Hoi,
I totally agree that more money spend on Wikipedia is where we may be at
one end of the law of diminishing returns. However, that is Wikipedia. We
ask money for the Wikimedia Foundation and it has neglected a wide area of
projects where additional money will make a marked improvement.
As far as I am concerned your whole argument is only relevant when we only
consider Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia is overrated in that it gets too much
attention, too much money and has too many people repeating the same old
old.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 4 February 2016 at 04:07, David Goodman <dggenwp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The limiting resource for Wikipedia is not money, but
Wikipedians. I could
only with great difficulty imagine useful ways to spend the amount of money
that we do receive (mostly, increased support for the participation of
individual WPedians in the overall movement, and the provision of
intellectual resources). That we rely on individual people involves them
with us--I have known many people go from being readers to being donor and
then to contributors of content.
We need organizations to contribute also, and, similarly, what we need them
for is to contribute content, but in this case, we are talking about
contributing existing materials, not writing them. It is not asking them
for money will see them being more involved; rather, asking them for actual
intellectual resources which cost them nothing to donate --and which only
they can donate--will lead to continuing involvement, as they see the use
that people make of their contributions. Unlike money, there is no other
source for this material.
The most important contribution of WP is not the encyclopedia. The most
important contribution is the demonstration of the role of ordinary
individual involvement in activities that used to be done only by an elite,
or by formal organizations--that activity without formal coordination but
by cooperation can -- in at least some areas -- lead to results that not
only equal but surpass what academic and publishing and other cultural
bureaucracies can accomplish. The true benefit will come a people apply
this to other aspects of their life. To the extent that this is the true
benefit, everything that we need to do centrally detracts from our
mission. That we depend only on small individual contributions, and that
they come to us even with our minimal efforts, is our strength, not our
weakness.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
wrote:
> Hoi,
> You know, when the WMF is to be judged as an organisation, I would never
> judge on a few incidents. I would judge it on its intrinsic value.
> Personally and that is the highest level of commitment, personally I find
> that we are doing a sterling job. Wikipedia is a top ten website in the
> world. It runs it on an extremely low budget compared to other top ten
> websites. This week a new WIkipedia is ready to become the next iteration
> and as it is a rate occasion, it is a reason to celebrate. It is for the
> talking heads to update their power points <grin> for me to make a power
> point </grin>.
> When people consider how well how
well others do from our work. Do
consider
that we are in the business of disseminating
knowledge. When others make
a
lot of money and we are still a top 10 website,
we are doing extremely
well
indeed. When others do well by us, and serve
oodles of information, we
are
> a clear winner.
> Our fundraising is great. It makes us
lots of money and there are lots of
> worthwhile things we can do with it. It is all part of the same
relatively
> low budget. We could do more. We choose to focus on Wikipedia. That is a
> mistake but ok. We could do better as a result and not spend more money.
> When we make more money, when we
operate an endowment fund, it makes us
an
investor. We should not invest in oil, guns ...
we could invest in green
energy, it would offset the damage the Internet, our work, does through
CO2
> everywhere. It would show our responsibility now and for the future.
> When we think that we have a PR
disaster on our hand, do consider the
> extend it is one of our own making.. Personally speaking I find the
> continuous sniping a disgrace. So much time and effort is wasted because
> shit happens. It does, get over it. Do better next time and the next time
> is always more convoluted and impossible to achieve. Assume good faith,
> expect that things go wrong, deal with it, clean up the mess and move on.
> Do not continuously sing the refrain of what went wrong.
> It truly makes us miserable.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
> On 3 February 2016 at 18:38, Pine W
<wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have a couple of comments,
mostly directed to WMF, about fundraising
> and
> > governance matters:
>
> > As a matter of good
governance, I would not encourage WMF to be seeking
> > large external partners who do solid due-diligence about their grantees
> > until WMF demonstrates that it can complete an annual planning process
> that
> > is aligned with the good practices already being demonstrated by
> affiliates
> > and aligned with the expectations of the FDC. I feel that an external
> > partner who conducted a thorough evaluation of WMF's current annual
plan
would
find it to be mediocre at best and I question whether a large
institutional partner would be willing to invest six-figure or
seven-figure
sums in WMF given the state of WMF's current
annual plan. I am glad to
see
> that WMF is in the process of addressing this shortcoming, and I hope
for
> > good outcomes this year.
>
> > Another issue that WMF
needs to address is the state of its board. The
> > handling of the situation with respect to two board members (the
removal
of
James for opaque reasons, Jimbo's
unprofessional comments about the
removal
of James, the appointment of Arnnon, and the
Board's apparent decision
not
> to remove Arnnon even after learning of his role in illegal activities)
> demonstrates significant problems in the board, and if I had millions
of
dollars
to give in grants I surely would not entrust those funds to the
WMF
until there is a major overhaul of the board.
Also, if I was an
affiliate,
> I would have a lot of questions about the wisdom of fundraising on
behalf
> of WMF given the serious PR liability that
WMF has become, and I tend
to
> > think that at this time affiliates would be wise to put a considerable
> > distance between ourselves and WMF because of the PR and fundraising
> > collateral damage that we could receive from problems at WMF.
>
> > WMF needs to get its house
in order.
>
> > Speaking in my personal
capacity only,
>
> > Pine
>
>
>
> > On
Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at
11:02 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj(a)alk.edu.pl
>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Quite the opposite. For several years now, the FDC
recommendations
> for
> > > > applicant who come from rich countries have requested the Chapter
> > > > investigate diversifying their funding sources. All have tried,
and
>
their
> > > success has varied depending on many factors. Some have actually
been
> > > quite
> > > > successful - I refer in particular to the recently announced
grant
> by
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > > I can also add that AFAIK the Foundation has
never made the
> > > > diversification of funds for chapters a hard rule. Rather, it
> > encouraged
> > > > organizations to seek alternative funding, when feasible. We have
had
> > > > historically cases of chapters that admitted they could relatively
> > easily
> > > > get external support, but just have preferred not to try to get it.
> > >
> > > > All in
all we should balance two things: (a) resources are finite.
If
> we
> > > can easily get additional funding, especially in the Global North
> > > countries, that's great! We'll have more to do core work in the
areas
> > > > where it is not possible. (b) applying for external funding should
> not
> > > > divert us from our main mission, and should not make chapters jump
> the
> > > > loops of insane bureaucracy, irrational strain of effort, etc.
> > >
> >
> > > Speaking as a former member of
the FDC and current member of Simple
> > Annual
> > > Plan grant committee, I agree with Dariusz but add that a good use of
> > > external resources can add more value than just the funded dollar
> amount.
> >
> > > Instead of
speaking of "funding" we should substitute "resources".
By
> > > seeking out external resources, which is more than external grant
> money,
> > > the wikimedia affiliates can build much greater capacity in a
> particular
> > > region or topic area (GLAM or STEM or Healthcare.)
> >
> > >
> > > > I believe we have been
relatively successful so far. However, I
agree
> > > > that the Foundation perhaps is not using its full potential in
> engaging
> > > > chapters in a dialogue how to effectively address the local
> supporters
> > > > (both individuals and on an institutional level). We should use the
> > > > extensive network of committed organizations to our advantage.
> > >
> >
> > > It is key to the future of the
wikimedia movement to identify
> > institutional
> > > partners (big and small) who can advance the wikimedia mission.
> >
> > > It is happening
now with many affiliate organizations, and growing,
but
it
> is not well documented or analysed yet. We need better analysis about
the
> > ways that external partners are benefiting from their relationship
with
> > the
> > > wikimedia movement and the wikimedia movement is benefiting from
> > > relationships with external partners.
> >
> > > This needs to be
a joint dialogue between WMF and the affiliated
> > > organizations including User Groups. I hope that people will join the
> WMF
> > > strategic planning discussions and include their thoughts about
> > developing
> > > external resources that can benefit the wikimedia movement. Also,
this
> > is a
> > > topic for Wikimedia Conference in Berlin.
> >
> > > Warm regards,
> > > Sydney Poore
> > > User:FloNight
> > > Wikipedia in Residence
> > > at Cochrane
> > > WikiWomen's User Group
> > > Wiki Project Med Foundation User Group
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
David Goodman
DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>