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 as I am concerned your whole argument is only relevant when we only
consider Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia is overrated in that it gets too much
attention, too much money and has too many people repeating the same old
old.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 4 February 2016 at 04:07, David Goodman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
> intellectual resources). That we rely on individual people involves them
> with us--I have known many people go from being readers to being donor and
> then to contributors of content.
>
> We need organizations to contribute also, and, similarly, what we need them
> for is to contribute content, but in this case, we are talking about
> contributing existing materials, not writing them. It is not asking them
> for money will see them being more involved; rather, asking them for actual
> intellectual resources which cost them nothing to donate --and which only
> they can donate--will lead to continuing involvement, as they see the use
> that people make of their contributions. Unlike money, there is no other
> source for this material.
>
> The most important contribution of WP is not the encyclopedia. The most
> important contribution is the demonstration of the role of ordinary
> individual involvement in activities that used to be done only by an elite,
> or by formal organizations--that activity without formal coordination but
> by cooperation can -- in at least some areas -- lead to results that not
> only equal but surpass what academic and publishing and other cultural
> bureaucracies can accomplish. The true benefit will come a people apply
> this to other aspects of their life. To the extent that this is the true
> benefit, everything that we need to do centrally detracts from our
> mission. That we depend only on small individual contributions, and that
> they come to us even with our minimal efforts, is our strength, not our
> weakness.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > 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. It runs it on an extremely low budget compared to other top ten
> > websites. This week a new WIkipedia is ready to become the next iteration
> > and as it is a rate occasion, it is a reason to celebrate. It is for the
> > talking heads to update their power points <grin> for me to make a power
> > point </grin>.
> >
> > When people consider how well how well others do from our work. Do
> consider
> > that we are in the business of disseminating knowledge. When others make
> a
> > lot of money and we are still a top 10 website, we are doing extremely
> well
> > indeed. When others do well by us, and serve oodles of information, we
> are
> > a clear winner.
> >
> > Our fundraising is great. It makes us lots of money and there are lots of
> > worthwhile things we can do with it. It is all part of the same
> relatively
> > low budget. We could do more. We choose to focus on Wikipedia. That is a
> > mistake but ok. We could do better as a result and not spend more money.
> >
> > When we make more money, when we operate an endowment fund, it makes us
> an
> > investor. We should not invest in oil, guns ... we could invest in green
> > energy, it would offset the damage the Internet, our work, does through
> CO2
> > everywhere. It would show our responsibility now and for the future.
> >
> > When we think that we have a PR disaster on our hand, do consider the
> > extend it is one of our own making.. Personally speaking I find the
> > continuous sniping a disgrace. So much time and effort is wasted because
> > shit happens. It does, get over it. Do better next time and the next time
> > is always more convoluted and impossible to achieve. Assume good faith,
> > expect that things go wrong, deal with it, clean up the mess and move on.
> > Do not continuously sing the refrain of what went wrong.
> >
> > It truly makes us miserable.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On 3 February 2016 at 18:38, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 planning process
> > that
> > > is aligned with the good practices already being demonstrated by
> > affiliates
> > > and aligned with the expectations of the FDC. I feel that an external
> > > partner who conducted a thorough evaluation of WMF's current annual
> plan
> > > would find it to be mediocre at best and I question whether a large
> > > institutional partner would be willing to invest six-figure or
> > seven-figure
> > > sums in WMF given the state of WMF's current annual plan. I am glad to
> > see
> > > that WMF is in the process of addressing this shortcoming, and I hope
> for
> > > good outcomes this year.
> > >
> > > Another issue that WMF needs to address is the state of its board. The
> > > handling of the situation with respect to two board members (the
> removal
> > of
> > > James for opaque reasons, Jimbo's unprofessional comments about the
> > removal
> > > of James, the appointment of Arnnon, and the Board's apparent decision
> > not
> > > to remove Arnnon even after learning of his role in illegal activities)
> > > demonstrates significant problems in the board, and if I had millions
> of
> > > dollars to give in grants I surely would not entrust those funds to the
> > WMF
> > > until there is a major overhaul of the board. Also, if I was an
> > affiliate,
> > > I would have a lot of questions about the wisdom of fundraising on
> behalf
> > > of WMF given the serious PR liability that WMF has become, and I tend
> to
> > > think that at this time affiliates would be wise to put a considerable
> > > distance between ourselves and WMF because of the PR and fundraising
> > > collateral damage that we could receive from problems at WMF.
> > >
> > > WMF needs to get its house in order.
> > >
> > > Speaking in my personal capacity only,
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Sydney Poore <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> [email protected]
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > > success has varied depending on many factors. Some have actually
> > been
> > > > > quite
> > > > > > successful - I refer in particular to the recently announced
> grant
> > by
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I can also add that AFAIK the Foundation has never made the
> > > > > diversification of funds for chapters a hard rule. Rather, it
> > > encouraged
> > > > > organizations to seek alternative funding, when feasible. We have
> had
> > > > > historically cases of chapters that admitted they could relatively
> > > easily
> > > > > get external support, but just have preferred not to try to get it.
> > > > >
> > > > > All in all we should balance two things: (a) resources are finite.
> If
> > > we
> > > > > can easily get additional funding, especially in the Global North
> > > > > countries, that's great! We'll have more to do core work in the
> areas
> > > > > where it is not possible. (b) applying for external funding should
> > not
> > > > > divert us from our main mission, and should not make chapters jump
> > the
> > > > > loops of insane bureaucracy, irrational strain of effort, etc.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Speaking as a former member of the FDC and current member of Simple
> > > Annual
> > > > Plan grant committee, I agree with Dariusz but add that a good use of
> > > > external resources can add more value than just the funded dollar
> > amount.
> > > >
> > > > Instead of speaking of "funding" we should substitute "resources".
> By
> > > > seeking out external resources, which is more than external grant
> > money,
> > > > the wikimedia affiliates can build much greater capacity in a
> > particular
> > > > region or topic area (GLAM or STEM or Healthcare.)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe we have been relatively successful so far. However, I
> agree
> > > > > that the Foundation perhaps is not using its full potential in
> > engaging
> > > > > chapters in a dialogue how to effectively address the local
> > supporters
> > > > > (both individuals and on an institutional level). We should use the
> > > > > extensive network of committed organizations to our advantage.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is key to the future of the wikimedia movement to identify
> > > institutional
> > > > partners (big and small) who can advance the wikimedia mission.
> > > >
> > > > It is happening now with many affiliate organizations, and growing,
> but
> > > it
> > > > is not well documented or analysed yet. We need better analysis about
> > the
> > > > ways that external partners are benefiting from their relationship
> with
> > > the
> > > > wikimedia movement and the wikimedia movement is benefiting from
> > > > relationships with external partners.
> > > >
> > > > This needs to be a joint dialogue between WMF and the affiliated
> > > > organizations including User Groups. I hope that people will join the
> > WMF
> > > > strategic planning discussions and include their thoughts about
> > > developing
> > > > external resources that can benefit the wikimedia movement. Also,
> this
> > > is a
> > > > topic for Wikimedia Conference in Berlin.
> > > >
> > > > Warm regards,
> > > > Sydney Poore
> > > > User:FloNight
> > > > Wikipedia in Residence
> > > > at Cochrane
> > > > WikiWomen's User Group
> > > > Wiki Project Med Foundation User Group
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [email protected]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [email protected]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [email protected]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
