The press release Q&A,
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Omidyar_Network_Grant_Au…
, notes the following:
"Wikimedia and Omidyar have developed targets related to financial
sustainability (the percentage of operating expenses supported by
individual donations), global reach (global unique visitors monthly,
as reported by comScore Media Metrix), global participation rates
(defined as the number of editors with 5+ edits in the previous month)
and the completion of the Wikimedia Foundation's strategy project."
What are the specific targets for percent from individual donations,
reach, and participation rates?
It seems to me that hard targets for global participation rates, in
particular, could tie our hands in terms of prioritizing resources.
In flagship projects like English and German Wikipedias, participation
rates have started to decline and may be very difficult to raise
again. Thus, depending on the target, the only way to reach a certain
global rate might be to focus inordinately on immature projects or
start new ones that put participation rates over core mission issues.
Wikia is still seeing exponential growth, and one can imagine a wide
range of similar very loosely educational projects to what Wikia does
that might attract participants but create little actual educational
value. If things were really desperate, one could even imagine
Wikimedia trying to poach participants by starting advertising-free
Wikia forks.
Not that I think any of that is likely, but the targets are important
for the community to know.
-Sage
Wait, wait, wait. I thought we had all formed consensus that the
appointment of Matt Halprin and his $2 million briefcase full of money was
an ideal (or, at least nearly ideal) measure of progress and success for the
Wikimedia Foundation. I was about to announce a call for a standing
ovation, with a sporadic "Huzzah!" or two to punctuate our support!
Now you've got this wild idea, Thomas, to totally revamp the Board
structure? What are you, some kind of troll who won't toe the party line?
Actually, I think your idea is a step backwards, Thomas. Without the full
immersion of at least four "outside" experts directly on the Board, how will
the outside world ever come face-to-face with exactly how amazing is this
Foundation, that it not only can't recognize conflict of interest and
self-dealing snafus -- it actually actively seeks them out?!
Just like they tried to rocket a few school teachers up into space, so that
they can come back and recount to students first-hand what it's like to be
in orbit, we need to have outsiders on the WMF Board, so that after their
one- or two-year ordeal, they can come back to the mainstream of reality and
tell us about how the WMF does its Jedi mind trick.
--
Gregory Kohs
Guillame said:
"
A board member (or volunteer, or anyone who goes around and asks
someone to donate money to a cause) has some leverage if they can
answer: « I donated $2 million because I think this cause is worthy.
How much will you donate? »
"
+++++++
How unfortunate for Matt Halprin. As far as I know, it was his employer,
Omidyar Network, that made the big donation, not Halprin himself personally.
It is amazing to me how shallow is the general comprehension level on this
list.
I am still awaiting answers for the very simple questions I asked earlier
today, about Halprin's history of board memberships. Is anyone working on
them, or will I have to do it myself?
--
Gregory Kohs
Greg Maxwell states:
"You could register with my site and tell me you want to vote for
"M,ABFO,CDEGHIJKLN" I then tell you I'll give you $10 if someone votes for
"G,M,ABFO,CJ,LN,DEGHIK"."
+++++++++++++++
Wow, and I thought *I* was the one with the crack-pot, hare-brained,
wild-eyed conspiracy theories.
How's this -- I'll give $100 to anyone who produces incontrovertible
evidence of a successfully-fulfilled vote-buy transaction in any past WMF
board election. I'm that confident that nobody would have been stupid
enough to waste money that way. Unless it was a publicity stunt of some
sort, for WP:POINT's sake. Hmm... that gives me an idea...
--
Gregory Kohs
Here's a simple series of questions:
(1) On which boards of directors (either for-profit or non-profit) has Matt
Halprin been newly seated, since 2006?
(2) To which of those organizations has the Omidyar Network made a
significant financial contribution or investment?
(3) What is the result of the count of organizations in # 2 divided by the
count of organizations in # 1?
(4) At which percentage in # 3 would we begin to postulate that, since 2006,
Matt Halprin typically serves on boards of directors where his employer's
money is at work (or at stake)?
Am I correct that Halprin draws a measurable income from Omidyar Network, or
that Omidyar Network would be considered his primary means of income?
With my experience having founded the enterprise that led to Wikipedia
altering its "Vanity" guideline to become a more comprehensive "Conflict of
Interest" guideline, one might say I'm somewhat "street wise" on Conflict of
Interest issues. I'm perfectly able to see how COI would come into play
here, regardless of the inability of others here to see (or even to imagine)
that.
I look forward to the answers to my above questions. Or, sweep them under
the rug, if that is your inclination.
--
Gregory Kohs
*Jan-Bart de Vreede said:
*
"the next year will be crucial for us as an
organization in determining our long term strategy. But that process
is shaped by YOU. The tremendous strategy project (details at
http://strategy.wikimedia.org
) started a month ago is making good first steps. The Board of
Trustees does not own any of the Wikimedia projects, you do.
Participate on the strategy wiki (and encourage others to do so) to
help determine the future direction of our organization, you will
probably have more impace than any single board member ever will..."
++++++++
I offered a proposal at the Wikimedia Strategy project, with supporting
links to outside, independent documentation. Within about 40 minutes, the
proposal was removed, and I was indefinitely blocked from that particular
project, including IP address blocking. This, despite the fact that I
almost single-handedly wrote the sampling design and fine-tuned literally
all of the 2009 Foundation Development Survey for the WMF on the Meta
project.
But, I "own" the Wikimedia projects? I will have more impact by being
blocked from the Wikimedia Strategy project than any single board member
(including Jimmy Wales?) ever will?
Your pithy inspirational motivations are ringing hollow for me, Mr. de
Vreede.
--
Gregory Kohs
Anthony said:
*>> Wales was right when he said that the
*>>* community* *is irrelevant.
*
James Forrester then made a humorous attempt to deflect the possibility that
this might possibly be true.
James, you may benefit from reading (with an open mind, if possible) the
following essay from attorney Alex Roshuk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alex756&oldid=105080989
That might give you a clue as to the tack that Anthony was talking about.
--
Gregory Kohs
Hi all,
It's been an extraordinary day here at Wikimania in several senses of
the term. I know there has been some discussion about the perceived
directions and timing of communications on the list.
At this point the WMF and our latest funding partner, the Omidyar
Network, have both released the great news about this $2mm, 2 year
grant. At the same time I have also released a press release with
details about the new Board appointments.
The Board Announcement can be found here:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Board_Announcements_Augu…
The Omidyar Network press release can be found here:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Omidyar_Network_Grant_Au…
And a related Q&A can be found here:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Omidyar_Network_Grant_Au…
I can absolutely assure you that our intention from the beginning has
been to share this great news with the Foundation list before sending
out publicly - notably in the form of a communication from the Board,
in this case Michael Snow. The timing and fairly significant
circumstances this year (most notably some internet connectivity and
cellular problems in Buenos Aires) meant that the planned timing of
our announcement with the Omidyar Network didn't play out as I would
have hoped. I've just now been able to get the news out and also
start taking media calls on both of these announcements.
This was also somewhat compounded by the considerable media interest
in coverage of some flagged revisions stories (it's important to
respond to every request we get - we want to get the story right). We
were also strongly focussed on the logistics and planning of this
year's press conference leading up to the beginning of tomorrow's
events. And we're a small group of responders here on the ground at
Wikimania :)
I apologize for any confusion or if the impression was created that we
were not intending to share this information with the community in our
normal practice. It was not so great timing and mostly technology
hiccups.
The good news is that we're seeing some positive coverage of this
wonderful and generous grant in the press already - especially as it
follows the news of last week's Hewlett Foundation grant. I'm now
starting to also see coverage of the new Board appointments, which is
also very exciting news here at Wikimania.
And let's not forget, there is a fairly important event taking place
in our midst! We had a wonderful turn-out of press from Argentina and
from abroad. There are some amazing sessions planned and I'm
confident we'll see even more coverage for the good work of Wikimedia
in the next few days. I think this is the biggest kind of news week
we could hope for - and I'm glad we have lots of positive developments
to share.
Thanks,
Jay
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.orgblog.wikimedia.org
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 609, @jansonw