49 ms·

Wikipedia is being dishonest here. The infrastructure is doing fine, thankyouverymuch, the hosting costs could be paid in perpetuity by taking the cash reserves

Wikipedia is being dishonest here. The infrastructure is doing fine, thankyouverymuch, the hosting costs could be paid in perpetuity by taking the cash reserves to the stock market. But there is all the administrative overhead, outreach, Wiki for Women, Wikimania conference, salaries for the staff in SF who would use their Wikipedia experience to land a cushy job elsewhere - that's what the fundraising is intended to support.

brian-armstrong 9y ago
Doesn't this entirely miss the point? If they froze Wikipedia as it is and it stopped keeping up with the times, it'd be significantly less useful. And considering that Wikipedia is substantially losing editors and admins, any attempt they can make to bring more in seems appropriate. There is likely a critical mass of volunteers needed - fewer than that and you lose it all. The approach theyve taken to this issue may not be cost effective, but it's absolutely necessary.
- oconnore 9y ago
  > There is likely a critical mass of volunteers needed - fewer than that and you lose it all. Volunteers... don't cost money. If they were paying people to contribute/edit that would be one thing, but all the money they're spending doesn't contribute to the content on the site at all. And as far as I can tell, mediawiki -- the software platform -- is basically complete. It accomplishes the goal of displaying editable encyclopedia pages at scale.
  - brian-armstrong 9y ago
    Volunteers don't cost money, but acquiring and retaining them does. A lot of these events are chances to get WP volunteers to meet and connect in real life, hopefully making WP more tangible and enjoyable to volunteer for. Saying that spending money on volunteer outreach doesn't contribute to site content is just absurd. It's exactly the opposite.
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  The admin corps does need some kind of reform - the place is hostile to newcomers, it doesn't use real-world expertise well (in academia we have secretaries to keep the cranks away), competing interests and astroturfing are an ongoing problem, nevermind the internal politics. The Wikipedia Movement stuff that the donations pay for do not address any of these issues meaningfully. The dropping admin and editor count would support this thesis.
  - brian-armstrong 9y ago
    We agree there for sure. I don't know how they could combat those issues more effectively, but I wouldn't expect it to be free.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - HarryHirsch 9y ago
      Wikipedia feels very insular, somehow. It's difficult to explain why, but I think it's the strictly enforced anonymity and the insistence that real-world identity does not matter on the site. It all reminds too much of institutional politics in a second-rate undergraduate college. It's not clear how more money can reform the encrusted structures. More volunteers can't be the answer.
kqr2 9y ago
Wikimedia Foundation is actually rated pretty highly on Charity Navigator with 4 stars: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar... Overall Score & Rating : 93/100 Financial : 90.96/100 Accountability & Transparency : 96.00/100
- jessriedel 9y ago
  Charity navigator makes no attempt to see if the charity is doing anything useful. It "rates" charities based mostly on their overhead, which has reasonably been called "The worst way to pick a charity" https://blog.givewell.org/2009/12/01/the-worst-way-to-pick-a-charity/ https://blog.givewell.org/2009/12/01/the-worst-way-to-pick-a... Under this rating system, a charity that collects money and burns it would be rated highly so long as you didn't pay the guy tending the fire very much.
jessriedel 9y ago
Exactly. Wikimedia has been quickly increasing spending on things far outside their stated justification for fundraising. Others in this thread may be interested in extensive discussion on HN of this issue earlier this month (149 points, 121 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15429067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15429067 and back in May (1054 points, 406 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14287235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14287235

brian-armstrong 9y ago

Doesn't this entirely miss the point? If they froze Wikipedia as it is and it stopped keeping up with the times, it'd be significantly less useful. And considering that Wikipedia is substantially losing editors and admins, any attempt they can make to bring more in seems appropriate. There is likely a critical mass of volunteers needed - fewer than that and you lose it all. The approach theyve taken to this issue may not be cost effective, but it's absolutely necessary.

oconnore 9y ago
> There is likely a critical mass of volunteers needed - fewer than that and you lose it all. Volunteers... don't cost money. If they were paying people to contribute/edit that would be one thing, but all the money they're spending doesn't contribute to the content on the site at all. And as far as I can tell, mediawiki -- the software platform -- is basically complete. It accomplishes the goal of displaying editable encyclopedia pages at scale.
- brian-armstrong 9y ago
  Volunteers don't cost money, but acquiring and retaining them does. A lot of these events are chances to get WP volunteers to meet and connect in real life, hopefully making WP more tangible and enjoyable to volunteer for. Saying that spending money on volunteer outreach doesn't contribute to site content is just absurd. It's exactly the opposite.
HarryHirsch 9y ago
The admin corps does need some kind of reform - the place is hostile to newcomers, it doesn't use real-world expertise well (in academia we have secretaries to keep the cranks away), competing interests and astroturfing are an ongoing problem, nevermind the internal politics. The Wikipedia Movement stuff that the donations pay for do not address any of these issues meaningfully. The dropping admin and editor count would support this thesis.
- brian-armstrong 9y ago
  We agree there for sure. I don't know how they could combat those issues more effectively, but I wouldn't expect it to be free.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    Wikipedia feels very insular, somehow. It's difficult to explain why, but I think it's the strictly enforced anonymity and the insistence that real-world identity does not matter on the site. It all reminds too much of institutional politics in a second-rate undergraduate college. It's not clear how more money can reform the encrusted structures. More volunteers can't be the answer.

kqr2 9y ago

Wikimedia Foundation is actually rated pretty highly on Charity Navigator with 4 stars: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar... Overall Score & Rating : 93/100 Financial : 90.96/100 Accountability & Transparency : 96.00/100

jessriedel 9y ago
Charity navigator makes no attempt to see if the charity is doing anything useful. It "rates" charities based mostly on their overhead, which has reasonably been called "The worst way to pick a charity" https://blog.givewell.org/2009/12/01/the-worst-way-to-pick-a-charity/ https://blog.givewell.org/2009/12/01/the-worst-way-to-pick-a... Under this rating system, a charity that collects money and burns it would be rated highly so long as you didn't pay the guy tending the fire very much.

jessriedel 9y ago

Exactly. Wikimedia has been quickly increasing spending on things far outside their stated justification for fundraising. Others in this thread may be interested in extensive discussion on HN of this issue earlier this month (149 points, 121 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15429067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15429067 and back in May (1054 points, 406 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14287235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14287235