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 the WMF (sorry, but I can't really >find a better phrase for the past few months, communication wise at >least), being a credible organisation towards donors might proove harder >than was the case so far.
You mean that small donations provide accountability? :-) I agree. I think this is a feature, not a bug. I'd be happy for the Wikimedia Foundation to be about a tenth of the size it is currently: around 30 full-time employees, with additional money allocated for contractors as needed. When people tell me that they want to donate to Wikipedia, I tell them to make an edit. I'd much rather have people truly contributing to free knowledge. The Wikimedia Foundation made a series of choices such headquartering in San Francisco and hiring over 200 full-time employees that make it very unsympathetic to me. It certainly doesn't cost anywhere near $80 million a year to keep the sites online and running. Sam Klein wrote: >It also makes for a very inward-focused and narrow sort of strategy: "How >can we make our few banner projects work better / attract more people" >rather than "how can we make knowledge more accessible to everyone in the >world, including by supporting and enhancing other excellent projects". > >If you start with funders and organizations whose missions are similar to >Wikimedia's, working with them on a grant is a way of making them part of >the community: a successful engagement results in them learning more about >the impact and value of our mission, and supporting or encouraging more >work along those lines with their other grantees. It also builds a >relationship and trust within the circle of similarly-minded organizations >(in this example, grantors; but this applies equally well to other sorts >of partners), which can be drawn on in the future if there were a real >crisis or urgent need. The counter-argument here is that having a large and secure budget gives organizations more opportunities to spend on non-necessities. Does the Wikimedia Foundation need six legal counsels (not including the general counsel and two legal directors), eight community liaisons, or a mobile apps team? I'm sure these are all great people doing excellent work, but when I see how much the Wikimedia Foundation staff has ballooned (and frankly bloated), it makes me sad. If you want diversification, build up the other Wikimedia chapters instead. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>