Can a few hundred Wikipedians make a world-class encyclopedia? Will all of human knowledge fit on Jimbo's server farm? Is there a way to keep such a massive collection free of vandalism yet freely changeable?
We'd like to attract and keep bona fide experts (as opposed to slap-happy amateur enthusiasts such as me). Yet historians and scientists with positions in academia and respectable records in publishing still seem to be staying away in droves. One expert on European history even left the project, because we could not maintain a congenial environment. (I fault myself as well.)
Surely the best writers are not concerned only with money. There might be some way to get an expert to "donate" some of their work, if they hold the copyright themselves or can got their university or publisher to agree. Such donations would be excellent starting points for freely-edited articles. And of course, if the original work is superb a link or mention of it would naturally remain embedded in the wiki article.
Much as I admire the spirit of pure voluntarism, I must say that Larry is right about the need for paid staff. We already have a sponsor for the server and bandwidth, and although the physical expenses might be dropping I haven't heard anyone volunteering to take that burden off of Jimbo's shoulders.
Suppose each of us kicks in, say $10 a month -- or even $50 a month -- towards staff salaries. (It must be clearly settled beforehand what extra privileges subscribers would get: my vote would be for NONE WHATSOEVER.) For example, if twenty of us give $50 a month and fifty of us give $20 a month, and maybe a hundred more give $10 a month, that would be around $3,000 a month. If Jimbo could match that (not that he should, he's already done and is doing plenty) -- we would have $48,000 a year for staff.
What do we need paid staff to do? Primarily, reach out to the academic and professional community and seek their help. With a modest budget for travel to conferences, or for payments to copyright holders, such a leader could bring in some very high quality material.
Ed Poor
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 13:14, Poor, Edmund W wrote: <snip call for staff>
This is why we need to set up the non-profit.
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Can a few hundred Wikipedians make a world-class encyclopedia? Will all of human knowledge fit on Jimbo's server farm? Is there a way to keep such a massive collection free of vandalism yet freely changeable?
Much as I admire the spirit of pure voluntarism, I must say that Larry is right about the need for paid staff. We already have a sponsor for the server and bandwidth, and although the physical expenses might be dropping I haven't heard anyone volunteering to take that burden off of Jimbo's shoulders.
What do we need paid staff to do? Primarily, reach out to the academic and professional community and seek their help. With a modest budget for travel to conferences, or for payments to copyright holders, such a leader could bring in some very high quality material.
The presence of paid staff can profoundly affect the nature of a volunteer organization. A tendency develops to depend on them for all sorts of things that people should be doing for themselves. I've seen several edit wars where someone has lamented that Larry was no longer around to settle the argument. A part of growing up is being able to find your own way to settle arguments without waiting for a thunderbolt from Zeus.
Ec.
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 15:35, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Can a few hundred Wikipedians make a world-class encyclopedia? Will all of human knowledge fit on Jimbo's server farm? Is there a way to keep such a massive collection free of vandalism yet freely changeable?
Much as I admire the spirit of pure voluntarism, I must say that Larry is right about the need for paid staff. We already have a sponsor for the server and bandwidth, and although the physical expenses might be dropping I haven't heard anyone volunteering to take that burden off of Jimbo's shoulders.
What do we need paid staff to do? Primarily, reach out to the academic and professional community and seek their help. With a modest budget for travel to conferences, or for payments to copyright holders, such a leader could bring in some very high quality material.
The presence of paid staff can profoundly affect the nature of a volunteer organization. A tendency develops to depend on them for all sorts of things that people should be doing for themselves. I've seen several edit wars where someone has lamented that Larry was no longer around to settle the argument. A part of growing up is being able to find your own way to settle arguments without waiting for a thunderbolt from Zeus.
Indeed. Just about the only thing a volunteer-centered non-profit should need paid staff for is fundraising. And that is not a pressing need right now.
There are certainly mechanisms for reaching out to the academic and professional community that don't require paid staff. Most _do_ require a more formal incorporation of some kind, sticking people on a board, etc.
The Cunctator wrote:
Indeed. Just about the only thing a volunteer-centered non-profit should need paid staff for is fundraising. And that is not a pressing need right now.
I think that's right, although at some point I have a dream that we produce an edited paper-friendly version (GFDL'd) so that the encyclopedia can be distributed at cost to countries where Internet access is so far beyond "luxury" that it is difficult for us to imagine it.
So long as we're in the stage we're in now -- and I foresee that continuing for a couple of more years at _bare minimum_ -- we don't really need funding beyond what I can easily and gladly supply.
There are certainly mechanisms for reaching out to the academic and professional community that don't require paid staff. Most _do_ require a more formal incorporation of some kind, sticking people on a board, etc.
That's right, too.
Also, I'd like to set up a system whereby people can sign up to automatically donate, say, $20 a month via credit card. My vision of this is that people could earmark the money to several categories - "promotion", "hardware", and whatever else people felt was worthwhile.
Later on, there might be a large organization similar to Consumer Reports or the Red Cross. But right now, we're doing great building basic infrastructure.
--Jimbo
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 18:14, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Suppose each of us kicks in, say $10 a month -- or even $50 a month -- towards staff salaries. (It must be clearly settled beforehand what extra privileges subscribers would get: my vote would be for NONE WHATSOEVER.) For example, if twenty of us give $50 a month and fifty of us give $20 a month, and maybe a hundred more give $10 a month, that would be around $3,000 a month. If Jimbo could match that (not that he should, he's already done and is doing plenty) -- we would have $48,000 a year for staff.
Hmm...
3000x12 = 36000
(If matched by Jimbo)
3000x2x12 = 72000
Am I missing something, or should Ed be restrained from editing the maths pages? =)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org