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