On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Mike Godwin
<mnemonic(a)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.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com