3 ms·

> but they are definitely doing more now then back then And it's probably questionable if all side ventures are needed or if they could/should have sticked to

> but they are definitely doing more now then back then And it's probably questionable if all side ventures are needed or if they could/should have sticked to the core project and developt it with little money. As mentioned further down: Do you really need 40 fundraiser positions?

bawolff 5y ago
The side ventures aren't the thing they are doing now that they weren't back then (Other then wikidata which started in 2012, all the other side projects are really old). Things they are doing now is stuff like having a website that stays up and is speedy. Software improvements for english wikipedia EN Wikipedia has always been where the lion share of attention was focused on (With wikidata and commons coming in second. The other projects get very little love).
- martin_a 5y ago
  One should expect that with improvements in software and hosting, the cost-value-ratio improves. Does not seem to be the case here, which is strange.
  - dgb23 5y ago
    More users, links, more languages more articles etc.
    - martin_a 5y ago
      Yes, something like factor 5 more. Doesn't explain why, with evolving technology, costs have risen by factor 10. Well, side ventures which burn money would explain factor 10, but yeah...
KingOfCoders 5y ago
Like many other such projects the project has been hijacked and used as a cash cow for things those people really want to do. See Firefox (though it is getting better there with them realizing that no investing in your cash cow is a bad idea).
ratww 5y ago
If the fundraising positions are unambiguously bringing enough money to justify their stay, definitely. I have no idea, though. It seems they currently (2019-2020) are responsible for 12% of the expenses [1], but I can't find any information as to which percentage of the donations they're responsible for. I wonder if there's a more transparent report for that. Looking at their donor numbers [2], it suggests that most of the fundraising is still coming from the long tail, from regular people donating online. They only seem to have 17 "major benefactors" and even if we multiply the smallest amount for that tier (50k) by 10x, that still only accounts for 7% of the donations. According to their 2019 data, the average donation seems to be $15, which suggests Jimbo banner is way more important than the fundraisers. Of course my assumption might be completely incorrect. [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-annual-report/financials/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-annu... [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-annual-report/donors/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-annu...

bawolff 5y ago

The side ventures aren't the thing they are doing now that they weren't back then (Other then wikidata which started in 2012, all the other side projects are really old). Things they are doing now is stuff like having a website that stays up and is speedy. Software improvements for english wikipedia EN Wikipedia has always been where the lion share of attention was focused on (With wikidata and commons coming in second. The other projects get very little love).

martin_a 5y ago
One should expect that with improvements in software and hosting, the cost-value-ratio improves. Does not seem to be the case here, which is strange.
- dgb23 5y ago
  More users, links, more languages more articles etc.
  - martin_a 5y ago
    Yes, something like factor 5 more. Doesn't explain why, with evolving technology, costs have risen by factor 10. Well, side ventures which burn money would explain factor 10, but yeah...

KingOfCoders 5y ago

Like many other such projects the project has been hijacked and used as a cash cow for things those people really want to do. See Firefox (though it is getting better there with them realizing that no investing in your cash cow is a bad idea).

ratww 5y ago

If the fundraising positions are unambiguously bringing enough money to justify their stay, definitely. I have no idea, though. It seems they currently (2019-2020) are responsible for 12% of the expenses [1], but I can't find any information as to which percentage of the donations they're responsible for. I wonder if there's a more transparent report for that. Looking at their donor numbers [2], it suggests that most of the fundraising is still coming from the long tail, from regular people donating online. They only seem to have 17 "major benefactors" and even if we multiply the smallest amount for that tier (50k) by 10x, that still only accounts for 7% of the donations. According to their 2019 data, the average donation seems to be $15, which suggests Jimbo banner is way more important than the fundraisers. Of course my assumption might be completely incorrect. [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-annual-report/financials/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-annu... [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-annual-report/donors/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-annu...