Gregory Kohs writes:
For comparison, witness an organization cited by Charity Navigator as "similar" to the WMF -- the Reason Foundation -- and see how their Expenses are a much larger portion of revenue for them, and thus obtain a 3-star rating: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7481
My long-time friends at the Reason Foundation wish very much that they and their programs could have the same kind of impact in the world that the Wikimedia Foundation and its programs have. Compare, for example, the Alexa rankings of wikipedia.org and reason.com.
Full disclosure: I'm a contributing editor to Reason magazine.
--Mike
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Kohs writes:
For comparison, witness an organization cited by Charity Navigator as "similar" to the WMF -- the Reason Foundation -- and see how their Expenses are a much larger portion of revenue for them, and thus obtain a 3-star rating: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7481
My long-time friends at the Reason Foundation wish very much that they and their programs could have the same kind of impact in the world that the Wikimedia Foundation and its programs have. Compare, for example, the Alexa rankings of wikipedia.org and reason.com.
Damn straight, Mike. People who contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation don't care about what portion of their donations goes to pay the salaries of you and Sue. They just care about number of web hits per dollar.
And just look at how great of an impact Wikipedia has on the world compared to Reason Magazine. Wikipedia viewers arrive in droves to read about top topics like The Beatles, Michael Jackson, and YouTube, while Reason Magazine subscribers get stories on such useless topics as The Defeat of Communism, Rising Prices in Post-Crisis America, and Why Washington Shouldn't Run Detroit. You should tell your friends at the Reason Foundation what they can do to make the same kind of impact as Wikipedia on the world. They need to stop trying to spread their esoteric beliefs and start catering to the whims of the mass public!
Reason Magazine - delete, POV, original research.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Kohs writes:
For comparison, witness an organization cited by Charity Navigator as "similar" to the WMF -- the Reason Foundation -- and see how their Expenses are a much larger portion of revenue for them, and thus obtain a 3-star rating: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7481
My long-time friends at the Reason Foundation wish very much that they and their programs could have the same kind of impact in the world that the Wikimedia Foundation and its programs have. Compare, for example, the Alexa rankings of wikipedia.org and reason.com.
Damn straight, Mike. People who contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation don't care about what portion of their donations goes to pay the salaries of you and Sue. They just care about number of web hits per dollar.
And just look at how great of an impact Wikipedia has on the world compared to Reason Magazine. Wikipedia viewers arrive in droves to read about top topics like The Beatles, Michael Jackson, and YouTube, while Reason Magazine subscribers get stories on such useless topics as The Defeat of Communism, Rising Prices in Post-Crisis America, and Why Washington Shouldn't Run Detroit. You should tell your friends at the Reason Foundation what they can do to make the same kind of impact as Wikipedia on the world. They need to stop trying to spread their esoteric beliefs and start catering to the whims of the mass public!
Reason Magazine - delete, POV, original research.
Without primary and secondary sources, Wikipedia should be blank.
We are not them - but we rely on them intimately.
You have reached and exceeded the point of reducto ad absurdum. This is part of why you, too, are a less than optimally effective critic of Wikipedia.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org