board the new Five-Year Plan.

BayNewser http://www.mediabistro.com/baynewser/wikipedia/wikimedia_not_going_to_invest_in_china_africa_paid_editors_149337.asp as follows:

QUOTE
Wikimedia Not Going to Invest in China, Africa, Paid Editors


And my comment there:

QUOTE
In other words, the WMF will continue to geek out on hard drives, bandwidth, and marveling at how many page views they garner. But, they will do nothing to work responsibly and ethically toward building a higher-quality, reliable compendium of human knowledge. Thus driving home the truth that Wikipedia is a massive online role-playing game, not an educational charity project. In a word, fraudulent.


WOW!

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 20th January 2010, 5:55pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 20th January 2010, 12:01pm) *



Then the fun begins, as we see how far the curve costs for technology THEN depart from theoretical need, under Sue's regime. Mark the gap "San Francisco sushi and parking."


What I like about Gardner is she clearly does not want to run an organization with a staff smaller than a 7/11 and a budget the size of an adult foster care home with six residents. There are of course many ways that she could build WMF into a significant organization, not the least is to staff it with people to address program and editorial needs. Her problem is that she would run into ideological roadblocks if she stood up and acted in a responsible manner. I think she needs representation on her board from the PRC. They are a quarter of humanity after all. Until then pass the sushi.


She needs to sustain her 1/2 mill each year..

Posted by: MBisanz Wed 20th January 2010, 9:22pm

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 20th January 2010, 5:10pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 20th January 2010, 11:06am) *
Plus, I love the Stalinist ring to "Five Year Plan." That has got to piss off the Randoids.


When she starts to suggest letting 100 flowers bloom, it is time to move the servers to Formosa! rolleyes.gif

Five year plans are quite common in business. I would be somewhat disappointed with any major corporation that didn't have a long-term strategic plan with specific dated goals. To do otherwise would rob the management of accountability for meeting those goals.

Posted by: thekohser Thu 21st January 2010, 5:41pm

Sue Gardner said:

QUOTE
We've interviewed 65 people, including Board and Advisory Board members, staff, editors, onlookers, critics, supporters, and external subject-matter-experts...


I looked over the http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interviews interviewed, and I failed to see one "critic" of the Wikimedia Foundation. (Could someone help me if you do see one?)

So, I asked on the Discussion page, if someone could enlighten us as to which "critics" were interviewed.

Philippe's two-step response:

QUOTE
18:03, 20 January 2010 Critics? Which one(s)? Philippe (WMF) (Talk | contribs) Deleted (content was: 'The letter says that "critics" were engaged or interviewed by the Foundation strategy project. I'd like to know which one(s) in particular. Considering ho...' (and the only contributor was 'Thekohser2'))
(http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation/Feb_2010_Letter_to_the_Board&lqt_method=talkpage_history#Background_report_2970)

QUOTE
17:40, 20 January 2010 Philippe (WMF) (Talk | contribs) blocked Thekohser2 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎
(http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser2)

Someone needs to slap http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS351US351&um=1&sa=1&q=%22philippe+beaudette%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&start=0 Philippe across the face.

Has it really come to the point that simply asking which critic(s) were engaged or interviewed by the Foundation strategy project is a censored and blockable offense?

I hereby call on every Wikimedian in good standing to http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation/Feb_2010_Letter_to_the_Board&lqt_method=talkpage_new_thread, and ask the same question, until it is answered.

Posted by: thekohser Thu 21st January 2010, 9:41pm

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 21st January 2010, 12:41pm) *

I hereby call on every Wikimedian in good standing to http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation/Feb_2010_Letter_to_the_Board&lqt_method=talkpage_new_thread, and ask the same question, until it is answered.


I guess this is the part where WR http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation/Feb_2010_Letter_to_the_Board/en&lqt_method=talkpage_history#Background_report_2970, too.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey Thu 21st January 2010, 10:00pm

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 21st January 2010, 4:41pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 21st January 2010, 12:41pm) *

I hereby call on every Wikimedian in good standing to http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation/Feb_2010_Letter_to_the_Board&lqt_method=talkpage_new_thread, and ask the same question, until it is answered.


I guess this is the part where WR http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation/Feb_2010_Letter_to_the_Board/en&lqt_method=talkpage_history#Background_report_2970, too.


It's their board, Greg.

The more you act like it might have been legit, the more credibility you lend it.

Your time were better spent writing another exposé on Akahele.

Jon Image

Posted by: thekohser Fri 22nd January 2010, 4:49am

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 21st January 2010, 5:00pm) *

It's their board, Greg.

The more you act like it might have been legit, the more credibility you lend it.

Your time were better spent writing another exposé on Akahele.

Jon Image


Yeah, in a way, you're right, Jonny.

Akahele's still getting, oh, a good 15 page views a day... though that's down from our glory days of 65 or 70 per day.

Anyway, it looks like someone has my back here. Thanks, "whoever you are".

Posted by: Jon Awbrey Fri 22nd January 2010, 5:06am

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 21st January 2010, 11:49pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 21st January 2010, 5:00pm) *

It's their board, Greg.

The more you act like it might have been legit, the more credibility you lend it.

Your time were better spent writing another exposé on Akahele.

Jon Image


Yeah, in a way, you're right, Jonny.

Akahele's still getting, oh, a good 15 page views a day … though that's down from our glory days of 65 or 70 per day.

Anyway, it looks like someone has my back here. Thanks, "whoever you are".


It's pretty clear that the whole Strategic Planning thing is just a cover for a lot of PR. Maybe that Bridgespan Group honestly thinks they're being called in to help improve things, but they wouldn't be the first to be suckered by that.

Jon Image

Posted by: Kelly Martin Fri 22nd January 2010, 5:55am

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 21st January 2010, 10:49pm) *
Akahele's still getting, oh, a good 15 page views a day... though that's down from our glory days of 65 or 70 per day.
Wow, dude, that's lame: my cheesy, sporadically updated blog about one of the most boring topics in the known universe gets an average 50 page views a day. What are you doing wrong? smile.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe Fri 22nd January 2010, 6:22am

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 21st January 2010, 10:55pm) *

Wow, dude, that's lame: my cheesy, sporadically updated blog about one of the most boring topics in the known universe gets an average 50 page views a day. What are you doing wrong? smile.gif

You blog about new celebrity moms and their weight loss secrets?? ohmy.gif

If not, you're not even close to the most boring topic in the known universe.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy Sat 23rd January 2010, 8:47am

$600,000 to create a five-year strategic plan ... WTF? Why didn't they just give the money to that starving girl in Africa who is going to save the world?

And they don't even ask one real critic what is wrong!?!

They should thrown a few thousand of that over here as a tip for WR.

Founder of Craigslist, Craig Newmark, describes Wikipedia's work to date as "http://ow.ly/HPb0" which probably explains all the focus on war, pornography and rape.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 21st January 2010, 5:41pm) *
So, I asked on the Discussion page, if someone could enlighten us as to which "critics" were interviewed.


It seems that no critics were interview ... little bit of BS then ... which is convenient for them. Unless you include people like Andrew "HOW A BUNCH OF NOBODIES CREATED THE WORLD’S GREATEST ENCYCLOPEDIA" Lih as a "critic".

But there is a list of "http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interviews#External_experts_interviews". Do any of appear remotely "critical" to anyone?

On the other hand, it does give us a pretty useful 'hitlist' to start sending follow up letters of concern to, regarding the children administering hard core amateur porn, like Carolyn Miles, Executive Vice President at Save the Children US and other issues.

If they have not interview any critics then they have made a serious mistake.

Posted by: SB_Johnny Sun 21st November 2010, 4:17pm

Huh.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061488.html

A little birdy tells me that the folks on the "other projects" are not at all happy.

Posted by: Kelly Martin Sun 21st November 2010, 4:43pm

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 21st November 2010, 10:17am) *

Huh.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061488.html

A little birdy tells me that the folks on the "other projects" are not at all happy.
The only project that SueCo cares about at all besides the English Wikipedia is Commons, and only in its role of being the storage facility for images for the English Wikipedia. The other projects don't generate enough traffic or enough committed JimmyCultists for them to care. Many of them are, in fact, liabilities that they'd be happier to do away with, except that having them allows them to claim to be "IN 303 LANGUAGES" (or whatever the number is).

Posted by: Anonymous editor Fri 15th September 2017, 7:23pm

time is up