3 ms·

I wasn't aware that not meeting that goal would result in slapping ads on articles. Also, Wikipedia itself was fully funded a while ago through next year, the

by kprobst 16y ago

I wasn't aware that not meeting that goal would result in slapping ads on articles. Also, Wikipedia itself was fully funded a while ago through next year, the foundation was trying to raise money for other projects and programs that aren't the encyclopedia itself.

checoivan 16y ago
Or raising for the future instead of waiting for the imminent to happen, running out of money, and act in desperation.
- kprobst 16y ago
  That would be a good idea, but they seem to do the same thing every year.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    Why change what works?
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      That's a pathology called "non event feedback", just because you've avoided catastrophe with risky behavior in the past doesn't mean that the risk doesn't exist, it just means you've gotten lucky. Why change wikimedia's method of fund raising and budgeting? Because wikipedia is a valuable resource and it would be far greater if we could ensure it remains available for reading and continued revision not just for the next year or the next decade but indefinitely. They've already raised enough money to have ensured that had they invested the money correctly. Instead, the money has been squandered on salaries for positions within the foundation which provide questionable value.
neilk 16y ago
> I wasn't aware that not meeting that goal would result in slapping ads on articles. Yeah, RWW says that in a couple of places, but I don't know why. I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation has ever implied that. (Disclaimer: I work there.) The slogan/hashtag was #keepitfree, but I don't think that implies a number. Anyway, if there had been a shortfall in community donations, the WMF would just have readjusted its budget, or sought more big-donor money. Ads on Wikipedia are not even a remote possibility. But we prefer to get everything from the readership in small donations. Big donations expose the projects to charges of bias, or require us to jump through various hoops that don't directly benefit the community. We'd rather be working for the community 100% of the time, rather than balancing the concerns of the community and people with deep pockets.
rospaya 16y ago
> the foundation was trying to raise money for other projects and programs that aren't the encyclopedia itself. Any info on that?

by kprobst 16y ago

checoivan 16y ago

Or raising for the future instead of waiting for the imminent to happen, running out of money, and act in desperation.

kprobst 16y ago
That would be a good idea, but they seem to do the same thing every year.
- nitrogen 16y ago
  Why change what works?
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    That's a pathology called "non event feedback", just because you've avoided catastrophe with risky behavior in the past doesn't mean that the risk doesn't exist, it just means you've gotten lucky. Why change wikimedia's method of fund raising and budgeting? Because wikipedia is a valuable resource and it would be far greater if we could ensure it remains available for reading and continued revision not just for the next year or the next decade but indefinitely. They've already raised enough money to have ensured that had they invested the money correctly. Instead, the money has been squandered on salaries for positions within the foundation which provide questionable value.

neilk 16y ago

> I wasn't aware that not meeting that goal would result in slapping ads on articles. Yeah, RWW says that in a couple of places, but I don't know why. I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation has ever implied that. (Disclaimer: I work there.) The slogan/hashtag was #keepitfree, but I don't think that implies a number. Anyway, if there had been a shortfall in community donations, the WMF would just have readjusted its budget, or sought more big-donor money. Ads on Wikipedia are not even a remote possibility. But we prefer to get everything from the readership in small donations. Big donations expose the projects to charges of bias, or require us to jump through various hoops that don't directly benefit the community. We'd rather be working for the community 100% of the time, rather than balancing the concerns of the community and people with deep pockets.

rospaya 16y ago

> the foundation was trying to raise money for other projects and programs that aren't the encyclopedia itself. Any info on that?