[Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

[Foundation-l] Reader script is...

Re: [Foundation-l] Status of...

Gregory Kohs

8 Oct 2009 8 Oct '09

5:34 p.m.

Greetings. The Charity Navigator site has evaluated and rated the Wikimedia Foundation: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212 Despite an overall three-star rating (out of four), WMF was only rated two stars for Organization Efficency. This is described by Charity Navigator as "Meets or nearly meets industry standards but underperforms most charities in its Cause". The Charity Navigator site further states: "Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least 75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And 9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive zero points for their overall organizational efficiency score." While the WMF seemed to be narrowly meeting these guidelines (according to the site's "Revenue/Expenses Trend" histogram) in perhaps 2007, it appears that in 2008, the trend got decidedly worse. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the criteria and/or the graphic. But, the 2-out-of-4 stars rating is decidedly clear. For comparison, witness an organization cited by Charity Navigator as "similar" to the WMF -- the Reason Foundation -- and see how their Expenses are a much larger portion of revenue for them, and thus obtain a 3-star rating: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7481 I am wondering (and I suppose others may be, too) whether the staff and board feel that Charity Navigator is a reputable and credible measurement service, and if so, are you satisfied with receiving two out of four stars in this area, and if not what do you plan to change to improve the rating next year? Gregory Kohs

Show replies by date

Thomas Dalton

8 Oct 8 Oct

5:47 p.m.

2009/10/8 Gregory Kohs <thekohser(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Despite an overall three-star rating (out of four), WMF was only rated two stars for Organization Efficency. This is described by Charity Navigator as "Meets or nearly meets industry standards but underperforms most charities in its Cause". The Charity Navigator site further states:

The WMF is unique in being so massively volunteer driven. The WMF exists to run the servers and handle the admin, almost everything else is done by volunteers and doesn't appear on the income statement. It's inevitable that the WMF will spend a lot of its money on admin. If you include volunteer time on the income statement, even at a nominal rate of $1/hr or something, then we would be spending almost all our resources on programmes.

George Herbert

5:53 p.m.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2009/10/8 Gregory Kohs <thekohser(a)gmail.com>om>:

The WMF is not entirely unique in that regard; many other charities are largely volunteer (cf Red Cross). However, the "Foundation as professionally organized core around which a much larger volunteer activity rotates" is fairly rare. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Thomas Dalton

6:28 p.m.

2009/10/8 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

The WMF is not entirely unique in that regard; many other charities are largely volunteer (cf Red Cross).

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross#Activities: "Altogether, there are about 97 million people worldwide who serve with the ICRC, the International Federation, and the National Societies. And there are about 12,000 total full time staff members." That is a ratio of about 8,000 volunteers per staff member. The Wikimedia movement has perhaps 40 staff including the WMF and chapters. At the same ratio, that would give us 320,000 volunteers. I don't know how many volunteers we have, but I think it is rather more than that. Obviously, just counting volunteers doesn't give the whole picture, but it's the best I can do without lots more research. So, perhaps we aren't quite unique, but we are more extreme that any other similar charity movement I know of.

George Herbert

7:34 p.m.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2009/10/8 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

The WMF is not entirely unique in that regard; many other charities are largely volunteer (cf Red Cross).

It's hard to compare volunteer activity levels across different types of projects - WMF, Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross, etc. One could attempt to, grading them by involvement and committment level (Arbcom, OTRS volunteers, normal admins, active editors, inactive or intermittent editors, distinct IPs who contributed something, etc). There are on and off discussions about those statistics. Red Cross volunteers do a little bit of prep work, typically, and a little training each year. And then a disaster hits and they drop everything and respond. It's hard to compare committment to drop your life and work and go rush off to a disaster for a few days or week, with the constant low to moderate involvement of our core volunteer groups. They're qualatatively different types of committment. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Thomas Dalton

7:43 p.m.

2009/10/8 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Red Cross volunteers do a little bit of prep work, typically, and a little training each year. And then a disaster hits and they drop everything and respond.

Are most Red Cross volunteers directly involved in disaster response? I would expect most of them to be doing fundraising, education and publicity, and long term projects.

George Herbert

7:45 p.m.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2009/10/8 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

Red Cross volunteers do a little bit of prep work, typically, and a little training each year. And then a disaster hits and they drop everything and respond.

Are most Red Cross volunteers directly involved in disaster response? I would expect most of them to be doing fundraising, education and publicity, and long term projects.

My experience - which may not be typical - is that they have a few people doing training instruction (first aid / first responder training, disaster training etc), a lot of people who are actual disaster responders (with much of the first group, and many more), and relatively few doing other stuff. I don't know what their statistics are, though, so I don't know if my experience is statistically valid across their volunteer set... -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Thomas Dalton

7:49 p.m.

2009/10/8 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2009/10/8 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

Red Cross volunteers do a little bit of prep work, typically, and a little training each year. And then a disaster hits and they drop everything and respond.

Are most Red Cross volunteers directly involved in disaster response? I would expect most of them to be doing fundraising, education and publicity, and long term projects.

The British Red Cross has a list of ways to volunteer: http://www.redcross.org.uk/TLC.asp?id=75777 Emergency response is just one part of one item on that list.

Anthony

7:55 p.m.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

The British Red Cross has a list of ways to volunteer: http://www.redcross.org.uk/TLC.asp?id=75777 Emergency response is just one part of one item on that list.

I gave blood once. Am I a Red Cross volunteer? I once helped out at a blood drive when I was in high school. Was I a Red Cross volunteer, and if so, for how long? The WMF is unique, but I'm not sure that's a good excuse - more like part of the problem.

Delirium

8 p.m.

George Herbert wrote:

...

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Are most Red Cross volunteers directly involved in disaster response? I would expect most of them to be doing fundraising, education and publicity, and long term projects.

The Red Cross does a lot of things besides disaster response and first aid. I know a lot of people who've volunteered for them, and not a single one has ever gone to a disaster location. My experience might also not be typical, of course, but all the volunteers I know do things like help out with blood drives, collecting blankets for the homeless, organizing and staffing fundraisers, etc. -Mark

Anthony

7:47 p.m.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2009/10/8 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

The WMF is not entirely unique in that regard; many other charities are largely volunteer (cf Red Cross).

Depends how you define "volunteers". How many people were eligible to vote in the last board election? I have no idea the number, but I guess that's a reasonable definition of "volunteers".

Thomas Dalton

7:55 p.m.

2009/10/8 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:

...

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2009/10/8 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

The WMF is not entirely unique in that regard; many other charities are largely volunteer (cf Red Cross).

Depends how you define "volunteers". How many people were eligible to vote in the last board election? I have no idea the number, but I guess that's a reasonable definition of "volunteers".

Indeed, it is difficult to define fairly. The board election requires you to be an active volunteer that has already contributed significantly - I expect the 97 million figure is broader than that.

Anthony

8:06 p.m.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2009/10/8 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2009/10/8 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

The WMF is not entirely unique in that regard; many other charities are largely volunteer (cf Red Cross).

Depends how you define "volunteers". How many people were eligible to vote in the last board election? I have no idea the number, but I guess that's a reasonable definition of "volunteers".

Indeed, it is difficult to define fairly. The board election requires you to be an active volunteer that has already contributed significantly - I expect the 97 million figure is broader than that.

Probably is. But it's probably easier to narrow down that number than it is to expand it. Unless they really are counting every person who ever gave blood. And it's not clear what that number means anyway. Is a high ratio good or bad? It could be either, depending on the circumstances.

Thomas Dalton

8:17 p.m.

2009/10/8 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:

...

And it's not clear what that number means anyway. Is a high ratio good or bad? It could be either, depending on the circumstances.

Of course. It isn't a useful metric in itself, it's just a factor that you need to account for when interpreting proportions of revenue spent of different areas.

Anthony

8:38 p.m.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2009/10/8 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:

And it's not clear what that number means anyway. Is a high ratio good or bad? It could be either, depending on the circumstances.

Of course. It isn't a useful metric in itself, it's just a factor that you need to account for when interpreting proportions of revenue spent of different areas.

Why? If donor money is spent on administrative expenditures, but there are lots of volunteers compared to the number of staff, is that supposed to make donors feel better? If there's only one staff person and a million volunteers, does that mean that one staff member can spend 50% of the revenue on administrative expenses? Why do you need to account for the paid staff to volunteer ratio when judging the ratio of administrative to total expenditures?

Andrew Gray

8:13 p.m.

2009/10/8 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

2009/10/8 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

The WMF is not entirely unique in that regard; many other charities are largely volunteer (cf Red Cross).

I think before we get too tied up in using the Red Cross as an example, we should note that it doesn't have ninety-two million volunteers; it has less than a quarter of that number. Most of them are not volunteers as we would meaningfully use the term, but are instead described variously as "members" or "supporters" - in other words, people who give money. "The Movement currently has some 97 million members and volunteers throughout the world, including some 20 million active volunteers" http://www.ifrc.org/voluntee/index.asp?navid=12 As to the 11,000 staff... well, the American Red Cross alone states that it has "more than half a million volunteers and 35,000 employees". I think we're on a bit of a hiding to nothing trying to make a meaningful comparison here, because we don't know how vaguely meaningful the source figures are, beyond "at least partly wrong". As to your second question, a tenth of that figure - about 30,000 - seems right as a number for "active volunteers"; it's about the order of magnitude of people active enough to vote for the Board, for example. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Michael Snow

6:17 p.m.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

2009/10/8 Gregory Kohs <thekohser(a)gmail.com>om>:

This is true enough in general, though as mentioned there are other nonprofits that also benefit from volunteer resources on a large scale. But that's often not something a ratings site will consider in determining "similarity" of organizations, when it even gets beyond evaluation with one-size-fits-all formulas. Not that these issues are easily reduced to formulas, as we have already found in various settings where it's a challenge to adequately express the scope of what Wikimedia volunteers do. We do pay attention to the efficiency of operations and how funds are spent, not merely for the sake of appearances but as something valuable in its own right. With that in mind, it's more useful to look directly at ways of achieving greater efficiency than to debate how important it is for us to meet arbitrary standards. So in that sense I'd actually consider arguing over the propriety of covering meal expenses, even with the possible cultural insensitivity involved, a more valuable discussion. --Michael Snow

Erik Moeller

9 Oct 9 Oct

2:11 a.m.

2009/10/8 Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)verizon.net>et>:

...

We do pay attention to the efficiency of operations and how funds are spent, not merely for the sake of appearances but as something valuable in its own right. With that in mind, it's more useful to look directly at ways of achieving greater efficiency than to debate how important it is for us to meet arbitrary standards.

Indeed. Overhead ratios actually say almost nothing about wastefulness or impact. It is possible to be utterly wasteful in spending on program services, and it's possible to have zero impact with very little overhead. It's possible to make a dramatic "overhead" investment that's going to have an equally dramatic impact on your ability to do your work, and it's possible to make no overhead investments and thereby endanger your ability to function. Think about some examples of large and small "overhead", and then think about whether they are wasteful or not, and you will find quickly how limited this entire conceptual model is. Because donors pressure non-profits to reduce "overhead" without a rational basis, and non-profits respond sometimes in ways that damage their mission, and sometimes in ways that are unethical (deliberately mislabeling costs), the use of overhead ratios is highly controversial among those who study, understand, and advise the non-profit sector. See, for example, this article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review: "A vicious cycle is leaving nonprofits so hungry for decent infrastructure that they can barely function as organizations—let alone serve their beneficiaries. The cycle starts with funders’ unrealistic expectations about how much running a nonprofit costs, and results in nonprofits’ misrepresenting their costs while skimping on vital systems—acts that feed funders’ skewed beliefs." http://www.ssireview.org/images/articles/2009FA_feature_Gregory_Howard.pdf See also this article along similar lines: http://www.bridgespan.org/nonprofit-overhead-costs-2008.aspx And for some serious empirical data, the non-profit overhead study is one of the largest attempts to study the use of efficiency ratios in the non-profit sector, and it found many "glaring functional expense reporting errors" in non-profit's 990 statements, which is a response to the pressure to show high "efficiency" ratios. This goes to the extreme point of organizations reporting their entire fundraising costs as program expenses, in contradiction with their own audited financial statements: http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/FAQ/index.php?category=51 http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/kbfiles/520/brief%204.pdf Because misreporting (and sometimes overreporting) of overhead costs is so common as the above document shows, it's very hard to make any accurate comparisons of different non-profits on that basis, even if you assume that the overhead percentage has value to begin with. The Stanford article also shows the dramatic difference in overhead costs in different business sectors -- what's appropriate "overhead" depends in large part on what you're doing. If you're hiring a lot of high-skill workers, then your HR department better be sophisticated enough to surface the best candidates, etc. The idea of spidering 990s to create some automatic assessment number may sound useful in theory, but its practical value is low, especially without understanding the above context. If you're a sophisticated donor and you understand the implications of a) different sectors having different needs and different efficiencies, b) reporting standards and accuracy varying wildly across different organizations, you might be able to derive some value from it. But the only way to find out whether a non-profit is doing good work is to study its impact, and understand how it's using its money. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

Andrew Gray

8 Oct 8 Oct

5:55 p.m.

2009/10/8 Gregory Kohs <thekohser(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

"Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least 75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And 9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive zero points for their overall organizational efficiency score." While the WMF seemed to be narrowly meeting these guidelines (according to the site's "Revenue/Expenses Trend" histogram) in perhaps 2007, it appears that in 2008, the trend got decidedly worse. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the criteria and/or the graphic. But, the 2-out-of-4 stars rating is decidedly clear.

As far as I can see, the "...at least 75% ... at least 65% ... less than a third" relates to the proportion of program expenses to overall expenditure, which as the table and pie-chart shows is ~66% for the WMF. The histogram doesn't seem to directly relate to those numbers or that criteria; it shows absolute program expenses against absolute overall *income*, not expenditure. I think interpreting the proportions of the histogram using the rules applied to a different ratio is going to get confusing. (The reason it seems to have got "substantially worse" is a $4.3m increase in income against a $800k increase in expenses, compared to an increase of $1m in income versus $800k in expenses from 2006-2007. I do not know to what extent this will continue in 09.) WMF could no doubt spend a lot more in program expenses, though defining exactly what those are is a pretty fun game. But it's certainly not spending as inefficiently as the histogram might seem to suggest.

...

For comparison, witness an organization cited by Charity Navigator as "similar" to the WMF -- the Reason Foundation -- and see how their Expenses are a much larger portion of revenue for them, and thus obtain a 3-star rating: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7481

Again, expenses/revenue isn't where the rating comes from; it's program expenses/total expenses. Reason are indeed doing better at this than WMF - 87% versus 65% - but it's important to distinguish between the two ratios. It's interesting to note that Reason show the same expenses pattern as WMF; they have program expenses increasing at a fairly linear $1m/year, but unlike WMF their income is plateauing - they'll be exceeding their income this year at that rate! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

phoebe ayers

9:10 p.m.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote: <snip>

...

WMF could no doubt spend a lot more in program expenses, though defining exactly what those are is a pretty fun game. But it's certainly not spending as inefficiently as the histogram might seem to suggest.

Right. What's a program expense? What *should* be a program expense? * keeping servers online? * Wikimania? * producing how-to guides? * improving mediawiki? Most of what we've had the Foundation do, historically, don't count as 'programs' in the traditional charity sense; the WMF started simply to make administrative tasks easier (e.g. running the site, running the office). By that measure, many of us have historically felt that having the WMF mostly spend money on administrative tasks, and very little on 'programs', is *ideal*. But that seems quite difficult to measure by traditional charity-assessment standards. Even the Red Cross puts a great deal of money into running their emergency missions, even if the personnel on the ground are volunteers. Our infrastructure that makes it possible for volunteers to participate is relatively steady-state, by contrast, and low-cost. Since all the documentation is readily available, like Mike Snow said it seems like a more valuable discussion to talk about what we are actually spending money on and what we should be spending money on (cf strategic planning) than to talk about what a 3rd party's rough assessment of what we're spending money on. What should WMF money go towards? -- phoebe

Nathan

9:31 p.m.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:10 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Right. What's a program expense? What *should* be a program expense? * keeping servers online? * Wikimania? * producing how-to guides? * improving mediawiki? <snip> Since all the documentation is readily available, like Mike Snow said it seems like a more valuable discussion to talk about what we are actually spending money on and what we should be spending money on (cf strategic planning) than to talk about what a 3rd party's rough assessment of what we're spending money on. What should WMF money go towards? -- phoebe

Exactly. "Program" expenses in the Wikimedia sense might be those that go to the generation and distribution of content; technology expenses, then, and anything the Foundation spends on events like Wikipedia Academies. By this measure, the usability initiative is a program expense but fundraising costs are not. It's clear that some level of fundraising expenses is necessary; and if the expenditures on fundraising produce reasonable returns (i.e., increased donations) then that's great. Whether or not the spending on fundraising versus technology meets some golden ratio isn't that relevant, and comparisons to other (dramatically different) organizations aren't very useful. So the question then becomes, what should be done with the money now that it's been raised? And that's a very important question that I think the Foundation is grappling with, because the answers aren't necessarily obvious and few options will have universal agreement. The strategy project is an attempt to hammer out some good ideas and a general direction for the Foundation. I'm not sure the wiki format being used is really ideal, but I suppose its the best choice among the various ways to allow engagement from the community. Either way, folks with a serious interest in how the Foundation spends its money should be contributing there.

Gregory Kohs

8:31 p.m.

And yet, for organizational efficiency, the Red Cross earned three stars from Charity Navigator, rather than only two. Also, the CEO of Red Cross was compensated with 0.01% of the expenses. I'm not sure of Sue Gardner's total compensation these days, but it was last reported at a half-year rate of $75,000, wasn't it? A similar ratio as the Red Cross would put Wikimedia Foundation expenditures at $1.5 billion per year, based on CEO compensation. Something doesn't compute. The responses thus far trumpet the unusual energy and resources derived from such a disproportionately large volunteer base. I have to agree! Indeed, in 2007, there were about as many volunteers doing just as much work, but the staff was only about one-fourth what it is today. What is substantially different about the Wikimedia Foundation's mission and accomplishments today than were already in place in 2007? My only striking conclusion is how much more money the Foundation is now drawing in on the revenue side, and that the GFDL license was altered and swapped. The encyclopedias seem about the same as they were in 2007, just bigger. Commons is about the same. Wikiquote seems pretty close to the way it was in 2007. Is it possible that what we're witnessing is fairly plainly geometrically-increasing fundraising, which is supporting a geometrically-increasing staff, which then feeds back into the cycle again? Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Gregory Kohs

9 p.m.

Godwin says: ++++++++++ My long-time friends at the Reason Foundation wish very much that they and their programs could have the same kind of impact in the world that the Wikimedia Foundation and its programs have. Compare, for example, the Alexa rankings of wikipedia.org and reason.com. Full disclosure: I'm a contributing editor to Reason magazine. --Mike ++++++++++ Your comment about "Reason" carries with it at least two premises: (1) That the Wikimedia Foundation's "impact" is a favorable one. (Many would disagree, at least according to Andrew Keen, the staff of Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book, and just about every high school teacher I've ever talked to about Wikipedia.) (2) That Alexa rankings reflect "impact in the world". If you've got 300,000 living persons checking their biography every day for defamation, I'm sure the Alexa rankings are going to notice that. Greg

George Herbert

9:14 p.m.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Gregory Kohs <thekohser(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Your comment about "Reason" carries with it at least two premises: (1) That the Wikimedia Foundation's "impact" is a favorable one. (Many would disagree, at least according to Andrew Keen, the staff of Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book, and just about every high school teacher I've ever talked to about Wikipedia.)

I have had a number of excellent deep discussions with high school, college, grade school teachers about Wikipedia and the ones who pay more attention than "Someone copied the Wikipedia entry as an essay" generally have a more nuanced and productive view of things. They are aware we aren't a primary source, and the risks of any secondary source... Such as Britannica and World Book, too. I know EB and World Book contributors who are very upset about Wikipedia's rise, and many who see it as a godsend to information propogation around the world, on the order of the rise of the Web and of Google. There are lost jobs at EB and WB - but the Post Office has lost jobs due to email and skype and cellphones. Technology has an evolving effect on the world. My grandfather owned and operated the last cooperage in San Francisco in the era between the world wars - and sold it off, seeing the rise of the steel barrel as being a world-ending event for that industry as they became more commonly available. The new owners thought he was a fool for selling, and were out of business a few years later. The industry my college degree is in (Naval Architecture, and the shipbuilding industry) is for the most part dead in the United States compared to when I graduated - I saw the writing on the wall and learned computers too, and that's what's paid the bills. This is part of life. Either you learn to live with change or it runs you over eventually. Companies that don't die; people that don't end up unemployed or working in much less skilled jobs eventually. This isn't Wikipedia's fault - it's the pace of change, over the last 200 years at least.

...

(2) That Alexa rankings reflect "impact in the world". If you've got 300,000 living persons checking their biography every day for defamation, I'm sure the Alexa rankings are going to notice that.

Greg, your glass is perpetually half empty. This makes you a not so useful critic. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Anthony

9:39 p.m.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

One would think from these discussions you might have learned that Wikipedia, Britannica, and World Book are tertiary sources. My wife is a high school teacher, but she doesn't really pay more attention than "Someone copied the Wikipedia entry for their homework". You'd think as a Calculus teacher she wouldn't run into that very often, but actually it happens all the time.

Ray Saintonge

10 Oct 10 Oct

7:23 a.m.

Anthony wrote:

...

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

One would think from these discussions you might have learned that Wikipedia, Britannica, and World Book are tertiary sources.

What is accomplished by trying to label encyclopedias as tertiary sources? They probably are, but so what?

...

My wife is a high school teacher, but she doesn't really pay more attention than "Someone copied the Wikipedia entry for their homework". You'd think as a Calculus teacher she wouldn't run into that very often, but actually it happens all the time.

I hope that she makes sure that they give Wikipedia proper credit. It seems like a great teaching moment for her. More interesting for us would be why these kids use Wikipedia. Are the authorized proprietary textbooks that bad? Ec

Anthony

12:48 p.m.

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Anthony wrote:

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

They are aware we aren't a primary source, and the risks of any secondary source... Such as Britannica and World Book, too.

One would think from these discussions you might have learned that Wikipedia, Britannica, and World Book are tertiary sources.

What is accomplished by trying to label encyclopedias as tertiary sources? They probably are, but so what?

That's why they generally shouldn't be used, even at a high school level. Encyclopedias are summaries of information. At a high school level, most students should be making their own summaries. Furthermore, every step you take on the [[telephone game]] of information you lose reliability. Interestingly, Wikipedia tries (through the NPOV policy) to be a tertiary source without these limitations, but ultimately that is impossible. You inherently introduce a point of view when you summarize other sources. Perhaps you don't introduce *bias*, if you define bias as an improper or incorrect point of view. But you have to decide what to include and what to leave out, and that choice is determined by what you believe to be most relevant to the truth (assuming you're intellectually honest, anyway).

...

I hope that she makes sure that they give Wikipedia proper credit. It seems like a great teaching moment for her.

I don't know about a great teaching moment, but she warns them that plagiarism is against school policy and that if they get caught again she's going to report them to the administration. If they gave Wikipedia credit, then instead of a plagiarism warning they'd just get a zero :). These particular assignments are not supposed to be copied at all. I guess I should point out at this point that this is an online high school.

...

More interesting for us would be why these kids use Wikipedia. Are the authorized proprietary textbooks that bad?

No, kids just understand that they're going to get caught if they plagiarize from their textbooks. What they don't realize is that the "NPOV" language of Wikipedia tends to be glaringly obvious, even when you're talking about calculus. I guess in that sense it is a teaching moment - one about honesty. Still don't know about a great one. I would think by high school kids have already learned whether or not they're capable of getting away with deceit - but maybe not, not all teachers (or parents) are as attentive as my wife. On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

I think that education systems are thoroughly shook up about the internet.

Definitely agreed, although I think this has gotten much better over the past decade or so.

...

To take Wikipedia "as a serious source of information" will take time, and depend less on what we do than on what they do.

I honestly can't see it ever happening. Not unless Wikipedia abandons "anyone can edit", anyway. "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information." - I think that quote from The Office pretty much sums it up. I've heard Wikipedians make similar statements with a perfectly straight face, and I don't think they, unlike the writers of The Office, were doing so with tongue-in-cheek. On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:41 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2009/10/10 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:

"I read it on Wikipedia" is taken as about equivalent to "I read it on the Internet".

Which is, of course, entirely true. My consistent line for press calls is: We're useful but we're not "reliable" as such, so always always go to the references. If there aren't any, that tells you something too.

I'm glad you understand it and are preaching it, but there don't seem to be enough people doing so. I've created a guide detailing best practices for reading Wikipedia. If you'd like to hand out copies along with your "not 'reliable' as such" speeches, we could probably work something out. http://akahele.org/2009/07/how-to-read-wikipedia/ Maybe you could even change your tagline from "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "good enough knowledge, depending on what your purpose is". You should probably get permission from Jimbo before using his quote, since that quote was from a paid speaking arrangement which was completely unrelated to the WMF. But such a tagline would probably cut way down on people using Wikipedia inappropriately.

Ray Saintonge

11:31 p.m.

Anthony wrote:

...

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Anthony wrote:

One would think from these discussions you might have learned that Wikipedia, Britannica, and World Book are tertiary sources

What is accomplished by trying to label encyclopedias as tertiary sources? They probably are, but so what?

/[snip]/

...

But you have to decide what to include and what to leave out, and that choice is determined by what you believe to be most relevant to the truth (assuming you're intellectually honest, anyway).

At the high school level what may be acceptable when the students start may not be acceptable when they graduate. They should be learning how to think critically, and looking beyond what the teacher and the textbook have to say. For some teachers that is difficult to accept when they want students to conform.

...

I hope that she makes sure that they give Wikipedia proper credit. It seems like a great teaching moment for her.

Much depends here on the sort of students that are enrolled in that high school. A school for high achievers should be fairly intolerant of this kind of copying. Naturally, the operating parameters need to be understood from the beginning. In a program for dysfunctional kids who are never likely to become scholars any kind of outside source may be the most that you can expect.

...

More interesting for us would be why these kids use Wikipedia. Are the authorized proprietary textbooks that bad?

I suppose that another strategy would be to subject them to a quiz based on the very material they lifted from Wikipedia ... without a copy of the article in front of them. O:-)

...

I guess in that sense it is a teaching moment - one about honesty. Still don't know about a great one. I would think by high school kids have already learned whether or not they're capable of getting away with deceit - but maybe not, not all teachers (or parents) are as attentive as my wife.

Getting away with deceit is a learned process, often applied defensively.

...

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

I think that education systems are thoroughly shook up about the internet.

Definitely agreed, although I think this has gotten much better over the past decade or so.

Optimist!

...

To take Wikipedia "as a serious source of information" will take time, and depend less on what we do than on what they do.

I honestly can't see it ever happening. Not unless Wikipedia abandons "anyone can edit", anyway.

"Anyone can edit" can work ... if it's accompanied by a viable article evaluation system. That means more than just checking for vandalism. I would very much support some kind of numerical system for this where the published rating would average all the ratings made by any individual who cared to do so..

...

"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information." - I think that quote from The Office pretty much sums it up. I've heard Wikipedians make similar statements with a perfectly straight face, and I don't think they, unlike the writers of The Office, were doing so with tongue-in-cheek.

I've never read The Office, but I'm experienced enough to be wary of the superlatives of wild-eyed enthusiasts. Ec

Marc Riddell

11 Oct 11 Oct

12:11 a.m.

on 10/10/09 7:31 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge(a)telus.net wrote:

...

[and Wikipedia]

...

have to say.

That's scholarship. <snip>

...

Much depends here on the sort of students that are enrolled in that high school. <snip> In a program for dysfunctional kids who are never likely to become scholars any kind of outside source may be the most that you can expect.

If it is behavioral "dysfunction" you are referring to here, Ray, that's giving up on them. With some help, some could become outstanding scholars. And a good, involved teacher can be the first person to touch them in a positive way. Marc

Anthony

12:12 a.m.

...

More interesting for us would be why these kids use Wikipedia. Are the authorized proprietary textbooks that bad?

I suppose that another strategy would be to subject them to a quiz based on the very material they lifted from Wikipedia ... without a copy of the article in front of them. O:-)

That's actually the way it usually goes down. My wife calls the student up and asks them questions to gauge their understanding of the material, before formally accusing them of anything. I'm going to stop with the specific details though, just in case some of her students or future students are subscribed to this mailing list, which is a distinct possibility.

...

To take Wikipedia "as a serious source of information" will take time, and depend less on what we do than on what they do.

I honestly can't see it ever happening. Not unless Wikipedia abandons "anyone can edit", anyway.

I guess. I'd support a system where a real-named individual (or maybe even a very well-established pseudonym) signs off on an entire article. But I don't see that happening. "Some kind of numerical system" which averages the ratings made by lots of instances of "anyone can publish a rating", would probably be a step backward.

Anthony

12:13 a.m.

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

I guess. I'd support a system where a real-named individual (or maybe even a very well-established pseudonym) signs off on an entire article.

Should read "one or more real-named individuals..."

Ray Saintonge

10 Oct 10 Oct

8:15 a.m.

George Herbert wrote:

...

I know EB and World Book contributors who are very upset about Wikipedia's rise, and many who see it as a godsend to information propogation around the world, on the order of the rise of the Web and of Google. There are lost jobs at EB and WB - but the Post Office has lost jobs due to email and skype and cellphones. Technology has an evolving effect on the world. My grandfather owned and operated the last cooperage in San Francisco in the era between the world wars - and sold it off, seeing the rise of the steel barrel as being a world-ending event for that industry as they became more commonly available. The new owners thought he was a fool for selling, and were out of business a few years later. The industry my college degree is in (Naval Architecture, and the shipbuilding industry) is for the most part dead in the United States compared to when I graduated - I saw the writing on the wall and learned computers too, and that's what's paid the bills.

My great-grandfather was a harness maker in small town Saskatchewan. It seems that he saw the writing on the wall when tractors began to replace horses for ploughing the fields. His harness shop burned down in 1922, and local legend has it that he was seen driving away from town as this was happening. What you have hit upon is the well known dark side of real paradigm shift.

...

This is part of life. Either you learn to live with change or it runs you over eventually. Companies that don't die; people that don't end up unemployed or working in much less skilled jobs eventually. This isn't Wikipedia's fault - it's the pace of change, over the last 200 years at least.

That 200 years has seen both winners and losers. The shipbuilding industry may be dead in the United States, but I suspect that that one has more to do with cheaper offshore wages than technical advances. This does not detract from your principal thesis. I don't think we are at all close to seeing all the negative effects of these advances, and the resultant labour surplus. Ec

Domas Mituzas

8 Oct 8 Oct

9:27 p.m.

Dear Gregory,

...

(2) That Alexa rankings reflect "impact in the world". If you've got 300,000 living persons checking their biography every day for defamation, I'm sure the Alexa rankings are going to notice that.

only 11% of English Wikipedia article views are about Living People. You fail at "with a tone and style that are neither insulting nor unduly inflammatory" Cheers, Domas

Samuel Klein

9 Oct 9 Oct

11:41 p.m.

The ratio of overhead to other expenses isn't always a great meter stick, as Erik mentions. Nevertheless, one extraordinary aspect of Wikipedia and siblings is how high the efficiency of its core project work is by that measure: 100 billion views / 100 million edits a year, for $3M in hardware and bandwidth and maintenance, and a fraction of that in administrative costs. We can drive down that fraction with an endowment dedicated to perpetual support of this core work. However, endowments and similar investment to support future program work don't show up directly as program expenses, though they are themselves low-overhead and improve future efficiency and stability. I'd also like to correct a myth about how Wikipedia is viewed by teachers and other encyclopedias: On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Gregory Kohs <thekohser(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

(1) That the Wikimedia Foundation's "impact" is a favorable one. (Many would disagree, at least according to Andrew Keen, the staff of Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book, and just about every high school teacher I've ever talked to about Wikipedia.)

I visited the offices of both Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book back in June (at the American Libraries Association conference in Chicago). Both are favorable towards Wikipedia today. I would characterize their perspective as positive interest, respect for our impact on the world, mixed with natural wariness. They recognized that the devoted contributors to our projects, as to theirs, are driven by similar passions to improve access to knowledge. EB actively use Commons as one potential source of images -- though they have a much more stringent license-clearing process, so it take them a while to decide whether they really have the rights to use an image... something we could learn from. And World Book's editor in chief has been a supporter of the wiki concept since he gave a talk at Wikimania in 2006. In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3 years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing would be a fascinating survey to run year after year. SJ

Michael Snow

11:54 p.m.

Samuel Klein wrote:

...

In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3 years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today.

I would guess that the shift is in part thanks to their students, who in my experience have been 90/10 or better in favor of it. --Michael Snow

Anthony

10 Oct 10 Oct

12:13 a.m.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3 years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.

I don't know. My evidence is all anecdotal, but the vast majority of what I hear from high school teachers about Wikipedia is playfully derogatory. Not that they're against Wikipedia, any more than they're against Twitter or MySpace, but that they don't take it as a serious source of information. "I read it on Wikipedia" is taken as about equivalent to "I read it on the Internet".

Ray Saintonge

7:50 a.m.

Anthony wrote:

...

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:

In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3 years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.

No surprise there. I think that education systems are thoroughly shook up about the internet. They begin with a role reversal where the kids know more than the teachers about how to effectively use this tool. They also see some kids using the internet for really nasty purposes, and don't know what to do about it. To take Wikipedia "as a serious source of information" will take time, and depend less on what we do than on what they do. Ec

David Gerard

10:41 a.m.

2009/10/10 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:

...

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3 > years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing > would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.

...

Michael Peel

10:26 a.m.

On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote:

...

In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3 years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.

Does the WMF commission surveys like this? It would seem a natural thing to do - there are third party organizations that are capable of performing this sort of survey in a statistically unbiased way. (Am I correct in thinking that the only surveys done to date are those held on-wiki, and possibly that done by third parties such as ComScore without the request of Wikimedia?) Mike

geni

2 p.m.

2009/10/10 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>et>:

...

On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote:

In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3 years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.

The complexity is that in certain groups being anti-wikipedia is a requirement for fitting in. A statement that you take knowledge seriously. -- geni

Michael Peel

2:11 p.m.

On 10 Oct 2009, at 15:00, geni wrote:

...

2009/10/10 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>et>:

On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote:

In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3 years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.

The complexity is that in certain groups being anti-wikipedia is a requirement for fitting in. A statement that you take knowledge seriously.

I'm sorry; I can understand those sentences separately, but not when they are combined. Wikipedia is a way to take knowledge (and the spread of knowledge) seriously. That's why I'm here. I would hope that being anti-wikipedia (or anti-knowledge) is not a requirement for high-school teachers. Mike

geni

3:32 p.m.

2009/10/10 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>et>:

...

Depends on the school. By being anti-wikipedia you make a statement that you insist on a certain quality in your sources. You could view it as a form of snobbery "Wikipedia may seem okey to the peons but we know better". -- geni

Marc Riddell

3:54 p.m.

...

2009/10/10 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>et>: > I'm sorry; I can understand those sentences separately, but not when > they are combined. Wikipedia is a way to take knowledge (and the > spread of knowledge) seriously. That's why I'm here. > > I would hope that being anti-wikipedia (or anti-knowledge) is not a > requirement for high-school teachers. > > Mike

on 10/10/09 11:32 AM, geni at geniice(a)gmail.com wrote:

...

A goal of a good teacher is to introduce their students to scholarship. And a one-stop visit to Wikipedia does not accomplish that. Marc

Michael Peel

4:02 p.m.

On 10 Oct 2009, at 16:54, Marc Riddell wrote:

...

on 10/10/09 11:32 AM, geni at geniice(a)gmail.com wrote:

A goal of a good teacher is to introduce their students to scholarship. And a one-stop visit to Wikipedia does not accomplish that.

No, but it's an excellent place to stop on the way out to the wider world, and check up on what can be found out easily. It's the low- hanging fruit in the tree of knowledge. Plus, writing and editing Wikipedia articles is an excellent way to learn about how to do research and proof-reading. (This is getting a little off-topic, though... My question about surveys in my first email still stands.) Mike

Ray Saintonge

10:41 p.m.

Marc Riddell wrote:

...

on 10/10/09 11:32 AM, geni at wrote:

A goal of a good teacher is to introduce their students to scholarship. And a one-stop visit to Wikipedia does not accomplish that.

As long as the emphasis is on "introduce" it's probably OK, and a step above relying solely on the official textbook.After the introduction you can start to demand more. Ec

Ray Saintonge

10:31 p.m.

Michael Peel wrote:

...

On 10 Oct 2009, at 15:00, geni wrote:

The complexity is that in certain groups being anti-wikipedia is a requirement for fitting in. A statement that you take knowledge seriously.

I think I understood him correctly. Since the second "sentence" isn't a sentence at all, reading the full stop at the end of the first as a colon makes it all clear. The statement describes a regrettable, though understandable, social dynamic. That dynamic is on a par with those who would not vote for Obama because his middle name is Hussein, or those who would ostracize an individual for not being Christian enough. We can question the intelligence of such people, but we cannot doubt their existence. Ec

Marc Riddell

2:11 p.m.

...

2009/10/10 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>et>:

On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote:

In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3 years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.

on 10/10/09 10:00 AM, geni at geniice(a)gmail.com wrote:

...

The complexity is that in certain groups being anti-wikipedia is a requirement for fitting in. A statement that you take knowledge seriously.

Geni, it is not "anti-wikipedia" to recognize and understand the difference between information and knowledge. Marc Riddell

geni

3:36 p.m.

2009/10/10 Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>et>:

...

Geni, it is not "anti-wikipedia" to recognize and understand the difference between information and knowledge.

That enitrely depends on context. In the context of the sentence the where I used the term the two are synonyms. -- geni

Marc Riddell

3:54 p.m.

...

2009/10/10 Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>et>: > Geni, it is not "anti-wikipedia" to recognize and understand the difference > between information and knowledge.

on 10/10/09 11:36 AM, geni at geniice(a)gmail.com wrote:

...

That enitrely depends on context. In the context of the sentence the where I used the term the two are synonyms.

Geni, in true scholarship, "information" and "knowledge" are not synonymous. Marc

geni

4:05 p.m.

2009/10/10 Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>et>:

...

Geni, in true scholarship, "information" and "knowledge" are not synonymous. Marc

Entirely depends on the context. Sometimes they are sometimes not. In the context I was useing the term they are (doesn't really scan otherwise). -- geni

David Gerard

10:40 a.m.

2009/10/10 Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Indeed. Running the #5 website in the world on a few million dollars a year is a *spectacular* achievement. Everyone else in the top 20 has luxuries like staff and money ... One thing that has always amazed me about Wikimedia is that it has successfully recruited reliable volunteer sysadmins. I honestly hadn't thought that possible before I saw it. - d.

Gregory Kohs

9 Oct 9 Oct

1:30 a.m.

George William Herbert says: +++++++++ Greg, your glass is perpetually half empty. This makes you a not so useful critic. +++++++++ That may be, George. But, when the world's full of organizational efficiency glasses that can hold four stars, if you've only got two stars, your glass is by definition half empty. :-) P.S. I forgot to include a smiley :-) on my reply to Mike Godwin. Yet, some of you really thought I was serious that BLP victims are measurably boosting Wikipedia.org's Alexa ratings. Sheesh! Lighten up, people.

Gregory Kohs

2:27 a.m.

Erik, How much of WMF's expenses went to Wikia, Inc. this year so far? Greg

Brion Vibber

5:12 p.m.

On 10/8/09 7:27 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:

...

Erik, How much of WMF's expenses went to Wikia, Inc. this year so far?

A few thousand dollars in rent for the Usability Initiative's space, which will end soon thanks to Wikimedia getting larger office space of their own. You might perhaps remember this from the thread "WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?", which you started last month: http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg07460.html -- brion

Gregory Kohs

6:33 p.m.

Brion says: ++++++++++ A few thousand dollars in rent for the Usability Initiative's space... ++++++++++ It may be equally accurate to say that I have earned "a few thousand dollars" this year, or in my lifetime, or that comprises the budget of the State of Indiana. I was hoping for an accurate figure, not a carefree estimate, Brion. A more efficient organization might have waited to launch the Usability Initiative staff/contractor expansion until AFTER the Foundation moved to larger space. I'm just trying to get you guys another star the next time Charity Navigator rolls around with an impartial review. So far, I've seen a lot of puffing about "overhead" and "strategy", but nothing very tactical about how this organization efficiency rating might be improved... unless, the point of the official response is to simply downplay the importance of such a rating, in which case, I would say mission very well accomplished. Greg

Nathan

6:36 p.m.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Gregory Kohs <thekohser(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

It may be equally accurate to say that I have earned "a few thousand dollars" this year, or in my lifetime, or that comprises the budget of the State of Indiana. I was hoping for an accurate figure, not a carefree estimate, Brion. A more efficient organization might have waited to launch the Usability Initiative staff/contractor expansion until AFTER the Foundation moved to larger space. I'm just trying to get you guys another star the next time Charity Navigator rolls around with an impartial review. So far, I've seen a lot of puffing about "overhead" and "strategy", but nothing very tactical about how this organization efficiency rating might be improved... unless, the point of the official response is to simply downplay the importance of such a rating, in which case, I would say mission very well accomplished. Greg

I'm curious what importance you attach to the Charity Navigator rating, and how you think it is (or should be) relevant to the operations of the WMF. Care to explain? Nathan

Guillaume Paumier

8:17 p.m.

Hi, On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Gregory Kohs <thekohser(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I find it amusing to read this from someone who doesn't see any reasoning flaw in mixing absolute and relative quantities when comparing the ED/CEO's salary and the organization's expenditures.

...

A more efficient organization might have waited to launch the Usability Initiative staff/contractor expansion until AFTER the Foundation moved to larger space.

Right. After all, usability is not so much of a concern, is it?

...

I'm just trying to get you guys another star the next time Charity Navigator rolls around with an impartial review.

Of course you are. Nobody here would dare assume that you're trolling. We know you're only thinking about the best interest of the Wikimedia movement. Thank you for all your work and your dedication to making Wikimedia better, Gregory. -- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] http://www.gpaumier.org

Brion Vibber

10:08 p.m.

On 10/9/09 11:33 AM, Gregory Kohs wrote:

...

I don't have the exact figure, but that's the right order of magnitude for a few months' of rent on that amount of space; I wouldn't expect it to differ in any way that would be relevant to this conversation. We're talking about something on the order of 1/1000 of the annual budget.

...

A more efficient organization might have waited to launch the Usability Initiative staff/contractor expansion until AFTER the Foundation moved to larger space.

I really have to disagree with you here. Turning down funding to delay an important strategic development program by months or years until a future office move whose schedule or even existence was uncertain at the time would have had a *much* larger opportunity cost than the expense of renting a little unused office space *without a lease lock-in* in order to get things moving and people working quickly. This is the same principle on which, for instance, small businesses get loans to pay for equipment or facilities which allows them to expand production or services. In that case, the cost of the loan is paid for by getting to market faster and making that higher income level over a longer period of time (ie, the time between when they take out the loan and the time at which they would have saved up the money from income alone... if they even could have). In this case, we reap the benefits of *doing* actual programs work -- improving the site's functionality for our users -- sooner, thus producing more good for more people over more time. The money spent on rent to get many people working is more effective than the same money would have been spent on something else later (say, a little bit of contracting time... which would still leave us 6 months or more behind where we are now thanks to having actually started the program... assuming we still would have gotten the funding with such a delay). -- brion

Gregory Kohs

7:22 p.m.

Nathan asks: +++++++++ I'm curious what importance you attach to the Charity Navigator rating, and how you think it is (or should be) relevant to the operations of the WMF. Care to explain? +++++++++ Thank you for asking, Nathan. As always, I am eager to provide a prompt and direct response to questions, though that is not standard practice in some circles. I make charitable gifts each year that typically total between $3,000 and $5,000. Some of my strict rules for charitable giving include (1) don't ever give on the basis of only a telephone solicitation or an in-person intercept, and (2) don't ever give without first looking up the organization on both GuideStar and Charity Navigator. If another organization can be found that serves a similar need, but is doing so more efficiently with its dollars, then my donation goes to that organization, and other less stringent donors are free to fling their money at a more inefficient organization. For example, to help further the cause of truth and knowledge on the Internet, this year I made a donation to ProCon.org: http://www.procon.org/aboutus.asp#Financial ...even though it was not yet listed in Charity Navigator, I could still make a decision in part because I appreciated that 87% of their expenses were spent on program services, as opposed to 66% at the Wikimedia Foundation. Therefore, for me, GuideStar and Charity Navigator are important tools for me to help decide where my charitable contributions will be directed in a given year. How about you? How do you attach importance to various ways that independent organizations might put non-profits to an impartial test? Do you care how efficient a charitable organization is? After all, I co-founded a non-profit organization, and I serve on the board of another, so maybe I am polarized too far to the "accountability" end of the spectrum. You may not be aware of the stories behind the Deputy Sheriffs' Fraternal Organization or the Wishing Well Foundation, but I would be sick to my stomach if I found that I had donated money to such an organization, only to discover that they spend less than 20% of revenues on program services. With the Wikimedia Foundation having recently spent only 31.6% of revenues on program services, I dare to say they are closer, on a true percentage basis on the books, to organizations like the Deputy Sheriffs' Fraternal Organization or the Wishing Well Foundation than they are to ProCon.org and the Red Cross. Greg

Birgitte SB

8:22 p.m.

--- On Fri, 10/9/09, Gregory Kohs <thekohser(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

You may not be aware of the stories behind the Deputy Sheriffs' Fraternal Organization or the Wishing Well Foundation, but I would be sick to my stomach if I found that I had donated money to such an organization, only to discover that they spend less than 20% of revenues on program services. With the Wikimedia Foundation having recently spent only 31.6% of revenues on program services, I dare to say they are closer, on a true percentage basis on the books, to organizations like the Deputy Sheriffs' Fraternal Organization or the Wishing Well Foundation than they are to ProCon.org and the Red Cross.

Does Charity Nagivator count the server, bandwidth, and tech salaries cost as "program" or "admin" for WMF? I remember in the past we found out it was standard to count these areas as "admin" in such evaluations even though such things are an integral part of the WMF program. I don't think the past discussion was specifically about Charity Navigator. So do we know how they are categorizing these areas? Birgitte SB

Christophe Henner

8:33 p.m.

2009/10/9 Gregory Kohs <thekohser(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

I wouldn't give money to an organization spending 54K$ in 2008 to pay 8 people. 562,5USD per month, those guys must be starving ! Or some of their salaries are considered as "programm"... But I wouldn't dare thinking you didn't looked at the financial report beside the nice images :) Anyway, soif we want to have the "stars" what's needed is just to put all the salaries and costs needed to run the servers and improve the software in programm. Problem solved :) -- Christophe

Happy-melon

10:55 p.m.

"Christophe Henner" <christophe.henner(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:84a69b0e0910091333k1bcb1c87o8dc7b5df126df7d9@mail.gmail.com...

...

Anyway, soif we want to have the "stars" what's needed is just to put all the salaries and costs needed to run the servers and improve the software in programm.

So that's the entire 'technology' budget, the salaries of twelve of the staff, and all the associated administrative costs. Sounds about right.

...

Problem solved :)

Yup. The 'problem', of course, is as old as time. Square peg, round hole. --HM

Gregory Kohs

10 Oct 10 Oct

12:41 a.m.

Samuel says: +++++++++ In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3 years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing would be a fascinating survey to run year after year. +++++++++ I agree. Market research, even longitudinal tracking research, has fascinated me since 1991, and despite the skepticism of one delegate "happy-melon", I would probably be qualified to design and execute such a study, with the proper funding from the Foundation or another source, of course. I sincerely doubt they could find another market research professional willing and able to design the questionnaire, sample 300 teachers in as representative a fashion as possible, and analyze and report on the collected data, all for $4,000. But, they're more than welcome to try! Credentials and cheers are here: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs#Credentials You may also read the jeers, if you wish. There's a fresh one in there. Lots of very good and valid points have been made on this thread, and several of you have changed my opinion somewhat on different matters, especially about the Wikia office space rental's urgency. (Still, I wish a space NOT operated by a Board member had been chosen.) Yet, I'm of the casual opinion that "usability" was not a critical issue for Wikipedia, given that many millions of wiki pages had been successfully created and polished with the old "difficult to use" interface. I'd have much rather seen the Stanton Fund put that money toward an "accountability initiative" or an "accuracy initiative", but it's their money, isn't it? I have especially enjoyed those who took to taunting and mocking me. This helps to demonstrate that some within our community are afraid to answer questions and tackle issues head-on. The pseudonymous attack was really special, proving a point that I've tried to make for years -- that anonymity generally lowers the standards of discourse. Greg

5353

days inactive

5356

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

62 comments

22 participants

tags (0)

participants (22)

Andrew Gray
Anthony
Birgitte SB
Brion Vibber
Christophe Henner
David Gerard
Delirium
Domas Mituzas
Erik Moeller
geni
George Herbert
Gregory Kohs
Guillaume Paumier
Happy-melon
Marc Riddell
Michael Peel
Michael Snow
Nathan
phoebe ayers
Ray Saintonge
Samuel Klein
Thomas Dalton