4 ms·
The numbers are alarming, but the argument needs to be more persuasive. For a proposal like this, I would expect to see a breakdown of where the money has gone
by II2II 9y ago
The numbers are alarming, but the argument needs to be more persuasive.
For a proposal like this, I would expect to see a breakdown of where the money has gone and realistic projections of futures expenses. Simply providing alarmist statements based upon linear extrapolations (after being adjusted for inflation alone) then proposing an even more alarmist buyout (when the only thing of tangible value is the domain name) is not enough when proposing potentially crippling changes to funding.
- hk__2 9y ago> For a proposal like this, I would expect to see a breakdown of where the money has gone and realistic projections of futures expenses The Foundation’s financial statements are online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer#References https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
- elect_engineer 9y agoI am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has Cancer". I have included links to all of the financials that I could find in my essay, and I have repeatedly asked for more transparency regarding how the money has been spent. Just to take one example, Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation executive director from 2007 to 2014, received $100,000 pay rise and was secretly kept on as a "special advisor" after we were all told that she stepped down in 2014. This was kept secret for years, until it turned up buried in a required financial disclosure. I also would like a breakdown of where the money has gone and realistic projections of futures expenses. What you see is my best effort to provide that. If anyone has more information, I will be glad to add it to my essay.