So, let me just get this straight.
Someone here bemoaned the fact that a full history dump of the English
Wikipedia has been sought for 3 years, but is still forthcoming. That
person mentioned, factually, that $1.7 million of budgeted money for
"technology" was left unspent, with the suggestion that perhaps a portion of
this money could have been directed to a contractor who would have been
charged with crafting a successful full history dump. This budgetary fact
was disdainfully questioned and the "troll" insult was whipped out with
haste. The financial fact was then supported with a report from this very
Foundation's Executive Director. The response then was that one "could care
less" about what Sue Gardner has to say about budget. Then, the initial
person offered that minimum wage plus $80 daily child care would buy his
solution to a full history dump.
Now, assuming this might mean 8 working weeks of labor for this guy, that
would be ($400 child-care + $280 wage) x 8 weeks = $5,440.
This sum is approximately three-tenths of ONE PERCENT of the budgeted money
that was instead stored in the bank and set aside for some future staffing
and technology needs.
But the person(s) making the factual statements, backing them up with
referenced sources, and offering a potential eight-week solution to a
three-year-old problem, at a cost of 3/10th of 1% of the allocated budget to
problems exactly like this... IS REWARDED WITH THE "TROLL" epithet?
Do I have that correct? Because if I do, then I am beginning to see why so
many people suggest that there is a serious freakin' PROBLEM with the tone
of discourse on this mailing list.
Let me recommend something. Pay Anthony Dipierro the sum of $5,500, give
him server access, give him eight weeks, and if he doesn't produce a full
history dump of the English Wikipedia, then perhaps his penance could be a
one-year ban from Wikimedia mailing lists? That would make a lot of "troll
spotters" here quite happy, I'm sure. What do you have to lose? (Other
than three-tenths of one percent of the 2007 technology budget, that is.)
--
Gregory Kohs
