On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Tim Landscheidt
wrote:
> So the diversification for the purpose of the advancement of
> knowledge should not lie in making WMF immortal, but ensur-
> ing that it survives WMF's death.
>
Perhaps it will seem counterintuitive to you, but your reasoning is exactly
w
Hoi,
I totally agree that more money spend on Wikipedia is where we may be at
one end of the law of diminishing returns. However, that is Wikipedia. We
ask money for the Wikimedia Foundation and it has neglected a wide area of
projects where additional money will make a marked improvement.
As far
> On the general topic, the restricted grants received by the WMF have a
> beneficial effect that we could wish extended throughout its operations:
> because it is responsible to the grantor for producing the results demanded
> under the terms of the grant, the outcomes are much more likely to be
>
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> Spending and fundraising are two sides of the same coin. I remember that it
> was strongly suggested that money had to go through the WMF for all kinds
> of political reasons. At the time it was the Dutch chapter that received
> mon
The limiting resource for Wikipedia is not money, but Wikipedians. I could
only with great difficulty imagine useful ways to spend the amount of money
that we do receive (mostly, increased support for the participation of
individual WPedians in the overall movement, and the provision of
intellectua
Potato potato - availability can be interpreted in many different ways.
Thanks to the free license, we've covered a big part of that by design.
What activities the WMF should be doing wasn't quite the core of the
discussion though, but rather how big the WMF should be.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Feb 3, 20
Hoi,
You know, when the WMF is to be judged as an organisation, I would never
judge on a few incidents. I would judge it on its intrinsic value.
Personally and that is the highest level of commitment, personally I find
that we are doing a sterling job. Wikipedia is a top ten website in the
world. I
I have a couple of comments, mostly directed to WMF, about fundraising and
governance matters:
As a matter of good governance, I would not encourage WMF to be seeking
large external partners who do solid due-diligence about their grantees
until WMF demonstrates that it can complete an annual plann
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Quite the opposite. For several years now, the FDC recommendations for
> > applicant who come from rich countries have requested the Chapter
> > investigate diversifying their funding sources. All have tried, and their
> >
Hoi,
Remember Professor Tannenbaum of Minix fame. He also worked on distributed
Wikis.
http://fed.wiki.org/view/welcome-visitors/view/smallest-federated-wiki
Thanks,
GerardM
On 3 February 2016 at 17:00, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
> (anonymous) wrote:
>
> > […]
>
> > But 'getting big' is maybe n
Hoi,
Spending and fundraising are two sides of the same coin. I remember that it
was strongly suggested that money had to go through the WMF for all kinds
of political reasons. At the time it was the Dutch chapter that received
money. Long story short, after some animosity the WMF now has the whole
>
>
>
> Quite the opposite. For several years now, the FDC recommendations for
> applicant who come from rich countries have requested the Chapter
> investigate diversifying their funding sources. All have tried, and their
> success has varied depending on many factors. Some have actually been quit
(anonymous) wrote:
> […]
> But 'getting big' is maybe not the most important thing in the world.
> Working on our mission, is. And part of that, is security. The WMF is not
> in this world to play the odds, but rather to ensure that knowledge is
> freed, and stays free - most specifically by secu
I wish to respond to this specific statement:
On 3 February 2016 at 13:11, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
>
> When the WMF wants more funding, it can if it trusts its chapters. The
> current funding model has chapters rely totally on the vagaries of the
> funding committee. Legally they are distinct an
Hoi,
Thank you for your opinion. When you ask me, I will not do a WIkipedia
article. I find it highly stressful. I find that doing the edit is not so
bad, it is the lengthy stuff around it that amount to little. I rather do a
thousand Wikidata edits. That brings me to the other point. I do not
supp
Lodewijk wrote:
>When I'd have to guess, I'd say that we're beyond our 'optimal size'
>(budget wise) already.
>
>Especially the 'small donor' stream is rather sensitive towards tides. As
>long as Wikipedia is very popular and visible, we'll be doing well. But
>when we have a few more screwups at th
Hoi,
Thanks for a thoughtful piece. I will only respond to the first part, the
second part is imho out of scope.
When the WMF wants more funding, it can if it trusts its chapters. The
current funding model has chapters rely totally on the vagaries of the
funding committee. Legally they are distin
I can see the logic in trying for a different funding source, fundraising
banners and their messaging have been a cause of tension between the WMF and
the community; and asking our readers for money relies on our readers coming to
our desktop sites directly and is at risk in a world where our da
sam, i am not so convinced that what you write is true in too many
countries, namely that you think wikimedia gets too little of its funding
from other foundations. but i think it is fair enough that WMF tries to get
foundations funding on its home turf which it knows best. there are many US
based
>
>
> You raise a valid question: how many sources of funding does the Wikimedia
> Foundation need?
> The Bridgespan Group is a consultancy firm specialized in non-profits. They
> have been hired
> in the past by the Wikimedia Foundtion, for example in the period of
> strategy formation that
> led
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:19 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> Sue explained to me that the goal was to have WMF's budget be roughly 50%
> grants and 50% user contributions to guard against unexpected fragility
> with either of these funding sources.
If that was the goal, it does not seem to have been
Thanks Scott, this is important context. I think Wikimedia gets rather too
little of its funding from other foundations, through cooperations with
like-minded organizations, and from national/international initiatives to
educate and to preserve culture & knowledge.
Scott writes:
> MZMcBride wro
Hi Ad,
That is of course one side of the medal. And yes, lets be grateful for the
donations we receive day in, day out from our donors.
But 'getting big' is maybe not the most important thing in the world.
Working on our mission, is. And part of that, is security. The WMF is not
in this world to
Hi Scot,
You wrote:
Sue explained to me that the goal was to have WMF's budget be roughly 50%
> grants and 50% user contributions to guard against unexpected fragility
> with either of these funding sources.
[...]
> This was Sue's explanation. I don't know if this is still the explicit
> think
24 matches
Mail list logo