Lodewijk wrote:
When I'd have to guess, I'd say that we're
beyond our 'optimal size'
(budget wise) already.
Especially the 'small donor' stream is rather sensitive towards tides. As
long as Wikipedia is very popular and visible, we'll be doing well. But
when we have a few more screwups at the WMF (sorry, but I can't really
find a better phrase for the past few months, communication wise at
least), being a credible organisation towards donors might proove harder
than was the case so far.
You mean that small donations provide accountability? :-) I agree. I
think this is a feature, not a bug. I'd be happy for the Wikimedia
Foundation to be about a tenth of the size it is currently: around 30
full-time employees, with additional money allocated for contractors as
needed. When people tell me that they want to donate to Wikipedia, I tell
them to make an edit. I'd much rather have people truly contributing to
free knowledge. The Wikimedia Foundation made a series of choices such
headquartering in San Francisco and hiring over 200 full-time employees
that make it very unsympathetic to me. It certainly doesn't cost anywhere
near $80 million a year to keep the sites online and running.
Sam Klein wrote:
It also makes for a very inward-focused and narrow sort
of strategy: "How
can we make our few banner projects work better / attract more people"
rather than "how can we make knowledge more accessible to everyone in the
world, including by supporting and enhancing other excellent projects".
If you start with funders and organizations whose missions are similar to
Wikimedia's, working with them on a grant is a way of making them part of
the community: a successful engagement results in them learning more about
the impact and value of our mission, and supporting or encouraging more
work along those lines with their other grantees. It also builds a
relationship and trust within the circle of similarly-minded organizations
(in this example, grantors; but this applies equally well to other sorts
of partners), which can be drawn on in the future if there were a real
crisis or urgent need.
The counter-argument here is that having a large and secure budget gives
organizations more opportunities to spend on non-necessities. Does the
Wikimedia Foundation need six legal counsels (not including the general
counsel and two legal directors), eight community liaisons, or a mobile
apps team? I'm sure these are all great people doing excellent work, but
when I see how much the Wikimedia Foundation staff has ballooned (and
frankly bloated), it makes me sad.
If you want diversification, build up the other Wikimedia chapters instead.
MZMcBride