2009/8/28 Gregory Kohs <thekohser(a)gmail.com>om>:
Thomas Dalton asked:
"Has tech money been spent on other things previously? That is news to me."
For your edification, Thomas, since at least you seem willing to listen, as
opposed to some others here who simply "tut tut" at all the
"trolling" and
the "time wasting" any critics might have to offer:
http://philanthropy.com/giveandtake/article/858/wikipedias-fund-raising-suc…
Please make sure to read my comment there, which references this document:
Your comment there (I didn't read all of it, I prefer to limit the
time I spent reading people whine) seem to be mainly complaining about
the salaries paid to WMF management. Compared to people doing similar
jobs elsewhere, their compensation is decidedly modest.
Anthony's not exactly being fair, though, when he
sort of suggests that the
shortfall in Technology spending went instead to the Executive Director. As
far as I can tell, it went into the bank, to be spent in the FOLLOWING YEARS
on the Executive Director's need to expand staff to unprecedented levels.
I think most of the tech underspend was due to spending being
deferred. That money will still be spent on tech. Are you objecting to
WMF expansion? I think the fact that the WMF can sustain a larger
staff is a good thing, it will allow them to do much more.
Pay attention, Thomas. I've discussed this issue
in many places. On the
Wikimedia-controlled places, I'm often censored or blocked, but there are
plenty of other non-WMF venues where facts can be laid out for the curious
to learn the truth:
http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia
I think you mean "Truth", with a capital 'T'. I've never been
interested in learning the Truth.