Andrew Garrett writes:
We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
hesitate to say that we're still "small" and "running on a shoestring budget". The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars.
This point can't be overstressed. Compared to organizations running the other nine of the top ten websites, Wikimedia Foundation is miniscule, and should still be considered so even if/when the Foundation meets the goals set in the strategic plan.
--Mike
On 7 March 2011 17:02, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew Garrett writes:
We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
hesitate to say that we're still "small" and "running on a shoestring budget". The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars.
This point can't be overstressed. Compared to organizations running the other nine of the top ten websites, Wikimedia Foundation is miniscule, and should still be considered so even if/when the Foundation meets the goals set in the strategic plan.
Indeed. This thread appears to have been an exercise in:
1. Why Wasn't I Consulted? [1] 2. I wasn't consulted! You set out to ignore me! 3. Therefore, I have the right to troll for months and assume the worst faith of everyone. 4. In fact, I have a *moral obligation* to make a massive dick of myself.
None of these are, in fact, the case, even a little bit.
- d.
On 03/07/2011 06:08 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Indeed. This thread appears to have been an exercise in:
[a whole lot of insults]
I don't know if you're directing this at me, but if you are, I seriously would be interested why you think that I'm trolling or assuming bad faith. To clarify: I don't. I'm not really interested in past decisions. They were made, some of them good, some bad, but mostly harmless. What I was trying to discuss was this: How can we make sure that negative impact stays at a tolerable level _for_futute_fundraisers_? I realize that the discussion has gone off-topic in some subthreads, but I think the original point of my question remains valid.
Regards, Tobias
On 7 March 2011 17:19, church.of.emacs.ml church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't know if you're directing this at me, but if you are, I seriously would be interested why you think that I'm trolling or assuming bad faith.
I'm not, several others in this group of threads are.
The essential issue is the underlying attitude people have that they weren't consulted and should have been. They were and the attempt to do so ran for months at huge effort. Posting to foundation-l shrilly pretending they were grievously ignored is pretty much inexplicable given the effort put into strategy.
- d.
On Mar 7, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew Garrett writes:
We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
hesitate to say that we're still "small" and "running on a shoestring budget". The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars.
This point can't be overstressed. Compared to organizations running the other nine of the top ten websites, Wikimedia Foundation is miniscule,
Don't forget we have many thousands of volunteers. We are not like those other websites at all and don't think those are good comparisons.
Katie
and should still be considered so even if/when the Foundation meets the goals set in the strategic plan.
--Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:13 AM, aude aude.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew Garrett writes:
We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
hesitate to say that we're still "small" and "running on a shoestring budget". The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars.
This point can't be overstressed. Compared to organizations running the other nine of the top ten websites, Wikimedia Foundation is miniscule,
Don't forget we have many thousands of volunteers. We are not like those other websites at all and don't think those are good comparisons.
I don't think anyone's forgotten the volunteers. But Andrew's remark referred specifically to the "shoestring budget." In that sense, the Wikimedia Foundation is miniscule, compared to organizations running the other top ten websites.
--Mike
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org