On 2008.02.11 19:27:28 +1100, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> scribbled 4.1K
characters:
gwern0(a)gmail.com wrote:
So, the audit was released a little while ago (if
you missed it, the
important thing is at
<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_2007_fs.pdf>). I'm
a little surprised at the general silence here - did I just miss the
threads or something?
Anyway, I read through it carefully and found it of great interest. A
number of points stuck out at me in particular:
# Isn't it interesting how much Google stock was donated? On top of
what I hear were previous donations? Some of the Googlers must like us.
# Wow, that's quite a bit to spend on salaries. And I think the amount
is only going to go way up, what with Erik Moeller abruptly going from
non-paid to paid status, and all the other hires. It strikes me as odd
to see employee expenses rising past equipment and hosting costs, but I
suppose that just marks me as being a product of the old days where the
mission of the Foundation was seen as keeping the servers running (and
not whatever else the Foundation does these days).
Are you saying the tech team should have spent a bit less time on
performance optimisation? Because hardware spending is cool but staff
spending isn't?
No, you misunderstand me. The most important thing the foundation does is support the
community's work; to do that, it handles things like the legalities, and more
importantly, tech support. From my perspective, not one dollar should be spent on giving
lectures and advocacy and so on while there is yet a technical need.
I don't think the tech team is funded as well as it could be. I often hear complaints
about the tool server, for example, and there is the occasional grousing about the very
slow implementation of SUL, stable versions, image moving, and innumerable other valuable
features and enhancements; I doubt I'd hear as many complaints if there were more
developers and servers.
[...]
# I must be misunderstanding something, but does
this really mean what
it seems to me on the face of it:
"Note C - Contingencies In the normal course of business, the
Organization receives various threats of litigation on a regular basis.
In the opinion of management, the outcome of the pending lawsuits will
not materially affect present operations or the financial stability of
the Organization."
That the reason current lawsuits don't matter is because there is
nothing put aside for them? Seems kind of reckless.
No, the current lawsuits don't matter because potential damages are small.
Therefore the present cash reserves are enough. That's how I read it anyway.
That's a reasonable reading, yes, but because I was unsure how to read it, I mentioned
it.
# As usual,
relationships with Wikia are concerningly close and
ambiguous:
"The Organization shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, Inc.,
a for-profit company founded by the same founder as Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc. Included in accounts receivable at June 30, 2007 is
$6,000 due from Wikia, Inc. for these costs. The Organization received
some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the year ended June
30, 2006 valued at $6,000. No donation of the office space occurred in
2007. Through June 30, 2007, two members of the Organization's board of
directors also serve as employees, officers, or directors of Wikia,
Inc."
They share staff, WP favors Wikia in well-known ways, and so on - and
people are surprised when the public perception is that WP is the
non-profit branch of Wikia, or vice versa? I'm also troubled by the
sharing of costs bit - why is Wikia using WMF resources (presumably why
they are paying WMF) and isn't it awfully convenient how the two
amounts cancel out? Small potatoes, but still.
There are no shared staff anymore, and no shared costs. The audit tells
you about the recent history of Wikimedia, not the present.
OK. So this will be a nonissue in the next audit report.
Historically, Jimmy Wales, Bomis and Wikia have
supported Wikipedia.
Initially, Wikipedia was just a UseMod instance running on one of Bomis's
web servers. Wikipedians should be eternally grateful for the support
Jimmy and his companies have provided for Wikipedia.
As time went by, Wikimedia developed the means to become fully independent
from these entities. Bomis wound down its operations and changed
ownership. Wikia moved from Florida to California, taking its staff, and
eventually its servers, with it. The Board (which was historically
dominated by Jimmy) began to leave the day-to-day running of the
organisation to paid management staff.
Public perception has lagged behind these changes, because Jimmy is a
press magnet and his name in press reports is invariably prefixed by
"Wikipedia founder", whether they are about Wikipedia or Wikia.
It seems rather contradictory to me that you complain about an increase in
staffing costs, and then in the next breath, about the fact that
historically, costs were kept down by donations from Jimmy, Bomis and Wikia.
-- Tim Starling
I don't see it as contradictory, obviously. I can be concerned about high level of
expenditures on staffing and also worry about conflicts of interest and public perception;
it'd be silly to say that allowing conflicts of interest to taint our operations and
public perceptions is perfectly alright, so long as it reduces staffing costs a little.
It's not an either-or; surely it is possible to have both...
--
gwern
Tzvrif STEP JTF-6 W Morse EOD DERA Rojdykarna shelter SAPO