[Wikipedia-l] possible explanation for Spanish 'pedia fork; plus some thoughts...

[Jimmy Wales]

Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Translation: This encyclopedia split off from the
> Castilian version of wikipedia after an announcement
> of the possibility that there would be advertising in
> the original version.

That's right.  But I think it was about more than that, really.

> We should consider doing some strategizing to make
> sure another fork doesn’t happen (I hear members of
> the French wikipedia threatened a fork in the past).

I think that one was a very isolated incident.  The story is that a
French guy sent a new logo to Jason.  Jason did not feel authorized to
just install it without asking someone.  I was not available, so he
asked 'the community'.  He wrote to the fellow a nice note explaining
this.

But this was taken the wrong way.  It was taken as a rejection, I
think, and as lacking in respect for the French community.  Why should
the English-speaking mailing lists have so much power?  That's a
legitimate question, but his response was -- in my opinion -- overly
harsh, and overly sensitive.

This was resolved quickly by me installing the fellow's logo and
declaring that we don't want to fight over it.  Also, as here, I
blamed the whole matter on confusion about Jason's role.  Jason works
for me, as an employee, so he doesn't just randomly go around doing
things he's not sure about without talking to me first.

-----

The big issue is that not only are our languages different, but our
cultures are different, our ways of interacting are different.  My
belief is that Americans (myself most emphatically included) are
blunt, simple, plain-talking people.

I have studied Japanese language, and Japanese culture.  My wife is
half-Japanese.  I'm not an expert by any means, but some things are
well-known about the differences between Japanese and Americans.  From
the American point of view, Japanese are perplexing because they do
not like to say 'no' to any request.  That doesn't mean that they are
pushovers and will do whatever is asked, it's just that it is rude in
their culture to just say flat-out 'no' in the way that Americans do.

Businesses trying to deal with Japanese companies find this frustrating.
A deal or partnership is offered, and the Japanese do not just say "no",
they say that they will think about it, that they have to have a meeting,
etc.  If Americans understood that this means 'no', then there would be no
problem.  Japanese deal with each other very well.

This is all an oversimplification, of course.  But it illustrates the
kinds of problems we will have.

The Europeans report that we seem "pushy" to them.  This is baffling
to us.  We're just being Americans, dealing with each other just fine
in the way that we deal with each other.  But this seems pushy to
Europeans.

We could argue forever about who is "right" or "wrong" or which method
of dealing with each other is better.  It doesn't matter, though.  The
point is, there will be misunderstandings no matter what we do, BUT we
can and should try to minimize these by remembering that we are all
from different cultures.  What seems rude to Americans will seem
normal to French people, and vice-versa.

> Specifically, we might want to revisit the idea of
> wikipedia becoming a non-profit (preferably a European
> one). That way, anti-Americanism and distrust of
> Boomis (which is both an American company and, /gasp/,
> for-profit) wouldn’t weigh on anybody’s mind. 

I agree with the non-profit part.  The American part, I don't know.  I
don't really care.  My plan is to continue supporting Wikipedia with
bandwidth, machinery, and as much programming as I can afford.  And I
anticipate that there will never be any financial returns to me, at
all.  This is now a hobby, a passion.

So, to me, the institutional structure is more or less unimportant.

It will cost some money to set up the nonprofit, and I chose recently to
buy wikipedia a new $3000 server rather than set up some useless legal
rigamarole.

But I know that this can not continue indefinitely, particularly if the
current situation leads to mistrust.

> Oh and there would be
> no reason why a non-profit Wikipedia.org couldn’t have
> a corporate sponsor. ;-)

Sure, but I think that "sponsor" is really not the right word.  I think
"patron" is more accurate.

A sponsor gets something in return -- advertising space.  Based on the
reactions against such ideas when floated in the past, and based on
the overall low cost of keeping wikipedia going, I don't need that.
I'm happy to be a small-time benefactor.

So long as wikipedia is part of Bomis, Inc., my costs are tax
deductible as ordinary business expenses, with no paperwork and no
complicated justifications to the IRS.  I just spend money, the
company is that much less profitable, and that's that.  Any benefit to
Bomis is highly intangible, but that's fine.

Once Wikipedia is a separate entity, then there are all sorts of rules
that will partially inhibit my ability to simply freely spend money.  I
don't really know what *all* the ramifications are.  One ramification is
that I have to spend time learning more tax law, ugh!  :-)

-------------

One idea, once we get a nonprofit, is to set up a bank account strictly
for hardware expenses.  I'll continue to supply bandwidth, but other
contributors will contribute to the hardware fund.  We'll set up a credit
card merchant account and let people make one-time donations *and* to set up
for monthly billing.   You might sign up at the $20 level, and every month
we'd autobill your credit card for $20.  ALL the money would be strictly
earmarked for hardware, to be owned by the nonprofit entity.

Later, if I get tired of paying for the bandwidth (which is not
important right now, because the total traffic on wikipedia is a mere
fraction of my bandwidth across my network of web sites), that fund
would start paying for bandwidth.

If levels of contribution were eventually high enough, then we could
float proposals to the donors for other potentially worthy projects.
Individual donors could earmark money as they see fit, perhaps.  We
might earmark money to hire a fulltime editor again, although in the
wikipedia system, this seems unnecessary.

We might earmark money to hire a programmer, although that's expensive of
course.

But anyhow, that's one of the big benefits of a nonprofit... it makes it
easier for people to donate money to help out.

--Jimbo