Wikipedia and Wikimedia, Where's your money going Options

[SB_Johnny]

What I really don't understand is why WMF would use its website to divert 50% commission to Wikimedia UK. If they were getting 10% to cover Gift Aid administration, it would make sense - WMF getting more money by using the charity front in the UK and Wikimedia UK getting some funds - a win for both, but why give away half your UK income? Bizarre.

I'm a little confused here. Do the fundraising banners in the UK send people to Wikimedia UK?

[Peter Damian]

What I really don't understand is why WMF would use its website to divert 50% commission to Wikimedia UK. If they were getting 10% to cover Gift Aid administration, it would make sense - WMF getting more money by using the charity front in the UK and Wikimedia UK getting some funds - a win for both, but why give away half your UK income? Bizarre.

I'm a little confused here. Do the fundraising banners in the UK send people to Wikimedia UK?

Yes -

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Specia...e=en&country=GB


This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 19th November 2011, 11:26pm

[Peter Damian]

Richard having lapsed into silence again, I have left a message on Roger Bamkin's page http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=...854&oldid=15200 to see if he can resolve the mystery. Let's see.

[Peter Damian]

What I don't understand, given that Wikimedia's objective is free knowledge and culture, etc, is why Wikipedia removes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=461730422 any links to free knowledge that is not part of it. Is it part of the charitable objectives that only free knowledge which is part of the project or the movement is allowed? Do people who donate money realise this?

The link above is to a site which is digitising the works of Scotus, a philosopher who is very poorly covered on the net. The digitised edition is in public domain. It would seem to be part of the overall objectives of Wikimedia. So why is Wikimedia trying to destroy it?

[Peter Damian]

OK who was it who did this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=461737019

Not me.

[Abd]

OK who was it who did this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=461737019Not me.

Oh my, oh my. This was the kind of stuff that I confronted JzG and WMC over. Admin takes content position (web site of banned user is not to be linked to, period, because I say so). Admin enforces content position, blocking user who is parodying the user name of the admin.

Sure. Obvious troll. However, Wikipedia failed to create clean and clear recusal policy and to enforce it. So it's disregarded. Because sometimes the disregard is "efficient," i.e., everyone will agree that the account should be blocked, it's considered harmless.

It's not harmless. It converts disputes into personal pissing contests. Scibaby (Can't catch me!) and Raul654 (I'm in charge here, and I'll do what it takes, even if it means blocking half the internet.)

Process matters. Results also matter, but there are invisible results from poor process. It shows up in disputes that are prolonged beyond all reason. It shows up in some of the best users, in terms of expertise and writing skill, being banned, while idiots, even quite destructive idiots, remain, because they manage to avoid offending the oligarchs. Gradually the community is poisoned, and so is the rest of the planet, i.e., the normal expert, asked about Wikipedia, who considers the whole thing a bad joke, either because he or she tried editing, or they know another expert who did. None of this is immediately visible in the "result," i.e., article text. Unless you happen to be an expert and unless you actually take the time to find out exactly how the article got so bad.

[Peter Damian]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bastien Guerry" <bzg@altern.org>
To: "Erik Moeller" <erik@wikimedia.org>
Cc: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Celebrating the 2011 campaign


Hi Erik,

Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org writes:

>> Years ago, we used to worry that people wouldn't/didn't understand
>> that Wikimedia is a non-profit, that it's created by volunteers, that
>> it's international/multilingual. Many misconceptions still exist, but
>> for anyone paying attention, we've demolished them.

Congrats to all for this successful fundraising!

I am still observing a widespread confusion between wikipedia and
wikimedia. The confusion is not problematic /per se/, but I guess
it can be with respect to what each chapter does for the projects.
It is by far not easy to fix this problem, but I hope it's on the
to-do list for 2012!

Best,

I share this confusion.

[thekohser]

I guess Moeller's not aware that one of Wikimedia UK's most palpable tasks is their having to return checks to donors who've filled out the check payable to "Wikipedia".

[Kelly Martin]

I guess Moeller's not aware that one of Wikimedia UK's most palpable tasks is their having to return checks to donors who've filled out the check payable to "Wikipedia".

The most startling thing in there was the statement "Post cannot be handled by volunteers". Why the hell not?

[melloden]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bastien Guerry" <bzg@altern.org>
To: "Erik Moeller" <erik@wikimedia.org>
Cc: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Celebrating the 2011 campaign


Hi Erik,

Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org writes:

>> Years ago, we used to worry that people wouldn't/didn't understand
>> that Wikimedia is a non-profit, that it's created by volunteers, that
>> it's international/multilingual. Many misconceptions still exist, but
>> for anyone paying attention, we've demolished them.

Congrats to all for this successful fundraising!

I am still observing a widespread confusion between wikipedia and
wikimedia. The confusion is not problematic /per se/, but I guess
it can be with respect to what each chapter does for the projects.
It is by far not easy to fix this problem, but I hope it's on the
to-do list for 2012!

Best,

I share this confusion.

Wikimedia pays people to boss around the unpaid Wikipedians.

[thekohser]

Here is someone who was just almost "getting" the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation is mostly a scam; but then he shrugs his shoulders and figures, well, as long as some pennies are going toward "keeping the lights on", it's okay, he supposes.

What is it about Wikimedia that brings out such lazy donors, that they really don't give a shit where their money is actually going?

[melloden]

Here is someone who was just almost "getting" the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation is mostly a scam; but then he shrugs his shoulders and figures, well, as long as some pennies are going toward "keeping the lights on", it's okay, he supposes.

What is it about Wikimedia that brings out such lazy donors, that they really don't give a shit where their money is actually going?

The same reason most charities' (and I use that in the loosest sense) have lazy donors. Unless there's a big scandal, people just assume that their money is going to something generally good, which is enough for them to brush their hands and applaud themselves for helping the world.

[melloden]

I guess Moeller's not aware that one of Wikimedia UK's most palpable tasks is their having to return checks to donors who've filled out the check payable to "Wikipedia".

The most startling thing in there was the statement "Post cannot be handled by volunteers". Why the hell not?

I'm assuming they don't want volunteers messing with the checks and whatnot. How else will they be able to control the money for their own ends?

[thekohser]

The same reason most charities' (and I use that in the loosest sense) have lazy donors.

[Peter Damian]

I'd say (nearly?) everyone was pretty surprised when I sort of hemmed
and hawed and explained that yes, that's the use of some of the money,
but the budget is much larger than just that, and the main purpose of
the fundraiser is to raise money for more ambitious projects, like new
initiatives, grants to researchers, funding for travel and events,
grants to Wikimedia chapters, etc. Some were pretty annoyed, feeling it
was a bit of a bait-and-switch: the advertising gave them the impression
that their donation was being used to keep wikipedia.org on the air and
maintain the servers/software, and they didn't even realize the
Wikimedia Foundation did or planned to do any of the other things with
their money.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ary/071150.html

Edit: I see there's a reply. But why will this process take years? Surely all they need is to explain, on the fundraising banner, that some of the money will go on servers, but that most of the money will go on the pet projects of Sue, and of various eccentric characters in WMUK? Surely will take exactly one year, namely the next fund raiser? Am I missing something?

This is a PR process, though, and it takes chapters and volunteers as well
as the Foundation to move this focus. Considering how young Wikipedia and
the Wikimedia Foundation are and how much we've achieved, I'm optimistic
that shifting perception will take years but will work with chapter
building, university programs, and global outreach.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 3rd January 2012, 1:00pm

[dogbiscuit]

I'd say (nearly?) everyone was pretty surprised when I sort of hemmed
and hawed and explained that yes, that's the use of some of the money,
but the budget is much larger than just that, and the main purpose of
the fundraiser is to raise money for more ambitious projects, like new
initiatives, grants to researchers, funding for travel and events,
grants to Wikimedia chapters, etc. Some were pretty annoyed, feeling it
was a bit of a bait-and-switch: the advertising gave them the impression
that their donation was being used to keep wikipedia.org on the air and
maintain the servers/software, and they didn't even realize the
Wikimedia Foundation did or planned to do any of the other things with
their money.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ary/071150.html

Edit: I see there's a reply. But why will this process take years? Surely all they need is to explain, on the fundraising banner, that some of the money will go on servers, but that most of the money will go on the pet projects of Sue, and of various eccentric characters in WMUK? Surely will take exactly one year, namely the next fund raiser? Am I missing something?

This is a PR process, though, and it takes chapters and volunteers as well
as the Foundation to move this focus. Considering how young Wikipedia and
the Wikimedia Foundation are and how much we've achieved, I'm optimistic
that shifting perception will take years but will work with chapter
building, university programs, and global outreach.

There is a thought. Was it really misleading advertising? Bear in mind that Wiki UK Ltd is a UK company governed by UK laws and guidance and as such would have come under recently revised advertising guidance which now means that company web site advertising is regulated in the same way as other advertising.

If we can show that Wiki UK Ltd left the implication that the funds were essentially going on infrastructure, whereas they mainly want to spend it on their own pet projects then there is an issue to be reported to the ASA.

I think the wording is all a bit vague (keep the servers advertising free plus we'll do our own pet projects), but I think that if there was evidence that members of the public were confused about what they were donating for, then that might be sufficient. The fact that WMF do not actually need funds to keep the servers running for quite some time might be helpful.

If the WMF funds were properly invested and the organisation didn't fritter money away, when would the money run out?

[Peter Damian]

Mark wrote it very much the way I feel about it - I talk to lots of people, and they've been donating in early days or few years ago, but they stopped donating lately - and they are still reading our annual reports and what not. People who understand what Wikipedia is and what Wikimedia is stop supporting financially. Of course, they are way more interested and way more willing to help than average person, who'd donate only if we say "this is to keep lights running", but yet they turn away. This does tell something.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ary/071172.html

[EricBarbour]

This is another essential "hidden truth" about the WMF. It has enormous hubris, and runs around creating "projects" that the world doesn't need and never asked for. Like Wikinews, or Wikisource, or Wikiversity, or Wikipedias in artificial languages like Esperanto and Volapuk, that no one ever uses--except the fanboy hobbyists who run the volunteer "community".

I defy ANYONE to show me one case of Wikiversity being used in real-world education, effectively and
sustainably. Go ahead.

The WMF no longer exists to support Wikipedia, the reason for its existence in the first place.
The WMF exists to raise funds, pay fat salaries to Sue and Erik, and pretend to be "changing the world".

[Peter Damian]

That's the way the money goes http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikim...ary/007022.html

I'm currently putting together a proposal for purchasing tech equipment to support future events/activities at:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_Event_Tech
Input on this would be very welcome - please edit the page directly, or leave comments on the talk page.

In particular, I'm going to recommend that we purchase a couple of laptops this month, for volunteers to use at events/activities/when visiting the office (the OTRS workshop last weekend highlighted the need for getting these asap). Laptop recommendations would be much appreciated. The default option at the moment is a standard cheap Asus 15"/1.5GHz/4GB/500GB machine, with the pre-installed Windows wiped and Linux installed - but there must be better low-cost laptop options out there than that...

Thanks,
Mike

I recommend that we purchase 4 of these machines, at a total cost of £1,400.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_Event_Tech

I will admit that a lot of this reads like witchcraft to me Jon Davies WMUK 11:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Smoke and mirrors, witchcraft, whatever. And for once, Mr Dalton gets it right.

I don't see the point of buying Windows and then deleting it,
especially on a machine that is going to be used by lots of different
people. Pretty much everyone is comfortable using Windows, but a lot
of people aren't familiar with Linux. If you can save money by getting
a machine that doesn't come with a copy of Windows, then fine, but if
you've spent the money you might as well get the benefit. You can
dual-boot them if people really want Linux.

Using open source options where possible is a good policy, but it
shouldn't extend to throwing away software we already own.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikim...ary/007023.html

Yes but Microsoft is corporate and evil. Pay for it and delete it.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 14th January 2012, 11:06pm

[EricBarbour]

Yes but Microsoft is corporate and evil. Pay for it and delete it.

You've just discovered a textbook example of Wikipedia "freetards" doing things that defy all logic
and reason. A nice fat juicy one too.

If they really wanted to save $$$, the idiots would buy used or reconditioned laptops, thus
Saving the Earth whilst also saving a few pounds. Used laptops often have usable Windows
installs on them, sometimes all they need is a fresh install of whatever OS (Ubuntu is great
for that purpose). Firefox, LibreOffice etc. are all readily available to use in Windows, Mac,
or Linux.

One can easily purchase used/reconditioned netbooks for less than $300 or about £200.

I even know dealers in the US who are great sources:
Surplus Computers
Mwave
Geeks.com

But of course, we're talking about idiots here. Peel is a sad case. Yes, you may quote me.
I bet he hates Windows because his surfing tendencies end up filling a Windows PC with
malware. Porn sites, gambling sites, etc. Seen that a million times.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 15th January 2012, 12:44am