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
support Wikipedia, I support Wikimedia and where you stress over the large
number of staff, I stress over the lack of attention that other projects
Wikisource is a prime example of an easy target to make it really relevant.
Nothing is done, we are stuck in a Wikipedia rut. When you consider
quality, it can improve using Wikidata, it does not happen. It is not even
The point is very much that we could do more if we do not spend so much
effort on Wikipedia.
On 3 February 2016 at 15:59, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> 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.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org