Mashable: Where Do Wikipedia
Donations Go? Outgoing Chief Warns of Corruption
http://mashable.com/2013/10/17/wikipedia-donation-corruption/
When Wikipedia decided to roll out an aggressive fundraising
effort a few years ago, the free encyclopedia came with a
remarkably effective battle plan. For the entirety of the
campaign, co-founder Jimmy Wales stared visitors down from the top
of every page, making you feel guilty every time you viewed an
article without paying a dime.
It worked. From 2011 to 2012, Wikipedia's fundraising arm, the
Wikimedia Foundation, pulled in $38.4 million. It was a major
increase from the $5 million raised from 2007 to 2008, one that
occurred even as editorial involvement with Wikipedia was on the
decline.
But where does all this money go?
In an unusually candid statement last month, outgoing Wikimedia
Foundation Chair Sue Gardner criticized the way her organization
has doled out funds. Too much is being spent on groups that do too
little to enhance the value of the encyclopedia itself, she
argued. What's worse, many of those being awarded grants are the
same people responsible for giving them out, which Gardner warned
could lead to "log-rolling, self-dealing and other corrupt
practices."
Though not in charge of Wikipedia's content, the Wikimedia
Foundation, or WMF, is the most powerful promoter of the
open-source encyclopedia. It manages the technical infrastructure
and day-to-day business operations of Wikipedia — one of the
most-visited sites in the world.
WMF is based in San Francisco, but more than 40
independent-chapter Wikimedia organizations exist around the
world, ostensibly advancing the foundation's agenda in their
native regions. These chapters are the biggest recipients of
Wikimedia grant funding. But according to Gardner, it's not clear
how filling the coffers of the chapter organizations benefits the
site as a whole.
Last year, the Funds Dissemination Committee gave out $5.65
million in grants, the lion's share of which — 89% — went to
affiliate chapters. And 12 chapters in particular received 83% of
the total grants.
"I believe that currently, too large a proportion of the
movement's money is being spent by the chapters," Gardner, who has
largely been responsible for the foundation's transition into a
fundraising behemoth, wrote in response to the FDC's latest
report.
"The value in the Wikimedia projects is primarily created by
individual editors: individuals create the value for readers,
which results in those readers donating money to the movement."
In an email to the Daily Dot, Gardner noted that these opinions
were "not new, nor are they unique to" her.
Indeed, Gardner's statement echoed the criticism of a number of
prominent Wikipedia editors and critics in recent years. The
concern is that all this funding has done less to help the site
than it has to create a "professional bureaucratic class”
surrounding the Wikipedia project,” as the Register’s Andrew
Orlowski put it. Orlowski points out that the foundation’s staff
grew from three full-timers in 2006 to 174 in 2012-13.
Gardner herself notes that there are very few members on the FDC
who aren't also chapter members. In fact, the majority of the
committee's members are either former or current chapter board
members.
The coziness that exists between the FDC and chapter board members
calls up memories of past chapter improprieties. In 2012, a former
chapter board member was accused of using his position within the
organization to promote Gibraltar on the site. At the same time,
he served on the Gibraltar government payroll as a PR consultant.
Though Gardner believes the FDC is uniquely transparent and that
its members are capable of acting without self-interest, others
aren't quite so convinced.
One critic, Gregory Kohs, co-founder of the muckraking site
Wikipediocracy, describes the foundation’s appetite for expansion
as “empire building.” He argues that the work of a nearly
200-member Wikimedia staff could easily be done by a workforce a
fraction of the size.
But it's not just the longtime critics. Many everyday Wikipedians
are concerned about whether WMF still exists to serve Wikipedia,
or vice versa.
Conflicts of interest are a major area of concern throughout
Wikipedia culture, and editors like Tango say they are unavoidable
with so much money involved.
"'Assume Good Faith' is a great policy when writing an
collaborative encyclopaedia," Tango writes, referring to a
fundamental principle on Wikipedia whereby editors are encouraged
to assume all contributions to the encyclopedia are done with good
intent. "It's not so simple when you are dealing with [$11
million]."
But others are less concerned about corruption and more worried
about how chapters actually spend all that money. Andreas Kolbe,
an active Wikipedian and Wikipediocracy moderator, says many of
the chapters have a propensity for spending on projects intended
to bring publicity rather than genuinely enhancing the site.
"I see little evidence of a customer (i.e. reader) focus in
chapters' spending decisions," Kolbe wrote.
Despite those frank statements on Wikimedia and the FDC, Gardner
heaps lots of praise on the organization she's leaving. She
insists the WMF is adaptable and that, with the right changes, it
can shift funding priorities. One way to do that is to make the
FDC more diverse. And Grant seekers, Gardner said, "should need to
be able to say clearly how their plan will make an important
contribution to helping Wikimedia movement achieve its mission."
At any rate, Gardner plans to step down soon. Will her successor
heed her advice?