How to quit Wikiaddiction?, advice sought Options

[Doc glasgow]

OK, my early new year's resolution was to quit Wikipedia. Did so on Christmas Eve.

Now, before the cynics trout slap me, I know I've done this several times before. I've even been free of Wikipedia for months on end, but I've always ended up back on the crack.

In the past:
I've tried scrambling may passwords - that didn't work.
I've tried deleting stuff to piss people off and may returning more messy - that didn't work.

So, I see on this forum are some people who've tried and failed (Alison) and some people who actually succeeded (Kelly). Ignoring the involuntary banned users, any advice on the does and don't of kicking this unhealthy habit for good?

Should I avoid WR too?

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: Sat 26th December 2009, 8:28pm

[Cedric]

I have seen a lot of pertinent observations in this thread, but nothing that bears upon the reason I was able to break off so completely and instantly from Wikipedia-- anger. Not just any anger or perturbation, but the anger that comes from being well and truly betrayed. In my own experience, it serves equally well in the case of both individuals and institutions. Once you have been betrayed and you know it, it is far easier to cut ties absolutely. As long as the offender fails to acknowledge their offense and offers to make amends, you can hold them off at arm's length (which in the case of narcissistic assholes, essentially means forever).

I wasn't just angry at Jimbo and his Kabal Klown Kollege, who falsely represented Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, but also at myself, who was so taken at the stated ideals of Wikipedia that I suspended my normal rule of "observe first, trust afterward". This does little if anything to lessen to culpability of Jimbo and the KKK, however.

If this seems too vague a reason to get really, really pissed off, then consider this: the WMF's own financial statements reveal a 3,061.61% increase in expenses in the four year period from June 30, 2005 to June 30, 2009! Now Jimbo insists that the WMF needs TEN MILLION DOLLARS to get through the next fiscal year, which means a 5,528.41% increase in expenses since 2005! Do you actually believe that reflects the reality?? Have the number of pages on WP actually increased 5,528.41% since 2005?? Does it seem even remotely plausible that server and administrative expenses have increased 5,528.41% since 2005??

I think it far, far more likely that Jimbo is laughing at you wiki-drudges as he snorts coke off of a Russian hooker's ass, generously subsidized by the WMF. If this is not enough to get you well and truly angry enough to cut ties, then you are just a no-hoper.

[FT2]

If this seems too vague a reason to get really, really pissed off, then consider this: the WMF's own financial statements reveal a 3,061.61% increase in expenses in the four year period from June 30, 2005 to June 30, 2009! Now Jimbo insists that the WMF needs TEN MILLION DOLLARS to get through the next fiscal year, which means a 5,528.41% increase in expenses since 2005! Do you actually believe that reflects the reality?? Have the number of pages on WP actually increased 5,528.41% since 2005?? Does it seem even remotely plausible that server and administrative expenses have increased 5,528.41% since 2005??

Actually - yes. Very plausible indeed. Businesses in the $5 - 100m income bracket are my focus at work. An organization like WMF is a classic case. They became successful on the back of an ad-hoc team of pretty much "whoever helped out in the early days". Now they are bigger, more visible, and the focus changes a bit as the future plans gain depth.

Typical things that face such businesses: They need to fill out admin and peripheral roles (few early-stage businesses need an HR department). In WMF's case the servers used to go up and down like yoyos; they need to be reliable, more delivery, better backups, more developers. Its now rare they go down even though there's a lot more workload. They have expanded back-office functions - this year there's usability projects, donation and funding teams that didn't exist before. There's a sudden increase of organizational scope, instead of just one or two targets or areas with costs involves they're running multiple all in parallel and all growing, often also involving a wide geographic area. They need to build up a financial buffer, enough cash in the bank to see them safe if next year's bad or they have something unexpected happen; they may have formal paid advisors and professional analysts they didn't before, travel may go up as more outward-facing people attend more meetings, the newly employed professionals may need a market rate not a hobbyist rate for their paycheck, they may have to ditch or move people who were great for an early-day startup but who know they aren't skilled at the level now needed, recruitment itself isn't cheap, power costs or hosting methods (including duplicate hosting facilities) may change, number of page views (== data traffic) may radically increase, and so on.

I don't know the WMF back office any better than anyone else with access to the published data, so this isn't really a comment on WMF specifically. So I'm open to being told I'm wrong here. But these are typical and common things that many thriving businesses and non-profits in this situation and bracket undergo, and they can easily add millions to a budget. It's the difference between being a shoestring/garage structured organization, and an established organization with a proper fully operational back-office. Considering Wikimedia in 2005 and 2009/2010, very very plausible. More would not be untenable.

This post has been edited by FT2: Mon 28th December 2009, 12:42am