Hi,
Thanks for waking me up this morning with a honking great flashy scrolling monstrosity at the top of every page. The marquee tag was a nice flashback to 1997.
And how much opportunity for feedback were users given on this? Not an awful lot. The SVN commit logs show that the marquee thingy was committed just minutes before appearing project-wide, for example. I still almost managed to file a bugzilla request before it showed up.
Now, the way I see things, the Wikimedia Foundation has two options:
(1) Actually ask for feedback from the community before making such dramatically visible, or at least allow more than a few minutes for feedback to present itself. (2) Make an official announcement that the opinion of the community does not matter, rather than pretending that it does.
The choice is yours. (1) would of course be preferable, but (2) would make an excellent argument for a fork, so feel free to go ahead and do it.
-Gurch
Hoi, In a previous post it was mentioned that the English language Wikipedia has to do something about its attitude. Threatening forks is one of those silly things where you take yourself way to seriously.
When it comes to being involved in preparing for the fundraiser, it was announced some two months ago and the amount of feedback gives you exactly the right reasons for blame, apathy and the notion that there is always time enough to bitch. Thanks, GerardM
On 10/23/07, Matthew Britton matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for waking me up this morning with a honking great flashy scrolling monstrosity at the top of every page. The marquee tag was a nice flashback to 1997.
And how much opportunity for feedback were users given on this? Not an awful lot. The SVN commit logs show that the marquee thingy was committed just minutes before appearing project-wide, for example. I still almost managed to file a bugzilla request before it showed up.
Now, the way I see things, the Wikimedia Foundation has two options:
(1) Actually ask for feedback from the community before making such dramatically visible, or at least allow more than a few minutes for feedback to present itself. (2) Make an official announcement that the opinion of the community does not matter, rather than pretending that it does.
The choice is yours. (1) would of course be preferable, but (2) would make an excellent argument for a fork, so feel free to go ahead and do it.
-Gurch
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
No, two months ago it was announced that there would be a fundraiser (something that was expected anyway)
I imagine most people assumed, as I did, that the effect on project pages would be the same as it has been in previous fundraisers - a small green progress bar and a snippet of "please donate" text, and that alternative ways of raising funds would be the main subject of discussion.
If it had been announced two months ago that the UI would look like it does now, rest assured there would have been complaints.
Also, what is silly about threatening a fork? Is that not one of the key arguments (in theory at least) for free content, and thus the whole point of the Wikimedia projects' existence? Or does the Foundation no longer care about that either?
-Gurch
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In a previous post it was mentioned that the English language Wikipedia has to do something about its attitude. Threatening forks is one of those silly things where you take yourself way to seriously.
When it comes to being involved in preparing for the fundraiser, it was announced some two months ago and the amount of feedback gives you exactly the right reasons for blame, apathy and the notion that there is always time enough to bitch. Thanks, GerardM
On 10/23/07, Matthew Britton matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for waking me up this morning with a honking
great
flashy scrolling monstrosity at the top of every page.
The
marquee tag was a nice flashback to 1997.
And how much opportunity for feedback were users given
on
this? Not an awful lot. The SVN commit logs show that
the
marquee thingy was committed just minutes before
appearing
project-wide, for example. I still almost managed to
file a
bugzilla request before it showed up.
Now, the way I see things, the Wikimedia Foundation has
two
options:
(1) Actually ask for feedback from the community before making such dramatically visible, or at least allow
more
than a few minutes for feedback to present itself. (2) Make an official announcement that the opinion of
the
community does not matter, rather than pretending that
it
does.
The choice is yours. (1) would of course be preferable,
but
(2) would make an excellent argument for a fork, so
feel
free to go ahead and do it.
-Gurch
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Threatening a fork is whining. Assumption is the mother of most fuck-ups. When you consider the financial needs and the ambitions of the Wikimedia Foundation then it safe to expect that we do need more, much more money. There have been many attempts to get the community involved and with more involvement in the running of our organisation things would be different, maybe better.
Threatening is for self important swaggering people that only move air. Threatening is a waste of time.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/23/07, Matthew Britton matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
No, two months ago it was announced that there would be a fundraiser (something that was expected anyway)
I imagine most people assumed, as I did, that the effect on project pages would be the same as it has been in previous fundraisers - a small green progress bar and a snippet of "please donate" text, and that alternative ways of raising funds would be the main subject of discussion.
If it had been announced two months ago that the UI would look like it does now, rest assured there would have been complaints.
Also, what is silly about threatening a fork? Is that not one of the key arguments (in theory at least) for free content, and thus the whole point of the Wikimedia projects' existence? Or does the Foundation no longer care about that either?
-Gurch
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In a previous post it was mentioned that the English language Wikipedia has to do something about its attitude. Threatening forks is one of those silly things where you take yourself way to seriously.
When it comes to being involved in preparing for the fundraiser, it was announced some two months ago and the amount of feedback gives you exactly the right reasons for blame, apathy and the notion that there is always time enough to bitch. Thanks, GerardM
On 10/23/07, Matthew Britton matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for waking me up this morning with a honking
great
flashy scrolling monstrosity at the top of every page.
The
marquee tag was a nice flashback to 1997.
And how much opportunity for feedback were users given
on
this? Not an awful lot. The SVN commit logs show that
the
marquee thingy was committed just minutes before
appearing
project-wide, for example. I still almost managed to
file a
bugzilla request before it showed up.
Now, the way I see things, the Wikimedia Foundation has
two
options:
(1) Actually ask for feedback from the community before making such dramatically visible, or at least allow
more
than a few minutes for feedback to present itself. (2) Make an official announcement that the opinion of
the
community does not matter, rather than pretending that
it
does.
The choice is yours. (1) would of course be preferable,
but
(2) would make an excellent argument for a fork, so
feel
free to go ahead and do it.
-Gurch
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/23/07, Matthew Britton matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
Also, what is silly about threatening a fork? Is that not one of the key arguments (in theory at least) for free content, and thus the whole point of the Wikimedia projects' existence? Or does the Foundation no longer care about that either?
I understand your frustration, but it is misplaced. This is not about "the Foundation vs. the community", it is about a community trying to find the best ways to sustain itself.
Who are the people who are making this fundraiser happen? They include Cary Bass, our Volunteer Coordinator, whose longtime experience on the projects and on OTRS was the primary reason he was hired. And Sabine Cretella, who is contracted to help with the fundraising coordination; a longtime respected Wikimedian who has throughout her participation volunteered immense amounts of her time in many different areas, especially the coordination of translations.
And of course our Communications Manager Sandy Ordonez ("Wiki Blue"), who, while not "from the community", has quickly fallen in love with our mission and has been passionately learning as much as she can about our strange culture in the last few months.
Under the coordination of Sue Gardner, Sabine, Sandy and Cary have invested significant time trying to rally volunteers to work on many areas of the fundraiser, from translations to buttons and banners. They have posted on many village pumps and mailing lists. The fundraising banner itself was reviewed and discussed on the communications committee mailing list (which isn't some secret club, but just a group of trusted volunteers who have shown long term engagement regarding to communications issues).
Surely I agree with you that running a marquee wasn't a particularly good idea. :-) I think in a few weeks/months we'll all laugh about it. But understand also why it was done: to drive eyeballs & thereby increase the likelihood of donations. Not so money can flow in someone's personal pockets, but so the site can actually stay up, and so we can do exactly the things Jimmy talks about in his videos. Getting attention is always going to be a balancing act between success & irritation.
A constant crawler is over the top -- so it was quickly removed. Maybe there's still some compromise to be found between totally static messages and the marquee of death.
This fundraiser will run for a couple of months, and there's still plenty of time to improve upon all aspects of it. Rather than spend time arguing on the list about it, why not actually help the project with constructive work on a prettier banner, or feedback on the video, or a hundred other things? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2007 has a lot of useful links to get started, and an en.wp page for the fundraising banner specifically has been created here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_redesign
We're in this together, Matthew. Please help where you can. Thanks. :-)
On 10/23/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Under the coordination of Sue Gardner, Sabine, Sandy and Cary have invested significant time trying to rally volunteers to work on many areas of the fundraiser, from translations to buttons and banners.
(And of course I should not forget all the others who have helped -- especially Brion who is in charge of the technical side of things. Brion is about as much a part of Wikimedia as the "edit" button. And I mean this literally. We've got him fused into the servers. :-)
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 10/23/07, Matthew Britton matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
Also, what is silly about threatening a fork? Is that not one of the key arguments (in theory at least) for free content, and thus the whole point of the Wikimedia projects' existence? Or does the Foundation no longer care about that either?
I understand your frustration, but it is misplaced. This is not about "the Foundation vs. the community", it is about a community trying to find the best ways to sustain itself.
I've been here for nearly 5 years and *I'm* not even sold on that, so I could see why not everyone else is either. The servers at *.wikipedia.org are not going to shut down if the fundraiser comes short of funds, so "sustain itself" is not quite the right word. Furthermore, if we were anywhere near having to shut down due to lack of funds to pay bandwidth bills, there are plenty of folks standing by ready to make major in-kind donations; Jimmy himself mentioned on this mailing list that he's had conversations with Google where they've told him they're ready to offer anytime we feel like asking.
So it sounds like the money is needed for something else besides simply sustaining the site, yet this has never really been "sold" to the community in a way that most of us are on board with.
-Mark
Il giorno 23/ott/07, alle ore 08:25, Delirium ha scritto:
So it sounds like the money is needed for something else besides simply sustaining the site, yet this has never really been "sold" to the community in a way that most of us are on board with.
What about "paying the bills and promoting Wikiprojects around the World"? It's not for free, these actions require some money. I don't think they're "fundraisinging" to buy some fancy dresses for their wardrobe.
On 10/23/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I've been here for nearly 5 years and *I'm* not even sold on that, so I could see why not everyone else is either. The servers at *.wikipedia.org are not going to shut down if the fundraiser comes short
Probably not. But would you like to turn off article reads because we can't handle the growth? Yes, we are actually still growing in traffic, now peaking at nearly 40K hits per second -- and new servers have to be paid for and budgeted.
You can see the FY07-08 budget overview here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Planned_Spending_Distribution_2007-2008
As you can see, technology is clearly the biggest part. That also includes finally hiring more developers, contracting work as needed, etc., so we can actually respond in a timely fashion to requests from the community, and integrate cool new features that everyone keeps asking for.
As for programs, yes, those are also planned. We want to reach out and network with other organizations that (want to) use our content in intelligent ways. We want to pursue grants that help our projects & our mission. We want to distribute our work as widely as possible. We want to increase sustainability through brand licensing and other business partnerships.
None of these ideas seem controversial. Indeed, we've been talking about them constantly -- and Board members, including yours truly, were elected based on the idea of helping to turn them into reality.
What is it that you think needs more explanation?
Erik Moeller wrote:
We want to pursue grants that help our projects & our mission.
This is actually the one point that I am disappointed in. For years (I have been with the projects since 2003) there has been talk about grants. Yet apart from a few rare and between cases nothing seems to have been done. Now I know talk is easy as I am standing on the sideline. But I really feel that the foundation should either look at grants seriously or not spend money on keeping on trying! Currently I feel that it is looked at half-half and someone pulls the word grant out if the closet every now and then when it is needed. I really hope the foundation does something one way or the other ... be serious about it, or do not spend money on it.
Waerth
On 10/23/07, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
This is actually the one point that I am disappointed in. For years (I have been with the projects since 2003) there has been talk about grants. Yet apart from a few rare and between cases nothing seems to have been done. Now I know talk is easy as I am standing on the sideline. But I really feel that the foundation should either look at grants seriously or not spend money on keeping on trying! Currently I feel that it is looked at half-half and someone pulls the word grant out if the closet every now and then when it is needed. I really hope the foundation does something one way or the other ... be serious about it, or do not spend money on it.
That's a completely fair comment. A grant, unlike a donation, typically commits you to a certain project that needs to be managed and overseen -- and that requires a level of organizational development which we simply have not reached yet. Working towards that is exactly one of the goals of this fundraiser.
That's a completely fair comment. A grant, unlike a donation, typically commits you to a certain project that needs to be managed and overseen -- and that requires a level of organizational development which we simply have not reached yet. Working towards that is exactly one of the goals of this fundraiser.
Anyway, I just understood from a mutual friend that you had a busy night with banners and stuff. Thanks for the hard work! And I hope a structure can be set up for grants. Good luck. And do not forget to give yourselves some rest from time to time.
Waerth
Waerth wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
We want to pursue grants that help our projects & our mission.
This is actually the one point that I am disappointed in. For years (I have been with the projects since 2003) there has been talk about grants. Yet apart from a few rare and between cases nothing seems to have been done. Now I know talk is easy as I am standing on the sideline. But I really feel that the foundation should either look at grants seriously or not spend money on keeping on trying! Currently I feel that it is looked at half-half and someone pulls the word grant out if the closet every now and then when it is needed. I really hope the foundation does something one way or the other ... be serious about it, or do not spend money on it.
Waerth
Yup. Let us be realistic a moment here Waerth.
Very few volunteers are willing to write grants themselves. It is tough work. It takes time. It is better to be a professional in that area if you want your grant to be accepted. It is just not something you do on sunday morning between 8 am and 9 am.
So, the WMF intends to hire a couple of professionals to precisely take care of such things. Help writing grants. Help organizing fundraising. Help do a little bit of business to collect funds. Hiring means "need money". Hence the current fundraising.
Currently, the WMF is not applying for ANY grant (no, there is no half and half) because we do not have the human resources to do so.
If you are interested in a job, please apply: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings
If you are interested in applying grants for free (entirely writing it, not merely giving an idea of what would really be cool to do), please contact us with a completed proposition.
Thanks
Ant
Yup. Let us be realistic a moment here Waerth.
Very few volunteers are willing to write grants themselves. It is tough work. It takes time. It is better to be a professional in that area if you want your grant to be accepted. It is just not something you do on sunday morning between 8 am and 9 am.
So, the WMF intends to hire a couple of professionals to precisely take care of such things. Help writing grants. Help organizing fundraising. Help do a little bit of business to collect funds. Hiring means "need money". Hence the current fundraising.
Currently, the WMF is not applying for ANY grant (no, there is no half and half) because we do not have the human resources to do so.
If you are interested in a job, please apply: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings
If you are interested in applying grants for free (entirely writing it, not merely giving an idea of what would really be cool to do), please contact us with a completed proposition.
Thanks
Ant
So the foundation is serious about it. That is very cool with me. About the jobs .... I wouldn't qualify for any of them, also although moving to San Francisco sounds fine with me (home is everywhere on the planet for me) I currently lack the resources to pull that off, I had trouble paying for the hopital bill this week for the little person that got born, he and a certain lady friend of mine need me here now. Although according to my lady friend she could take care of everything alone.
About writing grants voluntarily. I volunteered once 2 or 3 years ago, to help Danny. It never got of the ground. The holy fire I once had for the foundation and its issues has kinda been put out in the last year and a half it is just a fire. But I cannot sit up for nights anymore, I do not buy books anymore to help spread knowledge by writing articles, I stopped writing altogether, I just make some corrections every now and then that I see mistakes, I simply lost the passion.
Don't get me wrong. I still support the mission and everything and hope the foundation can and will succeed. But to be able to help you need a drive and a passion. Something people like you, Sabine, Erik, Angela, Jimbo, Jan-Bart and all the others whose names I am now forgetting have. And I hope that flame in all of you will keep on burning. Without it I don't see who could lead the foundation (sorry if I insult someone here). If there are small things I could help with, I will always look if I can help.
At the moment I am also busy building my own site and I need to spend all of my energy in that to make it work. Wikimedia projects are part of the inspiration. Maybe while building my site the flame will rekindle and I will help on a foundation level with some things.
I understand this is a lousy apologetic letter from my side and that you are disappointed that people only speak from the sideline. I will make up for it in the future.
You boys and girls are all the greatest though! Please keep your fires burning ...... and keep leading this movement. Anthere you are doing a great job!
Waerth
Waerth wrote:
So the foundation is serious about it. That is very cool with me. About the jobs .... I wouldn't qualify for any of them, also although moving to San Francisco sounds fine with me (home is everywhere on the planet for me) I currently lack the resources to pull that off, I had trouble paying for the hopital bill this week for the little person that got born, he and a certain lady friend of mine need me here now. Although according to my lady friend she could take care of everything alone.
The state of medical insurance in the United States would not be very helpful to you. :-) Congratulations for joining the fatherhood fraternity; it can be a very rewarding experience.
About writing grants voluntarily. I volunteered once 2 or 3 years ago, to help Danny. It never got of the ground. The holy fire I once had for the foundation and its issues has kinda been put out in the last year and a half it is just a fire. But I cannot sit up for nights anymore, I do not buy books anymore to help spread knowledge by writing articles, I stopped writing altogether, I just make some corrections every now and then that I see mistakes, I simply lost the passion.
Thank you for the honest appraisal of your circumstances. I know from following these mailing lists that you have had some serious confrontations in the past, and it is to your credit that some of the behaviour that you have encountered has not redirected your activities into hostile ones as has been the case with some others.
I understand this is a lousy apologetic letter from my side and that you are disappointed that people only speak from the sideline. I will make up for it in the future.
When it comes to sniping from the sidelines, I wonder how much the ones doing the sniping are contributing. Nobody is under any obligation to donate, but once they have made that choice, they should just shut up about honest efforts by others to fund the projects.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Waerth wrote:
So the foundation is serious about it. That is very cool with me. About the jobs .... I wouldn't qualify for any of them, also although moving to San Francisco sounds fine with me (home is everywhere on the planet for me) I currently lack the resources to pull that off, I had trouble paying for the hopital bill this week for the little person that got born, he and a certain lady friend of mine need me here now. Although according to my lady friend she could take care of everything alone.
The state of medical insurance in the United States would not be very helpful to you. :-) Congratulations for joining the fatherhood fraternity; it can be a very rewarding experience.
hear hear
3 years ago, my daughter bumped into older brother (his front into her front teeths). Result: one baby teeth died and became grey. Pain. Several visits to the dental specialist. Radio. Fixing so that it does not infect. Expensive. But some reassuring comments from the doctor: "it is only baby teeth, it is expensive, but no big deal".
Two days ago, the very same daughter bumped into younger brother (the back of his head into her front teeths). Two teeths bled. Still hurting today. I planned the dental specialist tomorrow... Of course, this time, it is on adult teeths.
Do not let yourself be in error. The little person will suck your money and your energy for the rest of your life :-)
We still love them :-) Congrats
Erik Moeller wrote:
As for programs, yes, those are also planned. We want to reach out and network with other organizations that (want to) use our content in intelligent ways. We want to pursue grants that help our projects & our mission. We want to distribute our work as widely as possible. We want to increase sustainability through brand licensing and other business partnerships.
None of these ideas seem controversial. Indeed, we've been talking about them constantly -- and Board members, including yours truly, were elected based on the idea of helping to turn them into reality.
Is that actually the goal---to reach out and network with *other* organizations? And what specifically is being done towards that? I see more evidence of ever-aggrandizing our own organization than of that.
I support Wikimedia primarily as a platform for *producing* free content, released into the world for others to do with as they wish. I will be happy to support some of those other organizations as well, and if Wikimedia wants to pass on those organizations' calls for donations to me I'd be happy to take a look---I wouldn't even object to letting a worthy organization or two temporarily borrow some sitenotice space. But I'm quite wary of one giant organization, with a significant permanent staff, large overhead budget, and institutionalized rather than grass-roots setup, both producing and controlling the distribution and branding of said content, which is what it seems to me the current direction is leading towards.
This isn't a particularly unique to Wikimedia worry, of course. Many organizations get more institutionalized and less grass-roots as they grow, usually eventually to a point where they become useless. Some manage it better than others, and I'd like to believe that Wikimedia isn't following the standard nonprofit growth/failure model, but am so far not seeing much assurance of that. But then I run Iceweasel rather than Firefox too, so maybe I'm already the enemy of "brand licensing and other business partnerships".
-Mark
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Erik Moeller wrote:
On 10/23/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I've been here for nearly 5 years and *I'm* not even sold on that, so I could see why not everyone else is either. The servers at *.wikipedia.org are not going to shut down if the fundraiser comes short
Probably not. But would you like to turn off article reads because we can't handle the growth? Yes, we are actually still growing in traffic, now peaking at nearly 40K hits per second -- and new servers have to be paid for and budgeted.
You can see the FY07-08 budget overview here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Planned_Spending_Distribution_2007-2008
As you can see, technology is clearly the biggest part. That also includes finally hiring more developers, contracting work as needed, etc., so we can actually respond in a timely fashion to requests from the community, and integrate cool new features that everyone keeps asking for.
It is the budget for non-technical things that is a bigger change. Is there a similar chart for last year's budget?
None of these ideas seem controversial. Indeed, we've been talking about them constantly -- and Board members, including yours truly, were elected based on the idea of helping to turn them into reality.
The Board, as representatives of and popular spokespeople for the community, can do many things to turn ideas into reality; I hope that realizing new ideas through the community's existing bounty of freely shared expertise will remain the expectation and not the exception. Saying {{sofixit}} rather than fighting with community about who is authoritized to allocate pixels is a fine example!
Regards, SJ
Hoi, Did you not notice the list of vacancies that have been posted for some time now ?? Did you not have plenty of time to react to that ?? It is just one example of the things where the WMF wants to go... Did you not notice that Florence and Jimmy have been stating for more then a year now that we want to do more and better for African languages ?? Are there not many major languages and cultures where we do not have the presence that is implied it what we aim for ?? Thanks, GerardM
On 10/23/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 10/23/07, Matthew Britton matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
Also, what is silly about threatening a fork? Is that not one of the key arguments (in theory at least) for free content, and thus the whole point of the Wikimedia projects' existence? Or does the Foundation no longer care about that either?
I understand your frustration, but it is misplaced. This is not about "the Foundation vs. the community", it is about a community trying to find the best ways to sustain itself.
I've been here for nearly 5 years and *I'm* not even sold on that, so I could see why not everyone else is either. The servers at *.wikipedia.org are not going to shut down if the fundraiser comes short of funds, so "sustain itself" is not quite the right word. Furthermore, if we were anywhere near having to shut down due to lack of funds to pay bandwidth bills, there are plenty of folks standing by ready to make major in-kind donations; Jimmy himself mentioned on this mailing list that he's had conversations with Google where they've told him they're ready to offer anytime we feel like asking.
So it sounds like the money is needed for something else besides simply sustaining the site, yet this has never really been "sold" to the community in a way that most of us are on board with.
-Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Delirium wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 10/23/07, Matthew Britton matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
Also, what is silly about threatening a fork? Is that not one of the key arguments (in theory at least) for free content, and thus the whole point of the Wikimedia projects' existence? Or does the Foundation no longer care about that either?
I understand your frustration, but it is misplaced. This is not about "the Foundation vs. the community", it is about a community trying to find the best ways to sustain itself.
I've been here for nearly 5 years and *I'm* not even sold on that, so I could see why not everyone else is either. The servers at *.wikipedia.org are not going to shut down if the fundraiser comes short of funds, so "sustain itself" is not quite the right word. Furthermore, if we were anywhere near having to shut down due to lack of funds to pay bandwidth bills, there are plenty of folks standing by ready to make major in-kind donations; Jimmy himself mentioned on this mailing list that he's had conversations with Google where they've told him they're ready to offer anytime we feel like asking.
So it sounds like the money is needed for something else besides simply sustaining the site, yet this has never really been "sold" to the community in a way that most of us are on board with.
-Mark
I am amazed by this comment Mark. You are complaining about a sitenotice you 1) do not like and 2) consider you were not asked opinion about, and you consider that in case we would lack funds, we'll be in no problems because corporations such as Google as offered to help.
Now, let's get real a moment. If we get into big financial troubles and we contact Google to help us, what do you think will happen ? Do you really think big corporations will nicely help us and give big bucks without anything in return ? Na, the day we need to call for help for any big corporation or any venture capitalist, we'll sell our soul. We'll get big advertisement plastered on the website, we'll support certain causes and not others, and I doubt very much that you will have even a say on the text written at the top of the website in the site notice.
Note that I am fine with you not liking the current site notice, I am not so fine with you pretending that the community was not involved (Sabine tried pretty desperately to involve you guys, with very little feedback), and I am definitly NOT fine with you shrugging the issue away and saying that if we need something, we can wait for Google to help. As much as we can, we should strive for independance and stick to what we believe in.
Ant
On 10/23/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Now, let's get real a moment. If we get into big financial troubles and we contact Google to help us, what do you think will happen ?
Just look at what happened to the CBC's website in 1995, under the leadership of...oh...wait a second...
Anthony wrote:
On 10/23/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Now, let's get real a moment. If we get into big financial troubles and we contact Google to help us, what do you think will happen ?
Just look at what happened to the CBC's website in 1995, under the leadership of...oh...wait a second...
Since you seem so concerned with this, and you appear to have been following the CBC website at some distance from the Canadian border for at least 12 years, it would be helpful if you provided some links to document your innuendo.
Ec
On 10/23/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 10/23/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Now, let's get real a moment. If we get into big financial troubles and we contact Google to help us, what do you think will happen ?
Just look at what happened to the CBC's website in 1995, under the leadership of...oh...wait a second...
Since you seem so concerned with this, and you appear to have been following the CBC website at some distance from the Canadian border for at least 12 years, it would be helpful if you provided some links to document your innuendo.
And in doing so, please document the relevancy of CBC's website in 1995 to I. foundation-l II. this thread, which is labelled "Fundraising banner ad"
In case you cannot do this, consider to stop posting about it.
Thanks, Michael
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/23/07, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/23/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 10/23/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Now, let's get real a moment. If we get into big financial troubles and we contact Google to help us, what do you think will happen ?
Just look at what happened to the CBC's website in 1995, under the leadership of...oh...wait a second...
Since you seem so concerned with this, and you appear to have been following the CBC website at some distance from the Canadian border for at least 12 years, it would be helpful if you provided some links to document your innuendo.
And in doing so, please document the relevancy of CBC's website in 1995 to I. foundation-l II. this thread, which is labelled "Fundraising banner ad"
In case you cannot do this, consider to stop posting about it.
Why the hostility? I would think CBC's increasing use of banner advertisements, which started in the 90s and really took off in the last few years, is certainly relevant to this thread and this list, especially since the foundation is currently has a number of former CBC employees on its payroll.
But fine, whatever, I'll shut up about it.
Anthony wrote:
On 10/23/07, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/23/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 10/23/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Now, let's get real a moment. If we get into big financial troubles and we contact Google to help us, what do you think will happen ?
Just look at what happened to the CBC's website in 1995, under the leadership of...oh...wait a second...
Since you seem so concerned with this, and you appear to have been following the CBC website at some distance from the Canadian border for at least 12 years, it would be helpful if you provided some links to document your innuendo.
And in doing so, please document the relevancy of CBC's website in 1995 to I. foundation-l II. this thread, which is labelled "Fundraising banner ad"
In case you cannot do this, consider to stop posting about it.
Why the hostility? I would think CBC's increasing use of banner advertisements, which started in the 90s and really took off in the last few years, is certainly relevant to this thread and this list, especially since the foundation is currently has a number of former CBC employees on its payroll.
But fine, whatever, I'll shut up about it.
Thank you! And thank you too for providing such an excellent demonstration of innuendo in action.
Ec
On 10/23/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 10/23/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Now, let's get real a moment. If we get into big financial troubles and we contact Google to help us, what do you think will happen ?
Just look at what happened to the CBC's website in 1995, under the leadership of...oh...wait a second...
Since you seem so concerned with this, and you appear to have been following the CBC website at some distance from the Canadian border for at least 12 years, it would be helpful if you provided some links to document your innuendo.
Since both of your claims about me are false, I'll let you find out the details for yourself.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Delirium wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I understand your frustration, but it is misplaced. This is not about "the Foundation vs. the community", it is about a community trying to find the best ways to sustain itself.
I've been here for nearly 5 years and *I'm* not even sold on that, so I could see why not everyone else is either. The servers at *.wikipedia.org are not going to shut down if the fundraiser comes short of funds,
Perhaps, but only because we'd end up selling advertising space (eww) or becoming heavily beholden to a single massive donor with strings attached.
For comparison, see the Mozilla Foundation's update on their finances: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/mitchell/archives/2007/10/beyond_sustainabili...
Their expenditures are much higher than ours, with a different balance (more people, less hosting), and their revenue is much, *much* bigger -- and almost all from a single partnership with Google.
It's cool that they're riding high on the Google wave, but it's also a precarious position; if Google pulled out, they'd lose almost all their revenue. Maybe Google's Not Evil and that's no problem, but maybe they'll change their mind, or lose interest, or try to throw their weight around, and it'll be harder to find an alternate source of funding once they're so invested in that one.
Wikimedia has so far maintained a serious commitment to remaining independent, with a diverse donor base.
So it sounds like the money is needed for something else besides simply sustaining the site, yet this has never really been "sold" to the community in a way that most of us are on board with.
Not really; the 2007-2008 budget primarily covers actual hosting, staffing, organizational overhead, and Wikimania conference costs, with a tiny sliver of new cute projects.
If we do bring in a lot of extra cash, we might be able to get more involved in those things directly -- partnering with organizations to help the starving children read an encyclopedia or whatever -- but primarily we run a web site, and that's what our budget projections and fundraising targets are aiming at.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
Brion Vibber wrote:
It's cool that they're riding high on the Google wave, but it's also a precarious position; if Google pulled out, they'd lose almost all their revenue. Maybe Google's Not Evil and that's no problem, but maybe they'll change their mind, or lose interest, or try to throw their weight around, and it'll be harder to find an alternate source of funding once they're so invested in that one.
Wikimedia has so far maintained a serious commitment to remaining independent, with a diverse donor base.
It has to do with the importance of diversification. I've seen it happen where people have been convinced by a fast talker to mortgage their home to invest in a risky venture, or in the organized thievery of the futures market. They are surprised and completely unawares when their investment fails, but they still owe the mortgage when they were otherwise ready for retirement.
It's just as bad to depend on one single source of finance. A small business that depends almost exclusively on one source of revenue is vulnerable that way. Any sudden withdrawal of such a funding source for whatever reason could have serious effects on core operations. There is no indication whatsoever that Google is about to collapse into bankruptcy. If they were, would they warn us?
Ec
On 10/23/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There is no indication whatsoever that Google is about to collapse into bankruptcy. If they were, would they warn us?
If they knew about it, yes, they would, in their SEC filings. Otherwise, no, but considering that they have over 13 billion in current assets, under 2 billion in debt, and under 3 billion/year in operating expenses, Google going bankrupt isn't going to happen overnight.
On 10/23/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
For comparison, see the Mozilla Foundation's update on their finances: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/mitchell/archives/2007/10/beyond_sustainabili...
Their expenditures are much higher than ours, with a different balance (more people, less hosting), and their revenue is much, *much* bigger -- and almost all from a single partnership with Google.
That's a combination of Mozilla Foundation *and* Mozilla Corporation, which makes it incredibly misleading.
It's cool that they're riding high on the Google wave, but it's also a precarious position; if Google pulled out, they'd lose almost all their revenue.
If Google pulled out, they'd find someone else to pay big bucks to be the default search in Firefox. And it's not like they'd lose revenue while looking for someone new - surely they renegotiate these contracts months before they expire.
You seem to be implying that this revenue from Google is a donation. It's not. It's Google paying Mozilla Corporation (not Mozilla Foundation) to get tons of traffic by being the default search provider.
Anthony wrote:
On 10/23/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
For comparison, see the Mozilla Foundation's update on their finances: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/mitchell/archives/2007/10/beyond_sustainabili...
Their expenditures are much higher than ours, with a different balance (more people, less hosting), and their revenue is much, *much* bigger -- and almost all from a single partnership with Google.
That's a combination of Mozilla Foundation *and* Mozilla Corporation, which makes it incredibly misleading.
Not particularly misleading, since Mozilla Corporation was spun out for financial reasons. In a similar situation (receiving most money from a commercial source), we might well do something similar.
It's cool that they're riding high on the Google wave, but it's also a precarious position; if Google pulled out, they'd lose almost all their revenue.
If Google pulled out, they'd find someone else to pay big bucks to be the default search in Firefox. And it's not like they'd lose revenue while looking for someone new - surely they renegotiate these contracts months before they expire.
You seem to be implying that this revenue from Google is a donation. It's not. It's Google paying Mozilla Corporation (not Mozilla Foundation) to get tons of traffic by being the default search provider.
You seem to be implying that no lessons can be learned from looking at other organizations. :)
-- brion
On 10/23/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 10/23/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
For comparison, see the Mozilla Foundation's update on their finances: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/mitchell/archives/2007/10/beyond_sustainabili...
Their expenditures are much higher than ours, with a different balance (more people, less hosting), and their revenue is much, *much* bigger -- and almost all from a single partnership with Google.
That's a combination of Mozilla Foundation *and* Mozilla Corporation, which makes it incredibly misleading.
Not particularly misleading, since Mozilla Corporation was spun out for financial reasons. In a similar situation (receiving most money from a commercial source), we might well do something similar.
The fact that Mozilla Corporation was spun out for financial reasons is precisely why combining the two together and looking at their financials is misleading.
It's cool that they're riding high on the Google wave, but it's also a precarious position; if Google pulled out, they'd lose almost all their revenue.
If Google pulled out, they'd find someone else to pay big bucks to be the default search in Firefox. And it's not like they'd lose revenue while looking for someone new - surely they renegotiate these contracts months before they expire.
You seem to be implying that this revenue from Google is a donation. It's not. It's Google paying Mozilla Corporation (not Mozilla Foundation) to get tons of traffic by being the default search provider.
You seem to be implying that no lessons can be learned from looking at other organizations. :)
I certainly didn't mean to imply that. I think lessons can be learned from looking at other organizations. I just don't think your description of Mozilla as being in a precarious situation is accurate. In fact, I'd say that Mozilla is in a more stable financial situation than the WMF. They don't have to worry about fundraisers coming up short or people complaining about animated banner ads. They just have to rely on Google and Yahoo and and Answers Corporation not all simultaneously going bankrupt along with everyone else related to information search.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Delirium wrote:
I've been here for nearly 5 years and *I'm* not even sold on that, so I could see why not everyone else is either. The servers at *.wikipedia.org are not going to shut down if the fundraiser comes short of funds, so "sustain itself" is not quite the right word. Furthermore, if we were anywhere near having to shut down due to lack of funds to pay bandwidth bills, there are plenty of folks standing by ready to make major in-kind donations; Jimmy himself mentioned on this mailing list that he's had conversations with Google where they've told him they're ready to offer anytime we feel like asking.
I'm not sure that Wikipedia has this kind of safety net yet. However, it is something to aspire to; there have been discussions about setting up a trust or endowment specifically to safeguard the running and maintenance of servers, independent of other operational costs. This is something valuable that I hope takes shape now that we aren't fighting fires every other month.
SJ
On 10/23/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
GerardM wrote:
In a previous post it was mentioned that the English language Wikipedia has to do something about its attitude.
And the attitude I'm quoting is an example of the ideal we ought to all strive towards?
Gerard, being a Pot citizen of upstanding morality, has seen the need to inform all of us Kettles at en.wikipedia of Alarming Issues concerning our collective hue, which he recommends we Do Something About immediately. Truly we all benefit from his kind example!
Hoi, FYI I have done several translations for this fund raiser. So what did you do ? Thanks, GerardM
On 10/23/07, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/23/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
GerardM wrote:
In a previous post it was mentioned that the English language
Wikipedia has
to do something about its attitude.
And the attitude I'm quoting is an example of the ideal we ought to all strive towards?
Gerard, being a Pot citizen of upstanding morality, has seen the need to inform all of us Kettles at en.wikipedia of Alarming Issues concerning our collective hue, which he recommends we Do Something About immediately. Truly we all benefit from his kind example!
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
All I have to say is... wow. What happend to Gerard?!
On 22/10/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, FYI I have done several translations for this fund raiser. So what did you do ? Thanks, GerardM
On 10/23/07, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/23/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
GerardM wrote:
In a previous post it was mentioned that the English language
Wikipedia has
to do something about its attitude.
And the attitude I'm quoting is an example of the ideal we ought to all strive towards?
Gerard, being a Pot citizen of upstanding morality, has seen the need to inform all of us Kettles at en.wikipedia of Alarming Issues concerning our collective hue, which he recommends we Do Something About immediately. Truly we all benefit from his kind example!
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org