Ray-
Being registered as a "non-profit" organization is not what makes it possible to take donations.
I am fully aware of that and am not too impressed with tax-deductibility either (though I can see that it would come in handy for larger donations). However, Jimbo has always stated that he only wants to start taking donations "when the foundation is set up". Thus the time to take donations has come now.
Maybe we do "need the money", but your only guessing.
As a developer highly involved with the problems I would say that my guess is more educated than yours. I know the specifications and load of our current servers and I know that we need at least 1 or 2 new servers to appropriately handle the present amount of usage. Even software problems can be addressed more quickly by actually paying developers. And believe me, if we get more money than we "need" I have plenty of ideas on how to use it productively. Money is good. It keeps things flowing.
The biggest danger to Wikimedia is not that we will lose big contributors, but that we will lose our way. My "top" priority is not in fixing the system slowness, important as that may be. My "top" priority is in uncompromisingly maintaining the philosophical principles that Wikipedia was based on.
We talk about "maintaining the philosophical principles that Wikipedia was based on" every frelling week. Whenever a sysop or a developer does something marginally controversial, we're already on the road to a wiki police state. Whenever someone does not immediately get their wish, or is ignored, they complain about class warfare among different users. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but I have never seen a project that is as paranoid about its philosophy as Wikipedia. I have seen communities deteriorate into feudalism, and I see no evidence whatsoever of Wikipedia being in any way philosophically endangered. Our philosophical principles have been expanded and refined, but no substantial principle has ever been discarded in our 2 1/2+ year history.
Paranoia about newbies not respecting NPOV or other policies is absolutely unjustified. NPOV is *not* difficult, it's just that *everyone* is a newbie at some point and has to learn the house rules. That's what the oldtimers are for, and it works well. When someone joins wiki, they get a welcome message a few minutes later, and their edits are observed carefully. Soon they will find notifications like "Your edit of .. was not neutral. Please see our NPOV policy for details .." It has worked this way since we started, and it works well.
The only principle I see violated often even by old hands is WikiLove. But that is to be expected, and if anything, many of us have learned self- discipline in the last months. There may be ways to increase our WikiLoveQuotient, but I don't think we're doing too badly.
If you want to worry, worry. But I think your concerns are completely groundless in the absence of any real world example that would justify them. While we should guard our philosophy, we should also avoid being paralyzed by it.
Sometimes I even get to feeling that it is my ONLY reason for supporting the current benevolent dictatorship.
When and what was the last decision by Jimbo? Ban Palestinian Liberator, an obvious vandal who could have been banned by a developer even without Jimbo's approval? And that was not even enforced through software. Jimbo is a moral leader more than anything else. Yes, he does in a way safeguard our principles, but it's not like Wikipedians are just waiting for an opportunity to dump NPOV, or to replace our present system of consensus seeking with arbitrary deletion power, and so on. The only un-wiki idea I've seen recently was the proposal to protect pages at a certain point, and that was dead on arrival.
Let's not confuse art and artifice. The world of publicity is not exactly the most trustworthy. It should be used sparingly.
That's exactly why I think our press release should summarize some of the Big Things that have happened in the last months.
I feel no need to bring Wikimedia so quickly to the forefront.
Then maybe you should not participate in the authoring of a *Wikimedia* press release.
I'm not afraid of popularity, only of how popularity changes people and their organizations.
Same difference. Look, the next time someone proposes an adult filter for the 'pedia because it has become so popular that schools have taken notice, I'll be here to defend freedom of information. The next time someone says we need to ban anons because we can't handle their number of edits I'll be here to offer alternatives. The next time someone says we should just add advertising to all pages I'll be here to dismiss that idea in a patronizing manner. As we become more popular, inevitably, these same problematic suggestions and others will be made more often. But we're a large community, with many thoughtful members like yourself who are aware of the problems, and I just don't see us doing anything stupid just because we become larger.
Let's compare Wikipedia to a corporation. And we all know that corporations don't become irresponsible simply because they get wealthier, more powerful, have to listen their customers less and can engage in shady business practices without being punished. Umm .. well, OK, maybe that's a bad analogy. But the thing is, on Wikipedia we all control one another. And that's the best safeguard there is.
Regards,
Erik