[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Brand Survey Analysis

[Anthony]

On 7/5/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/5/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 7/5/07, Brion Vibber <brion at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > Just a data point from a practical perspective: we get blank looks when
> > > we tell people we're "the Wikimedia Foundation", versus wide eyes and
> > > bright smiles when we tell people we're "Wikipedia". The latter is a lot
> > > nicer to get when we're asking for something. :)
> > >
> > Doesn't that suggest that Wikipedia should be self-governing or at
> > least in control of its own funds?  If people are giving you something
> > because they want to help Wikipedia, then that something should be
> > used toward Wikipedia, not some other project.
>
> My impression and interpretation of the situation is that the money
> effectively goes in three directions:
> 1. Staff (lightly associated with number of projects, strongly with
> project size)
> 2. Hosting (also lightly associated with number of projects, strongly
> with project size/readership)
> 3. SW Dev (not affected much by number of projects; scaling issues
> somewhat related to project sizes)
>
> One could study the problem in more depth, but my impression is that
> for any useful definition, essentially all the money coming in does
> support the Wikipedia part of the Foundation's projects set.
>
I'm not sure about "essentially all", even if you take your three
points to be correct, because not "essentially all" of the traffic
goes to Wikipedia, just a significant majority.  But I'll accept for
the purposes of argument that the resources are *currently*
distributed roughly in proportion.  The thing is, by most accounts
Wikipedia is currently receiving a tiny fraction of its potential.