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?
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Hi,<br/><br/>IIRC a call was put out on the list for discussion on the budget by the Chapter EC. <br/><br/>I however agree that something like an exit budget to see how programmes funded have worked out and the impact they had on Wikipedia would be a helpful exercise to help the Chapter in future fundraising and budget exercises.<br/><br/>Pradeep<a href="http://overview.mail.yahoo.com?.src=iOS"><br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone</a>
The functional assumption being that what the WMF/WMIN are solving are technical challenges for which outcomes are immediately apparent. I believe that what they are both doing is engaging with an eco-system and that is an adaptive challenge for which outcomes are not always know immediately. There is much complexity in the model and solutions emerge - not necessarily are known at the outset.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam ________ http://www.akshara.org.in/
On 20 October 2013 22:40, Pradeep Mohandas prad2609@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
IIRC a call was put out on the list for discussion on the budget by the Chapter EC.
I however agree that something like an exit budget to see how programmes funded have worked out and the impact they had on Wikipedia would be a helpful exercise to help the Chapter in future fundraising and budget exercises.
Pradeep
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone http://overview.mail.yahoo.com?.src=iOS
- From: * Ashwin Baindur ashwin.baindur@gmail.com;
- To: * Wikimedia India Community list <
wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>;
- Subject: * Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Mashable: Where Do Wikipedia
Donations Go? Outgoing Chief Warns of Corruption
Sent: * Sun, Oct 20, 2013 12:36:16 PM
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
-- Warm regards,
Ashwin Baindur
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Gautam, all the more reason to move forth steadily - one step on the ground.
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Gautam John gautam@akshara.org.in wrote:
The functional assumption being that what the WMF/WMIN are solving are technical challenges for which outcomes are immediately apparent. I believe that what they are both doing is engaging with an eco-system and that is an adaptive challenge for which outcomes are not always know immediately. There is much complexity in the model and solutions emerge - not necessarily are known at the outset.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam ________ http://www.akshara.org.in/
On 20 October 2013 22:40, Pradeep Mohandas prad2609@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
IIRC a call was put out on the list for discussion on the budget by the Chapter EC.
I however agree that something like an exit budget to see how programmes funded have worked out and the impact they had on Wikipedia would be a helpful exercise to help the Chapter in future fundraising and budget exercises.
Pradeep
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone http://overview.mail.yahoo.com?.src=iOS
- From: * Ashwin Baindur ashwin.baindur@gmail.com;
- To: * Wikimedia India Community list <
wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>;
- Subject: * Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Mashable: Where Do Wikipedia
Donations Go? Outgoing Chief Warns of Corruption
Sent: * Sun, Oct 20, 2013 12:36:16 PM
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
-- Warm regards,
Ashwin Baindur
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
My take is that they should measure what impact each intervention has on it's own. Not necessarily against the goal of increasing editorship because that is a complex problem that will not be solved in a single step or year. Trying different things is not a bad idea so long as it is done with rigorous measurement.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam ________ http://www.akshara.org.in/
On 20 October 2013 22:46, Ashwin Baindur ashwin.baindur@gmail.com wrote:
Gautam, all the more reason to move forth steadily - one step on the ground.
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Gautam John gautam@akshara.org.inwrote:
The functional assumption being that what the WMF/WMIN are solving are technical challenges for which outcomes are immediately apparent. I believe that what they are both doing is engaging with an eco-system and that is an adaptive challenge for which outcomes are not always know immediately. There is much complexity in the model and solutions emerge - not necessarily are known at the outset.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam ________ http://www.akshara.org.in/
On 20 October 2013 22:40, Pradeep Mohandas prad2609@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
IIRC a call was put out on the list for discussion on the budget by the Chapter EC.
I however agree that something like an exit budget to see how programmes funded have worked out and the impact they had on Wikipedia would be a helpful exercise to help the Chapter in future fundraising and budget exercises.
Pradeep
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhonehttp://overview.mail.yahoo.com?.src=iOS
- From: * Ashwin Baindur ashwin.baindur@gmail.com;
- To: * Wikimedia India Community list <
wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>;
- Subject: * Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Mashable: Where Do Wikipedia
Donations Go? Outgoing Chief Warns of Corruption
Sent: * Sun, Oct 20, 2013 12:36:16 PM
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
-- Warm regards,
Ashwin Baindur
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
-- Warm regards,
Ashwin Baindur
SMARTER, eh?
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Gautam John gautam@akshara.org.in wrote:
My take is that they should measure what impact each intervention has on it's own. Not necessarily against the goal of increasing editorship because that is a complex problem that will not be solved in a single step or year. Trying different things is not a bad idea so long as it is done with rigorous measurement.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam ________ http://www.akshara.org.in/
On 20 October 2013 22:46, Ashwin Baindur ashwin.baindur@gmail.com wrote:
Gautam, all the more reason to move forth steadily - one step on the ground.
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Gautam John gautam@akshara.org.inwrote:
The functional assumption being that what the WMF/WMIN are solving are technical challenges for which outcomes are immediately apparent. I believe that what they are both doing is engaging with an eco-system and that is an adaptive challenge for which outcomes are not always know immediately. There is much complexity in the model and solutions emerge - not necessarily are known at the outset.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam ________ http://www.akshara.org.in/
On 20 October 2013 22:40, Pradeep Mohandas prad2609@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
IIRC a call was put out on the list for discussion on the budget by the Chapter EC.
I however agree that something like an exit budget to see how programmes funded have worked out and the impact they had on Wikipedia would be a helpful exercise to help the Chapter in future fundraising and budget exercises.
Pradeep
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhonehttp://overview.mail.yahoo.com?.src=iOS
- From: * Ashwin Baindur ashwin.baindur@gmail.com;
- To: * Wikimedia India Community list <
wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>;
- Subject: * Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Mashable: Where Do Wikipedia
Donations Go? Outgoing Chief Warns of Corruption
Sent: * Sun, Oct 20, 2013 12:36:16 PM
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
-- Warm regards,
Ashwin Baindur
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
-- Warm regards,
Ashwin Baindur
wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org