Keeping this post in mind, the idea of Rs 110 Lakh budget for the
Chapter really raises a lot of disquiet in my mind.
Frankly, imho budget growth should be organic, not catastrophic. The
items proposed for expenditure should be discussed amongst the
community and explicit support got for this. Plus last year's budget
details & what they were planned for & how many objectives were met
needs to be clear to the public.
Ashwin
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Anirudh Bhati <anirudhsbh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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?
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
--
Warm regards,
Ashwin Baindur
------------------------------------------------------