Hello everyone.
Just for a head up (or down)
First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching donors in that fundraiser. This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the reaction of some members in the community.
Second, the fundraiser is not over. It will be over on Wikipedia day. It may be that at some point in the coming week, we change the site notice to put links to thank donators etc...
Third, this fundraiser has been the most successful of our history by far, until now. When we really think about it, it is fabulous. We can do even better in the last week.
Fourth, we'll go on with limited funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !
Anthere
On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Hello everyone.
Just for a head up (or down)
First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching donors in that fundraiser. This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the reaction of some members in the community.
Second, the fundraiser is not over. It will be over on Wikipedia day.
For the benefit of everyone else, like me, who had to look this up - January 15, ie a week on Monday.
Florence Devouard wrote:
Hello everyone.
Just for a head up (or down)
First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching donors in that fundraiser.
I was just told some people were jumping to the wrong conclusions. So, let me emphasize that I used the word "that" on purpose. There will no more matching donations in THAT fundraiser.
It is very probably we'll have again matching donations in the next fundraisers.
ant
This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the reaction of some members in the community.
Second, the fundraiser is not over. It will be over on Wikipedia day. It may be that at some point in the coming week, we change the site notice to put links to thank donators etc...
Third, this fundraiser has been the most successful of our history by far, until now. When we really think about it, it is fabulous. We can do even better in the last week.
Fourth, we'll go on with limited funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !
Anthere
2007/1/7, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com:
I was just told some people were jumping to the wrong conclusions. So, let me emphasize that I used the word "that" on purpose. There will no more matching donations in THAT fundraiser.
It is very probably we'll have again matching donations in the next fundraisers.
ant
Oh. I was quite happy. So, let me emphasize that I used the word "that" on purpose.
(But, if we are going to discuss the *form* in which matching donation are going to be rewarded, maybe...)
On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Hello everyone.
Just for a head up (or down)
First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching donors in that fundraiser. This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the reaction of some members in the community.
Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the Foundation's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent job.
On 1/7/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Hello everyone.
Just for a head up (or down)
First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching donors in that fundraiser. This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the reaction of some members in the community.
Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the Foundation's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
I have to disagree. I hope that you're only mentioning the "reactions of some members of the community" reason in order to shame the complainers; canceling a matching donor because of such a tiny minority is not "responsiveness", it's oversensitivity. When you say that was one of the reasons, do you mean that loud whining about Virgin Unite is a reason why no other matching donors decided to participate, or do you mean that the complaints are why the Foundation decided not to have another matching partner? Hopefully, neither; I'd like to think that the complaints really were as insignificant as they seem to me.
-Ragesoss
Oldak Quill schreef:
On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Hello everyone.
Just for a head up (or down)
First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching donors in that fundraiser. This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the reaction of some members in the community.
Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the Foundation's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent job.
Hoi, I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or will not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires. And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current funding.
In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory.
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Oldak Quill schreef:
On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Hello everyone.
Just for a head up (or down)
First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching donors in that fundraiser. This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the reaction of some members in the community.
Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the Foundation's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent job.
Hoi, I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or will not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires. And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current funding.
In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory.
Thanks, GerardM
It was not clear cut. There was responsiveness to the logo issue. Some members were greatly distressed at the logo, and many were not very happy with it. So, some board members asked if we could avoid having the logo entirely.
However, the decision to not have the firm a matching donor was more technical. They will not be called matching donor, but they will still give a hand. So there is no loss of support.
I'll add that some people wrote to Virgin United to complain about them being matching donors. I wonder if they will do the same with all next matching donators, maybe even going as far as trying to publicly shaming them for being matching donors. This will be certainly something to take into account.
There is a board meeting next week, I will tell you more about it in a few days. Discussion over our financial situation will be of course an item of the agenda. As well as what we intend to do to increase our revenue. Any solution aside from fundraising will require getting professional help in any cases.
ant
On 07/01/07, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I'll add that some people wrote to Virgin United to complain about them being matching donors. I wonder if they will do the same with all next matching donators, maybe even going as far as trying to publicly shaming them for being matching donors. This will be certainly something to take into account.
That's the stupidest thing I've yet heard of in this entire thing.
- d.
On 1/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/01/07, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I'll add that some people wrote to Virgin United to complain about them being matching donors. I wonder if they will do the same with all next matching donators, maybe even going as far as trying to publicly shaming them for being matching donors. This will be certainly something to take into account.
That's the stupidest thing I've yet heard of in this entire thing.
Not only that, that's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of during my years in this organization and community.
The effects could go far beyond this fund-raiser and the issue of ads vs. no ads, beyond even the issue of matching donations. Think, people! Virgin Unite is a *BIG*, international charity. Do you think they don't have contacts with other similar charities? If somebody from one of these other organizations comes to them and asks "How did you do with the matching donations thing? I saw your logo." they'll say "Well... We got flamed."
Not only that, Virgin might have been considering normal donations on a regular basis. Or a whole lot of other things to do in cooperation with WMF.
Nice going, people. You've probably set us back a mile or so.
On 1/7/07, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
However, the decision to not have the firm a matching donor was more technical. They will not be called matching donor, but they will still give a hand. So there is no loss of support.
Just because they're going to give us money doesn't mean that they're going to give as much money as we otherwise would have gotten. The stats show that, on days where there were notices that announced matching donations, there was a clear uptick in donations. Without matching donations, there are very few donations at all. The amount donated per day has been going steadily downward, and now we're getting only a fraction of what we were getting during the time when the anonymous person was matching donations. See http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore/browse/2007/1 and http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore/browse/2006/12
On 07/01/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Oldak Quill schreef:
On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Hello everyone.
Just for a head up (or down)
First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching donors in that fundraiser. This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the reaction of some members in the community.
Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the Foundatin's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent job.
Hoi, I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or will not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires. And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current funding.
In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory.
IMO, the lack of funds is *not* a good thing. But that doesn't remove from the perceived responsiveness of the Foundation. It seems to me that the community was damaged/divided by the discussion last week: there were alot of very emotive mails exchanged on this list. For this reason, I think it was crucial that the Foundation demonstrate responsiveness even at the cost of some funding. In doing so, the community can, to an extent, heal.
I think that just announcing that that no matching donors would be named in the SiteNotice would have been enough (I didn't object to the anonymous matching donor). Still, too much is better than nothing.
Oldak Quill schreef:
On 07/01/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Oldak Quill schreef:
On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Hello everyone.
Just for a head up (or down)
First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching donors in that fundraiser. This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the reaction of some members in the community.
Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the Foundatin's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent job.
Hoi, I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or will not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires. And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current funding.
In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory.
IMO, the lack of funds is *not* a good thing. But that doesn't remove from the perceived responsiveness of the Foundation. It seems to me that the community was damaged/divided by the discussion last week: there were alot of very emotive mails exchanged on this list. For this reason, I think it was crucial that the Foundation demonstrate responsiveness even at the cost of some funding. In doing so, the community can, to an extent, heal.
I think that just announcing that that no matching donors would be named in the SiteNotice would have been enough (I didn't object to the anonymous matching donor). Still, too much is better than nothing.
Hoi, Well in my opinion the fact that people actually sabotaged the fund raising is indeed damaging to our community. These people fail to understand that the need for continually /more /funding is a function of our growth. Where you see a community damaged/divided, I see a community that was already divided. What I see is an organisation, our organisation, that will increasingly find it problematic to balance its books. An organisation that is not able to do the things it needs to do. An organisations that as a consequence will be increasingly unable to accommodate the growth that it could have.
I disagree that our community will heal because of this temporary reprieve. If anything it polarises the positions between those who want to see the Foundation accept the money it can get and therefore do an even better job and those that hold personal positions that have nothing to do with the stated aims of our organisation. What has happened is deferring the problem to the future, the sad thing is that the need for money will only be bigger at that time and this will make the struggle even more damaging.
The fact that you do not consider the lack of funds a good thing makes no material difference. It does not help as money would.
Thanks, GerardM
GerardM and community
I do agree with your view. I also think that lack of funds is a serious issue and I don't thank the opposition to have achieved not doing more matching donations this fundraiser.
I do disagree with you that there is no serious alternative. There is and it is brought up in a separate thread by Teun Spaans ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026545.html). It is a separate project aimed at publishing fanstuff with adds (which is now part a popular part of every Wikipedia), so that the other projects can do without adds and we still have money to fund all projects and indeed expand on some further ideas.
I don't understand that not more persons seem to be willing to judge on this idea? I don't care if thorough consideration will have a negative outcome, if there would be enough reason no to have a Fanpedia, but it is an alternative!! And until know it seems to be discarded. Please think about it and comment on that idea, it is worth considering. It seems that Wikia is doing good with this way of funding.
Kind regards Londenp
2007/1/7, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Oldak Quill schreef:
On 07/01/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Oldak Quill schreef:
On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Hello everyone.
Just for a head up (or down)
First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more
matching
donors in that fundraiser. This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to,
the
reaction of some members in the community.
Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the Foundatin's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent
job.
Hoi, I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or
will
not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires. And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current
funding.
In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory.
IMO, the lack of funds is *not* a good thing. But that doesn't remove from the perceived responsiveness of the Foundation. It seems to me that the community was damaged/divided by the discussion last week: there were alot of very emotive mails exchanged on this list. For this reason, I think it was crucial that the Foundation demonstrate responsiveness even at the cost of some funding. In doing so, the community can, to an extent, heal.
I think that just announcing that that no matching donors would be named in the SiteNotice would have been enough (I didn't object to the anonymous matching donor). Still, too much is better than nothing.
Hoi, Well in my opinion the fact that people actually sabotaged the fund raising is indeed damaging to our community. These people fail to understand that the need for continually /more /funding is a function of our growth. Where you see a community damaged/divided, I see a community that was already divided. What I see is an organisation, our organisation, that will increasingly find it problematic to balance its books. An organisation that is not able to do the things it needs to do. An organisations that as a consequence will be increasingly unable to accommodate the growth that it could have.
I disagree that our community will heal because of this temporary reprieve. If anything it polarises the positions between those who want to see the Foundation accept the money it can get and therefore do an even better job and those that hold personal positions that have nothing to do with the stated aims of our organisation. What has happened is deferring the problem to the future, the sad thing is that the need for money will only be bigger at that time and this will make the struggle even more damaging.
The fact that you do not consider the lack of funds a good thing makes no material difference. It does not help as money would.
Thanks, GerardM
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, In your assertion that Wikia is doing good with this way of funding, you immediately indicate what the problem is with the proposal; it is being done and quiet successfully by others (not only Wikia). The problem with the proposal is also that in order to benefit from the proposal, the WMF has to seriously invest in these projects. It must because this is then how we make some of our money. The people who are not interested in the "fanstuff" will not be interested in doing this and seriously, why would the people who ARE interested in this stuff be willing to work on this; the Wikipedia crowd exorcised them into another project? Why should they be willing to do profit the WMF, when they can go elsewhere to nice established communities..
We know how much money the Foundation needs.. It needs $1.500.000,- at this moment in time.. Do you really think the fanstuff proposal will make us the money that will be sufficient for the /increased /need for money of the Foundation that is the consequence of the growth of its projects?? This does not even consider the investments we would like to make to make a difference in other ways (administrative for instance) If you think the scheme will work for all this, please show us the math.
You explicitly asked for people to consider the proposal.. Sorry, to be this dismissive.
Thanks, GerardM
Peter van Londen schreef:
GerardM and community
I do agree with your view. I also think that lack of funds is a serious issue and I don't thank the opposition to have achieved not doing more matching donations this fundraiser.
I do disagree with you that there is no serious alternative. There is and it is brought up in a separate thread by Teun Spaans ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026545.html). It is a separate project aimed at publishing fanstuff with adds (which is now part a popular part of every Wikipedia), so that the other projects can do without adds and we still have money to fund all projects and indeed expand on some further ideas.
I don't understand that not more persons seem to be willing to judge on this idea? I don't care if thorough consideration will have a negative outcome, if there would be enough reason no to have a Fanpedia, but it is an alternative!! And until know it seems to be discarded. Please think about it and comment on that idea, it is worth considering. It seems that Wikia is doing good with this way of funding.
Kind regards Londenp
2007/1/7, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Oldak Quill schreef:
On 07/01/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Oldak Quill schreef:
On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Hello everyone.
Just for a head up (or down)
First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more
matching
donors in that fundraiser. This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to,
the
reaction of some members in the community.
Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the Foundatin's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent
job.
Hoi, I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or
will
not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires. And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current
funding.
In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory.
IMO, the lack of funds is *not* a good thing. But that doesn't remove from the perceived responsiveness of the Foundation. It seems to me that the community was damaged/divided by the discussion last week: there were alot of very emotive mails exchanged on this list. For this reason, I think it was crucial that the Foundation demonstrate responsiveness even at the cost of some funding. In doing so, the community can, to an extent, heal.
I think that just announcing that that no matching donors would be named in the SiteNotice would have been enough (I didn't object to the anonymous matching donor). Still, too much is better than nothing.
Hoi, Well in my opinion the fact that people actually sabotaged the fund raising is indeed damaging to our community. These people fail to understand that the need for continually /more /funding is a function of our growth. Where you see a community damaged/divided, I see a community that was already divided. What I see is an organisation, our organisation, that will increasingly find it problematic to balance its books. An organisation that is not able to do the things it needs to do. An organisations that as a consequence will be increasingly unable to accommodate the growth that it could have.
I disagree that our community will heal because of this temporary reprieve. If anything it polarises the positions between those who want to see the Foundation accept the money it can get and therefore do an even better job and those that hold personal positions that have nothing to do with the stated aims of our organisation. What has happened is deferring the problem to the future, the sad thing is that the need for money will only be bigger at that time and this will make the struggle even more damaging.
The fact that you do not consider the lack of funds a good thing makes no material difference. It does not help as money would.
Thanks, GerardM
I think this idea doesn't deserve such an answer, but hey I asked for it: 1) I have not said that it should be the only way of funding, I think it would help though as one out of the several funding possibilities to generate the amount of cash, which you envision. 2) Communities have to grow. This was the same with Wikipedia, Wikibooks and so on. I don't see why a Fanpedia would not grow. 3) Fanstuff is a part of Wikipedia. There are people fully devoted to these mini-projects, they would move to the new project, even more when they share the same ideals as we have. 4) I have no idea how much cash it could or would generate. People involved in Wikia might have an answer though. 5) Until now I have heared answers why it would not work, but not much answers which say what *would* work to raise to at least 1.5 million per fundraiser. There are not many acceptable ideas, are there? I see your point in the necessity of loads of money, but there must be alternatives for advertising on all projects.
This is the core of the proposal: we have one project which generates cash so the other projects can be funded without advertising. It doesn't have to be fanstuff, but that is popular and will generate a lot of traffic and therefore money. It might also help keep editors who have a problem with advertising on the projects.
I still don't understand the problems and would like to ask if we could make a pilot-project. Let's say on the dutch projects and then see how this would develop.
Kind regards Londenp
2007/1/7, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, In your assertion that Wikia is doing good with this way of funding, you immediately indicate what the problem is with the proposal; it is being done and quiet successfully by others (not only Wikia). The problem with the proposal is also that in order to benefit from the proposal, the WMF has to seriously invest in these projects. It must because this is then how we make some of our money. The people who are not interested in the "fanstuff" will not be interested in doing this and seriously, why would the people who ARE interested in this stuff be willing to work on this; the Wikipedia crowd exorcised them into another project? Why should they be willing to do profit the WMF, when they can go elsewhere to nice established communities..
We know how much money the Foundation needs.. It needs $1.500.000,- at this moment in time.. Do you really think the fanstuff proposal will make us the money that will be sufficient for the /increased /need for money of the Foundation that is the consequence of the growth of its projects?? This does not even consider the investments we would like to make to make a difference in other ways (administrative for instance) If you think the scheme will work for all this, please show us the math.
You explicitly asked for people to consider the proposal.. Sorry, to be this dismissive.
Thanks, GerardM
Peter van Londen schreef:
GerardM and community
I do agree with your view. I also think that lack of funds is a serious issue and I don't thank the opposition to have achieved not doing more matching donations this fundraiser.
I do disagree with you that there is no serious alternative. There is
and it
is brought up in a separate thread by Teun Spaans (
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026545.html ).
It is a separate project aimed at publishing fanstuff with adds (which
is
now part a popular part of every Wikipedia), so that the other projects
can
do without adds and we still have money to fund all projects and indeed expand on some further ideas.
I don't understand that not more persons seem to be willing to judge on
this
idea? I don't care if thorough consideration will have a negative
outcome,
if there would be enough reason no to have a Fanpedia, but it is an alternative!! And until know it seems to be discarded. Please think
about it
and comment on that idea, it is worth considering. It seems that Wikia
is
doing good with this way of funding.
Kind regards Londenp
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Let me first state that I do not write fancruft articles as I am not interested in them. I do feel though that they have their place on a project like wikipedia. And I am getting tired of the relatively very small group on NL. wikipedia who try whatever they can to get these articles deleted. They have been trying this for years. This proposal from them is in my opinion to xxxxth attempt to accomplish this.
- Communities have to grow. This was the same with Wikipedia, Wikibooks and
so on. I don't see why a Fanpedia would not grow.
There could be many reasons. Like people simply choose not to work on this, but go elsewhere.
- Fanstuff is a part of Wikipedia. There are people fully devoted to these
mini-projects, they would move to the new project, even more when they share the same ideals as we have.
They would not. If I would ban you from a website writing about the stuff you like, would you go and work on a new website I set up for you to do your thing? The answer is no! I have seen it tried at fora where people wrote OT stuff. The siteowner stopped it set up a seperate forum (a new site). But instead of the people going there the people set up a totally new place where they could combine the new topics with the old. So the old forum lost a lot of its contributors. And the new forum never had the amount of contributors to get a good forum going. So both lost out. People do not like in general to go from site to site. People are usually dedicated to only one or two places on the internet. The other places they go to marginally. It is a time issue.
Also look at our own projects. People usually contribute really a lot to one project and only marginally to other projects. Which means that apart from the fancruft writing we would loose out on the spellchecking and other contributions these people do when exiled somewhere else.
Also splitting up means we are setting up new fiefdoms where people can go by their own rules etc.
- I have no idea how much cash it could or would generate. People involved
in Wikia might have an answer though.
The last I heard (over 6 months ago though) was that Wikia was turning a loss.
- Until now I have heared answers why it would not work, but not much
answers which say what *would* work to raise to at least 1.5 million per fundraiser. There are not many acceptable ideas, are there? I see your point in the necessity of loads of money, but there must be alternatives for advertising on all projects.
MAybe because people only see reasons why it would not work?
This is the core of the proposal: we have one project which generates cash so the other projects can be funded without advertising. It doesn't have to be fanstuff, but that is popular and will generate a lot of traffic and therefore money. It might also help keep editors who have a problem with advertising on the projects.
I still don't understand the problems and would like to ask if we could make a pilot-project. Let's say on the dutch projects and then see how this would develop.
Never on the Dutch projects, it is already hopelessly divided and splintered. nl.wikiquote, nl.wikinews, even nl.wikibooks and nl.wikisource barely have contributors. Why? Because people do not like to be send somewhere else. Same when I go looking for something I do not like having to visit different sites if one has it all. If you want the Dutch project to be a guinea-pig better first discuss it amongst the community, instead of assuming the nl: projects will blindly follow you on this. If you want to try it out why not seperately from the foundation yourself and when it seems to work have it become a part of the foundation. More things have been tried out that way.
Waerth
Hoi, The problem with your answer is that the proposal was brought as a way of making some serious money. Now you complain because I destroyed the basic assumption that a fanpedia will make sufficient money to make a difference. You now state that you do not have a clue how much money is needed but also that is does not need to be the only source of revenue. My problem with the whole argumentation against "advertisements" and the arguments used by the people who sabotaged the fundraiser is that they do not, have not come up with any believable alternatives. I have been asked is there no compromise .. My answer to that is that I do not want advertisement per se, I want enough funding for the Wikimedia Foundation in order to be able to continue to grow. For a compromise there is a need to water down positions. The question is therefore: are you willing to sacrifice our growth by preventing the corresponding need for funding?
There is another reason why the proposal will not work. In the current Wikipedia projects we have some latitude when we have a picture that is a copyvio and bring it as part of what people call "fair use". When we explicitly have these fan sites to make money, there is no room to wiggle any more.
Now consider, a website with Pokemon stuff without a picture of charmander .. how is that to make us money ?
Thanks, GerardM
Peter van Londen schreef:
I think this idea doesn't deserve such an answer, but hey I asked for it:
- I have not said that it should be the only way of funding, I think it
would help though as one out of the several funding possibilities to generate the amount of cash, which you envision. 2) Communities have to grow. This was the same with Wikipedia, Wikibooks and so on. I don't see why a Fanpedia would not grow. 3) Fanstuff is a part of Wikipedia. There are people fully devoted to these mini-projects, they would move to the new project, even more when they share the same ideals as we have. 4) I have no idea how much cash it could or would generate. People involved in Wikia might have an answer though. 5) Until now I have heared answers why it would not work, but not much answers which say what *would* work to raise to at least 1.5 million per fundraiser. There are not many acceptable ideas, are there? I see your point in the necessity of loads of money, but there must be alternatives for advertising on all projects.
This is the core of the proposal: we have one project which generates cash so the other projects can be funded without advertising. It doesn't have to be fanstuff, but that is popular and will generate a lot of traffic and therefore money. It might also help keep editors who have a problem with advertising on the projects.
I still don't understand the problems and would like to ask if we could make a pilot-project. Let's say on the dutch projects and then see how this would develop.
Kind regards Londenp
2007/1/7, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, In your assertion that Wikia is doing good with this way of funding, you immediately indicate what the problem is with the proposal; it is being done and quiet successfully by others (not only Wikia). The problem with the proposal is also that in order to benefit from the proposal, the WMF has to seriously invest in these projects. It must because this is then how we make some of our money. The people who are not interested in the "fanstuff" will not be interested in doing this and seriously, why would the people who ARE interested in this stuff be willing to work on this; the Wikipedia crowd exorcised them into another project? Why should they be willing to do profit the WMF, when they can go elsewhere to nice established communities..
We know how much money the Foundation needs.. It needs $1.500.000,- at this moment in time.. Do you really think the fanstuff proposal will make us the money that will be sufficient for the /increased /need for money of the Foundation that is the consequence of the growth of its projects?? This does not even consider the investments we would like to make to make a difference in other ways (administrative for instance) If you think the scheme will work for all this, please show us the math.
You explicitly asked for people to consider the proposal.. Sorry, to be this dismissive.
Thanks, GerardM
Peter van Londen schreef:
GerardM and community
I do agree with your view. I also think that lack of funds is a serious issue and I don't thank the opposition to have achieved not doing more matching donations this fundraiser.
I do disagree with you that there is no serious alternative. There is
and it
is brought up in a separate thread by Teun Spaans (
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026545.html ).
It is a separate project aimed at publishing fanstuff with adds (which
is
now part a popular part of every Wikipedia), so that the other projects
can
do without adds and we still have money to fund all projects and indeed expand on some further ideas.
I don't understand that not more persons seem to be willing to judge on
this
idea? I don't care if thorough consideration will have a negative
outcome,
if there would be enough reason no to have a Fanpedia, but it is an alternative!! And until know it seems to be discarded. Please think
about it
and comment on that idea, it is worth considering. It seems that Wikia
is
doing good with this way of funding.
Kind regards Londenp
Hallo, @Michael Snow 1: garbage has no place on Wikipedia, nor on something like Fanpedia. I agree turning garbage into gold is not possible. OK, but the question is if all the fancruft is garbage? Turning garbage into gold has been a fantasy since the alchemists. There's a reason it's a fantasy. @Michael Snow 2: I like your idea of using templates for disputed content for advertisements. But it would bring advertisements in all projects. a) the consequence of this idea is that Wikimedia projects *should* have advertising, and that the advertising should be used specifically to improve the content. b) Anything that is tagged as being disputed, controversial, needing cleanup, unsourced, original research, vanity, or a host of other problems - using one of the many such templates on the English Wikipedia, for example - automatically gets advertising space added along with the tag.
@Waerth 1: it is not a way to get rid of fancruft from the Wikipedia: the idea is a way to make money!! Fancruft is popular and therefor a project like Fanpedia would have a kick-start. I am OK with another solution: like a add-driven wine-encyclopedia, or an animal encyclopedia (allthough I hate to loose that in wikipedia), or any other idea. Is is not focused just on fancruft. I do invite you to start adding content on Wikipedia again. And I am getting tired of the relatively very small group on NL. wikipedia who try whatever they can to get these articles deleted. They have been trying this for years. This proposal from them is in my opinion to xxxxth attempt to accomplish this. @Waerth 2: You are the only one advocating to join all sister-projects into Wikipedia. I have never heard of anyone backing up that idea. Besides I agree that the communities on other projects are not that big as on Wikipedia, but 1) Wikipedia has a head start and 2) not everything needs to be as successful as Wikipedia @Waerth 3: I don't, I was asking for a feasibility of this project, before I start-up a discussion which brings as nowhere, because it is not possible to do. If you want the Dutch project to be a guinea-pig better first discuss it amongst the community, instead of assuming the nl: projects will blindly follow you on this. @GerardM 1: You want advertisements on all projects to generate a lot of money. Some persons have stated on this list: they want no advertising and even no sponsoring (when we visually thank them). This proposal is a compromise. It is like Swiss politics: a proposal from the center does sometimes not have a chance to be accepted, because the left don't want to back up that idea and also the right don't want to back up that idea, but because of totally different reasons: the result is stagnation until one of the forces becomes so strong that they win, leaving a big part of the community with a bad feeling. A compromise is aimed at a win-win situation or at least a partly satisfied feeling. And yes I would compromise further if needed, allthough I have no clue why the growth would be prevented by working on this proposal, we also have a resources problem: you can only do so much. I want to make clear I did not sabotage and in fact do advocate matching donations. My problem with the whole argumentation against "advertisements" and the arguments used by the people who sabotaged the fundraiser is that they do not, have not come up with any believable alternatives. I have been asked is there no compromise .. My answer to that is that I do not want advertisement per se, I want enough funding for the Wikimedia Foundation in order to be able to continue to grow. For a compromise there is a need to water down positions. The question is therefore: are you willing to sacrifice our growth by preventing the corresponding need for funding @GerardM2: Here is a fair argument, which might not be overcome. There is another reason why the proposal will not work. In the current Wikipedia projects we have some latitude when we have a picture that is a copyvio and bring it as part of what people call "fair use". When we explicitly have these fan sites to make money, there is no room to wiggle any more.
I have tried to expand on the ideas living in the Dutch community, which could generate cash and would compromise for the different fractions inside the communities. The answers here are in fact not-backed-up theoretical opinions; I would like to work with a pilot-project on a ''small'' language to see if it would work and what we can expect from it. It is very easy to find reasons why something will not work, it is the easiest way.
So, alas, forget about the idea behind Fanpedia, it seems this is not backed-up by you all, and please do expand on the idea of Michael Snow: Adds are introduced to work on improving the Wikipedia-content.
Kind regards, Londenp
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi,
@GerardM 1: You want advertisements on all projects to generate a lot of money. Some persons have stated on this list: they want no advertising and even no sponsoring (when we visually thank them). This proposal is a compromise. It is like Swiss politics: a proposal from the center does sometimes not have a chance to be accepted, because the left don't want to back up that idea and also the right don't want to back up that idea, but because of totally different reasons: the result is stagnation until one of the forces becomes so strong that they win, leaving a big part of the community with a bad feeling. A compromise is aimed at a win-win situation or at least a partly satisfied feeling. And yes I would compromise further if needed, allthough I have no clue why the growth would be prevented by working on this proposal, we also have a resources problem: you can only do so much. I want to make clear I did not sabotage and in fact do advocate matching donations. My problem with the whole argumentation against "advertisements" and the arguments used by the people who sabotaged the fundraiser is that they do not, have not come up with any believable alternatives. I have been asked is there no compromise .. My answer to that is that I do not want advertisement per se, I want enough funding for the Wikimedia Foundation in order to be able to continue to grow. For a compromise there is a need to water down positions. The question is therefore: are you willing to sacrifice our growth by preventing the corresponding need for funding
For the record: I have no doubt that you did not sabotage the fund-raiser.
When you ask me do I want advertisements, then the answer is no. When you ask me "am I willing to sacrifice our growth by preventing the corresponding need for funding" then I do not know what you mean because We ARE growing and this results in a need for funding and we are NOT investing where it is most needed. We need to invest more in the languages where we do not have an organisational presence. It is for this reason that I am glad that our Wikimania 2007 will be in Taiwan, you will appreciate that I would not mind it to be in Nairobi next year and Brazil the year after. I would be glad to prevent growth where it is least needed. This would be the English Wikipedia but the problem is that you cannot prevent this growth. I would not advise anyone to try to limit this growth because the backlash would be phenomenal.
Where you say: "you can only do so much", I agree. The problem is that you propose a project that is not viable as a consequence. Personally I expect that you can not make a community in the way you propose. I want you to be realistic. How would you limit the growth, what will be the consequences. We have an overstretched organisation it is not rocket science to understand that the sheer amount of work will only grow. People are organising themselves to get functional Wikipedias for Africa. There are NGOs paying money for the translation of Wikipedia content to other Wikipedias. You do not have a clue how the tsunami of our growth is continuing. You cannot put your finger in the dike and prevent this from flooding you.
The fact that we are struggling with the notion of advertisement is exactly what is preventing a lot of cooperation with organisations. Even not for profit organisations and universities welcome to be publicly thanked. It makes a difference to them. Many people confuse saying "thank you" with advertising. Many people think that our editorial freedom will be compromised when we give in to the demands of others. Hell, we have situations where our content is completely removed because of legal reasons. We have to cope with what others think and want already. The question that was not asked is: do you really think that the Foundation can stop people writing as they do? Do you have a notion what would happen if our editorial independence was compromised?? You will find me on the barricades when that happens !!
@GerardM2: Here is a fair argument, which might not be overcome. There is another reason why the proposal will not work. In the current Wikipedia projects we have some latitude when we have a picture that is a copyvio and bring it as part of what people call "fair use". When we explicitly have these fan sites to make money, there is no room to wiggle any more.
I have tried to expand on the ideas living in the Dutch community, which could generate cash and would compromise for the different fractions inside the communities. The answers here are in fact not-backed-up theoretical opinions; I would like to work with a pilot-project on a ''small'' language to see if it would work and what we can expect from it. It is very easy to find reasons why something will not work, it is the easiest way.
So, alas, forget about the idea behind Fanpedia, it seems this is not backed-up by you all, and please do expand on the idea of Michael Snow: Adds are introduced to work on improving the Wikipedia-content.
Adds would be introduced to work on improving the WikiMedia-content !!!
Thanks, GerardM
On 1/7/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Oldak Quill schreef:
On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Hello everyone.
Just for a head up (or down)
First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching donors in that fundraiser. This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the reaction of some members in the community.
Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the Foundation's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent job.
Hoi, I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or will not happen in the near future for lack of funds.
Ant didn't say anything about the issues which were delayed being *necessary*. Framing it that way seems unfair.
There have been no serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires. And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current funding.
You seem to be taking as a given that the Virgin Unite sponsorship had an overall positive effect on the amount of funds raised. It seems to me that isn't necessarily the case. There certainly has been a dropoff of raised funds recently, though at least some of this is likely simply due to it being a new tax year for most US donors.
Anthony
Anthony schreef:
On 1/7/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Oldak Quill schreef:
On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Hello everyone.
Just for a head up (or down)
First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more matching donors in that fundraiser. This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the reaction of some members in the community.
Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the Foundation's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent job.
Hoi, I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or will not happen in the near future for lack of funds.
Ant didn't say anything about the issues which were delayed being *necessary*. Framing it that way seems unfair.
Hoi, Anthere is quiet explicit: "Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues". It means that things that are deemed to be necessary by the board will be postponed. In my opinion it is unfair that you do not accept that the lack of funding inhibits what the Wikimedia Foundation is able to do. It is quite obvious that lack of funding is holding us back. Thanks, GerardM
On 1/9/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony schreef:
Ant didn't say anything about the issues which were delayed being *necessary*. Framing it that way seems unfair.
Hoi, Anthere is quiet explicit: "Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues". It means that things that are deemed to be necessary by the board will be postponed.
Well, I don't see where you're getting the fact that those "things" were "deemed to be necessary by the board".
In my opinion it is unfair that you do not accept that the lack of funding inhibits what the Wikimedia Foundation is able to do.
I do accept that. Well, probably. It's always possible that the lack of funding will instead cause the Wikimedia Foundation to spend its money more intelligently. For instance, instead of continuing to acquire brand new $3000 servers they might instead choose to rent less expensive ones. That wouldn't inhibit anything. But that's more of wishful thinking than a real prediction.
It is quite obvious that lack of funding is holding us back.
"Lack of funding" (failure to reach an arbitrary goal) is certainly going to hold some people back from whatever it is they would have otherwise done with the money. That's quite obvious. What effect it's going to have on the foundation is much less clear. In fact, it doesn't seem to have been decided just yet.
Anthony
Anthony schreef:
On 1/9/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony schreef:
Ant didn't say anything about the issues which were delayed being *necessary*. Framing it that way seems unfair.
Hoi, Anthere is quiet explicit: "Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues". It means that things that are deemed to be necessary by the board will be postponed.
Well, I don't see where you're getting the fact that those "things" were "deemed to be necessary by the board".
Hoi, I am sorry that this is not obvious to you. The Wikimedia Foundation has a budget. This budget includes what is deemed to be necessary. The WMF does not borrow money, so when there is not enough money for what the WMF plans to do, it cuts back to the bare essentials. It is quite elementary ...
In my opinion it is unfair that you do not accept that the lack of funding inhibits what the Wikimedia Foundation is able to do.
I do accept that. Well, probably. It's always possible that the lack of funding will instead cause the Wikimedia Foundation to spend its money more intelligently. For instance, instead of continuing to acquire brand new $3000 servers they might instead choose to rent less expensive ones. That wouldn't inhibit anything. But that's more of wishful thinking than a real prediction.
Hoi,
This is pure wishful thinking. What is intelligent in buying less expensive servers when our own developers recommend specific hardware. Do you really think that the specifications are in a way that cheaper alternatives do the same quality job? Mind you, our servers are pushed hard.
It is quite obvious that lack of funding is holding us back.
"Lack of funding" (failure to reach an arbitrary goal) is certainly going to hold some people back from whatever it is they would have otherwise done with the money. That's quite obvious. What effect it's going to have on the foundation is much less clear. In fact, it doesn't seem to have been decided just yet.
Anthony
I think you badly underestimate the efforts that have gone into creating a budget when you call them "arbitrary goals". You assume that there is no planning, that no time was spend on what is needed for the Foundation and why. Your observation that the effect on the Foundation of continually being underfunded is unclear is correct, that is something that only the future will learn, but how do we compare? You do not have to be Einstein to understand that things that are beneficial will not happen. I am also surprised that you think it will hold some "people" back. It holds US back; we are the Foundation, they are our efforts, it is our projects that will be held back. When you mean that some people far away will be held back, then sure.. I do not want to argue what I think of that.
The problem is that the underfunding of the foundation is consistently belittled. This is made worse because no credible alternatives are provided that will help us raise funds in the future, a future that will only require more money.
Thanks, GerardM
On 1/9/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony schreef:
On 1/9/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony schreef:
Ant didn't say anything about the issues which were delayed being *necessary*. Framing it that way seems unfair.
Hoi, Anthere is quiet explicit: "Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues". It means that things that are deemed to be necessary by the board will be postponed.
Well, I don't see where you're getting the fact that those "things" were "deemed to be necessary by the board".
Hoi, I am sorry that this is not obvious to you. The Wikimedia Foundation has a budget. This budget includes what is deemed to be necessary. The WMF does not borrow money, so when there is not enough money for what the WMF plans to do, it cuts back to the bare essentials. It is quite elementary ...
According to this budget, how many months can Wikimedia operate for $900,000?
What I see online is a wish list, not a budget.
In my opinion it is unfair that you do not accept that the lack of funding inhibits what the Wikimedia Foundation is able to do.
I do accept that. Well, probably. It's always possible that the lack of funding will instead cause the Wikimedia Foundation to spend its money more intelligently. For instance, instead of continuing to acquire brand new $3000 servers they might instead choose to rent less expensive ones. That wouldn't inhibit anything. But that's more of wishful thinking than a real prediction.
Hoi,
This is pure wishful thinking. What is intelligent in buying less expensive servers when our own developers recommend specific hardware. Do you really think that the specifications are in a way that cheaper alternatives do the same quality job? Mind you, our servers are pushed hard.
Forget about changing the server at all. Looking at dell.com, a 36-month lease on a $3000 server is around $99/month. I'm sure a better deal could be negotiated with a different company and for a larger quantity. The last time I suggested leasing I was told that leasing was for companies that didn't have enough money, and the WMF had plenty of money. Well, that argument just went out the window now, didn't it?
It is quite obvious that lack of funding is holding us back.
"Lack of funding" (failure to reach an arbitrary goal) is certainly going to hold some people back from whatever it is they would have otherwise done with the money. That's quite obvious. What effect it's going to have on the foundation is much less clear. In fact, it doesn't seem to have been decided just yet.
Anthony
I think you badly underestimate the efforts that have gone into creating a budget when you call them "arbitrary goals". You assume that there is no planning, that no time was spend on what is needed for the Foundation and why.
Feel free to try to show otherwise. What I've seen is a wish list, not a bottom up analysis of the actual costs.
Your observation that the effect on the Foundation of continually being underfunded is unclear is correct, that is something that only the future will learn, but how do we compare? You do not have to be Einstein to understand that things that are beneficial will not happen. I am also surprised that you think it will hold some "people" back. It holds US back; we are the Foundation, they are our efforts, it is our projects that will be held back.
I was stripped of my membership in the Foundation a month or so ago. It's not US. It's them (the board).
When you mean that some people far away will be held back, then sure.. I do not want to argue what I think of that.
The problem is that the underfunding of the foundation is consistently belittled.
As of the last audited financial report, the foundation was quite overfunded, not underfunded. If it is now underfunded, that is a new thing.
This is made worse because no credible alternatives are provided that will help us raise funds in the future, a future that will only require more money.
Feel free to change that by providing a credible alternative.
Of course, I think leasing servers is an alternative to buying them. And I think that's perfectly credible.
Anthony
Anthony schreef:
I was stripped of my membership in the Foundation a month or so ago. It's not US. It's them (the board).
Hoi, When this is your attitude, I will not bother to convince you. Because they are not your projects nor is it your foundation that we are talking about. I am also of the opinion that you just disqualified yourself to have relevance on the foundation-l.
I am glad to associate myself with the Wikimedia Foundation even when I do not agree with all of the things it does.. However it provides a resource that is really important to me.
Thanks, GerardM
GerardM,
could you pls remain polite and kind?
thx, teun
On 1/9/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony schreef:
I was stripped of my membership in the Foundation a month or so ago. It's not US. It's them (the board).
Hoi, When this is your attitude, I will not bother to convince you. Because they are not your projects nor is it your foundation that we are talking about. I am also of the opinion that you just disqualified yourself to have relevance on the foundation-l.
I am glad to associate myself with the Wikimedia Foundation even when I do not agree with all of the things it does.. However it provides a resource that is really important to me.
Thanks, GerardM
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/9/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony schreef:
I was stripped of my membership in the Foundation a month or so ago. It's not US. It's them (the board).
Hoi, When this is your attitude, I will not bother to convince you. Because they are not your projects nor is it your foundation that we are talking about. I am also of the opinion that you just disqualified yourself to have relevance on the foundation-l.
I am glad to associate myself with the Wikimedia Foundation even when I do not agree with all of the things it does.. However it provides a resource that is really important to me.
I don't think it has to be my foundation in order to have an interest in it. I'm very much committed to the vision of "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge". And I think the Foundation has done a lot of things that have helped move toward that vision. But it's not my Foundation. I participate in this mailing list as an interested person, and as someone willing to help out.
But why should I waste my breath? If you'd prefer to avoid continuing this discussion by attacking me personally instead of responding to my points, that's your perogative.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
The problem is that the underfunding of the foundation is consistently belittled.
As of the last audited financial report, the foundation was quite overfunded, not underfunded. If it is now underfunded, that is a new thing.
Beg your pardon ?
Financial statements go from june to june. So, "new" is at least 7 months ago.
7 months ago, we had a "cash at the end of the year" of 500 000 dollars.
Our auditors recommanded to increase cash reserve to at least 3 ($875,000), preferrably 6 months ($1,650,000) of operating expenses for fiscal security.
In june 2006, we were NOT overfunded, we were precisely within security limits, with something like 3 to 6 months of operations in reserve.
Right now, we are VERY underfunded.
Anthere
On 1/9/07, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
The problem is that the underfunding of the foundation is consistently belittled.
As of the last audited financial report, the foundation was quite overfunded, not underfunded. If it is now underfunded, that is a new thing.
Beg your pardon ?
Financial statements go from june to june. So, "new" is at least 7 months ago.
No, "new" is *at most* 7 months ago.
7 months ago, we had a "cash at the end of the year" of 500 000 dollars.
Plus $78,415 in Google stock. Plus $50,000 in accounts receivable. Plus $400,000 in computer equipment and software.
Our auditors recommanded to increase cash reserve to at least 3 ($875,000), preferrably 6 months ($1,650,000) of operating expenses for fiscal security.
In june 2006, we were NOT overfunded, we were precisely within security limits, with something like 3 to 6 months of operations in reserve.
7.58 months of operating expenses, even if you ignore all the assets but the bank accounts (12*500,000/791,907), which, you might note, is not between 3 and 6.
Right now, we are VERY underfunded.
Anthere
On 1/9/07, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Our auditors recommanded to increase cash reserve to at least 3 ($875,000), preferrably 6 months ($1,650,000) of operating expenses for fiscal security.
By the way, I have no idea where those two numbers came from. I've seen http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for, but nowhere on that page do I see where the monthly operating expenses are budgeted at $275,000.
Does the board plan on following the auditor's recommendation, and if so, how?
Anthony
Hello,
Take the "Monthly expense budget" and don't forget to add the "June '07" parts; that will give you the expected monthly expense budget for June, which should be the figure you quoted. The reserve is of course on budget we will need in the future, not on the current budget.
Budget is rising quickly because we have more and more people coming looking at WP, so we need bigger bandwidth, because we need more people to help on MediaWiki as it is becoming more complex and we see more and more useful features missing, etc.
PS: By the way, it is indeed "at least". If it was not diffused before, it has been diffused at that date. So you might have heard about it before elsewhere, but in any case you have /at least/ been able to heard about it at that date (after that, you can have missed it, but that's another problem).
Regards, Jerome
2007/1/9, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org:
On 1/9/07, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Our auditors recommanded to increase cash reserve to at least 3 ($875,000), preferrably 6 months ($1,650,000) of operating expenses for fiscal security.
By the way, I have no idea where those two numbers came from. I've seen http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for, but nowhere on that page do I see where the monthly operating expenses are budgeted at $275,000.
Does the board plan on following the auditor's recommendation, and if so, how?
Anthony
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/10/07, Jerome Banal jerome.banal@gmail.com wrote:
Budget is rising quickly because we have more and more people coming looking at WP, so we need bigger bandwidth, because we need more people to help on MediaWiki as it is becoming more complex and we see more and more useful features missing, etc.
There are other users of mediawiki out there. Perhaps we could see what they are up to development wise.
On 1/10/07, Jerome Banal jerome.banal@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Take the "Monthly expense budget" and don't forget to add the "June '07" parts; that will give you the expected monthly expense budget for June, which should be the figure you quoted.
Did you try it? Because I did several times, and I only just now figured out what must be going on.
Monthly expense budget $75,500
Goals for bandwidth: ??? Right now the budget is $12,500. There are at least four different figures for the new "budget" (do you see why this can't be called a budget?). I see $50,000, $30,000, $62,000, $100,000, and $74,000 (which you get when you calculate $137,000-$75500+$12,500). So let's go with $74,000, and pretend it makes sense that bandwidth costs will go up sixfold?
Goals for hosting and operations: $38,000. But then the calculation that is made acts as though this is in addition to the current $13,900. So let's call it $52,000 total. Hosting costs are expected to nearly quadruple, I guess.
Goals for hiring: $100,000. Let's assume this means $100,000 in addition to the current goals. Now we get the magic $275,000 number.
Am I getting this right? Is this the actual budget for the next fiscal year? Is there a reason this can't just be put in a normal form of a budget?
The reserve is of course on budget we will need in the future, not on the current budget.
Presumably, though I would also think it would be the immediate future, not 5 months in the future. I also still don't see a budget for FY '07-08. I see a bunch of "goals". So if the goal is to spend $275,000/month, I guess the budget will be to spend even more, in case the goal isn't reached.
Budget is rising quickly because we have more and more people coming looking at WP, so we need bigger bandwidth, because we need more people to help on MediaWiki as it is becoming more complex and we see more and more useful features missing, etc.
Traffic is not going to quadruple (or increase 6-fold) in 5 months. It's taken about a year for it to merely double.
PS: By the way, it is indeed "at least". If it was not diffused before, it has been diffused at that date.
Except, I'm saying it wasn't diffused at that date. In fact, $900,000 is between the low and the high reserve, so it isn't even diffused at this date according to those numbers.
So you might have heard about it before elsewhere, but in any case you have /at least/ been able to heard about it at that date (after that, you can have missed it, but that's another problem).
I haven't at least been able to heard about...huh? What are we talking about?
Anthony
Hello Anthony,
Just guesses:
June is taken as a reference because the budget is made from June to June. Accountants are giving advices for fiscal year so they will be checked at the end of the fiscal year. In June 2007, they will look again at figures and see if there are indeed X months of cash reserve. Based on "current expense", those of June 2007 .
If you look at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf, you will see that "Internet hosting" (I guess it is hosting + bandwidth) was 40k$ in 2005 (June 2004 to June 2005, I presume). It was 189k$ in 2006 (June 2005 to June 2006?). It was already more than a 4fold increase. I don't know much about bandwidth cost, I have never had to deal with these kind of budget. I can presume that higher bandwidth links are more costly cause they don't sell much of them...Three years ago, a home fiber link was awfully costly compared to an ADSL2+, although delivering just a few time more bw. Simply because you had millions of the later and just a handful of the former.
Please just assume good faith, the presentation may be a bit fuzzy but I doubt the board is trying to diddle us and I think they have work hard to define these goals :)
Regards, Jerome
2007/1/10, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org:
On 1/10/07, Jerome Banal jerome.banal@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Take the "Monthly expense budget" and don't forget to add the "June '07"
parts; that will give you the expected monthly expense budget for June, which should be the figure you quoted.
Did you try it? Because I did several times, and I only just now figured out what must be going on.
Monthly expense budget $75,500
Goals for bandwidth: ??? Right now the budget is $12,500. There are at least four different figures for the new "budget" (do you see why this can't be called a budget?). I see $50,000, $30,000, $62,000, $100,000, and $74,000 (which you get when you calculate $137,000-$75500+$12,500). So let's go with $74,000, and pretend it makes sense that bandwidth costs will go up sixfold?
Goals for hosting and operations: $38,000. But then the calculation that is made acts as though this is in addition to the current $13,900. So let's call it $52,000 total. Hosting costs are expected to nearly quadruple, I guess.
Goals for hiring: $100,000. Let's assume this means $100,000 in addition to the current goals. Now we get the magic $275,000 number.
Am I getting this right? Is this the actual budget for the next fiscal year? Is there a reason this can't just be put in a normal form of a budget?
The reserve is of course on budget we will need in the future, not on the current budget.
Presumably, though I would also think it would be the immediate future, not 5 months in the future. I also still don't see a budget for FY '07-08. I see a bunch of "goals". So if the goal is to spend $275,000/month, I guess the budget will be to spend even more, in case the goal isn't reached.
Budget is rising quickly because we have more and more people coming
looking
at WP, so we need bigger bandwidth, because we need more people to help
on
MediaWiki as it is becoming more complex and we see more and more useful features missing, etc.
Traffic is not going to quadruple (or increase 6-fold) in 5 months. It's taken about a year for it to merely double.
PS: By the way, it is indeed "at least". If it was not diffused before,
it
has been diffused at that date.
Except, I'm saying it wasn't diffused at that date. In fact, $900,000 is between the low and the high reserve, so it isn't even diffused at this date according to those numbers.
So you might have heard about it before elsewhere, but in any case you have /at least/ been able to heard about
it
at that date (after that, you can have missed it, but that's another problem).
I haven't at least been able to heard about...huh? What are we talking about?
Anthony
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/9/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I do accept that. Well, probably. It's always possible that the lack of funding will instead cause the Wikimedia Foundation to spend its money more intelligently. For instance, instead of continuing to acquire brand new $3000 servers they might instead choose to rent less expensive ones. That wouldn't inhibit anything. But that's more of wishful thinking than a real prediction.
There is a reason that so much money is spent on the servers. That is because it is needed.
Bryan
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Florence Devouard wrote:
Second, the fundraiser is not over. It will be over on Wikipedia day. It may be that at some point in the coming week, we change the site notice to put links to thank donators etc...
Third, this fundraiser has been the most successful of our history by far, until now. When we really think about it, it is fabulous. We can do even better in the last week.
This has certainly been a successful fundraiser. It seems to me that the projects can grow quite a bit more and still be sustainable entirely by voluntary community donations.
More regular fundraisers will help; the community has been hoping for a fundraiser since the late spring. And more targeted messaging could make the fundraiser more successful, as a source of funds and as an event around which the community can rally and grow.
It would help as the fundraiser ends to have some explicit idea that we are pushing towards a goal, and a request to help meet that goal.
It would help to have a sitewide notice that acknowledges and supports our strong open community, saying something like "The Wikimedia projects are written and sustained by you, our readers and editors. [[How you can help|Help us grow in 2007]]."
(Or s/grow/improve stability/ as the case may be.)
SJ
--- Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
More regular fundraisers will help; the community has been hoping for a fundraiser since the late spring. And more targeted messaging could make the fundraiser more successful, as a source of funds and as an event around which the community can rally and grow.
Yep; more regular drives and have each shorter in duration. 2 weeks max each but up to 4 per year, IMO. Having different themes in each drive should also help; the general and vague 'knowledge is power' theme is getting a bit old.
Focus of any one drive could be on a mix of one or two of the following in this very incomplete list; community, helping endangered/minor languages, expanding access to knowledge into parts of the world w/o Internet, improving one of our projects (such as Wikiversity) or even a particular area of a project, strengthening the foundation generally or any of many different areas, international aspects, {input your idea here}, etc.
It would help as the fundraiser ends to have some explicit idea that we are pushing towards a goal, and a request to help meet that goal.
I agree - it should also be based on projected revenue needs forecasted from on an actual budget that can be adjusted based on actual amount raised. A reserve also needs to be set-aside.
It would help to have a sitewide notice that acknowledges and supports our strong open community, saying something like "The Wikimedia projects are written and sustained by you, our readers and editors. [[How you can help|Help us grow in 2007]]."
I would like to put that in the anon notice once the drive is over. We could even have a different message every day of the week via ((CURRENTDAYNAME}} magic.
-- mav
____________________________________________________________________________________ Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.
On 12/01/07, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
It would help to have a sitewide notice that acknowledges and supports our strong open community, saying something like "The Wikimedia projects are written and sustained by you, our readers and editors. [[How you can help|Help us grow in 2007]]."
I would like to put that in the anon notice once the drive is over. We could even have a different message every day of the week via ((CURRENTDAYNAME}} magic.
Come up with interesting new ones on a daily basis and people will log in anon just to see what today's is ;-)
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org