6 ms·

One of the issues here is this funding goes toward some of the more hidden work that folks using and even contributing to Wikipedia don't see. Let's take two ex

by aezell 5y ago

One of the issues here is this funding goes toward some of the more hidden work that folks using and even contributing to Wikipedia don't see. Let's take two examples: 1) Automatically identifying, reporting, and perhaps removing spam, hate speech, advertising, conflict of interest, etc. content. That's done in part by a system called ORES which was designed, built, and is managed by folks working for Wikimedia. Could volunteers have built such a system? Of course. Did they? No. 2) Identifying, blocking, and reporting child pornography. Like any site on the Internet that allows users to upload images, thousands of images of child pornography are uploaded to Wikipedia (and its sibling projects) on a regular basis. There are tools designed to catch most of these. However, humans still have to moderate a lot of this content. Would you volunteer to do that work all day long? I wouldn't. And that's why someone needs to be paid to do it. So, while there is likely bloat in the organization (as in any group of humans endeavoring toward a shared goal), there is a lot of work done that volunteers wouldn't or couldn't or simply shouldn't do.

akolbe 5y ago
Wikipedia was a top-10 site in 2007, when the WMF had 11 employees. Child porn got deleted. I'm all in favour of someone being paid for such work, and the WMF taking on child protection responsibilities (after many years of leaving them to volunteers) but it doesn't explain a headcount of 550 when throughout most of Wikipedia's existence the work got done by a fraction of that. ORES was built with substantial volunteer input. ClueBot, an even more important vandal-fighting feature, was created by volunteers. https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/18/5412636/this-machine-kills-trolls-how-wikipedia-robots-snuff-out-vandalism https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/18/5412636/this-machine-kill... But in a way that's immaterial. Nothing wrong with having money and expanding. They just shouldn't tell people money is needed to defend Wikipedia's independence when by any measure they are richer and more secure than ever before. If you want more money, lay out your plans. Enthuse people for the additional things you want to do with the extra funds. Don't pretend you need five or ten times more money to do the same thing you've been doing all along. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#/media/File:WMF_Support_and_Revenue,_Expenses_and_Net_Assets_at_Year_End.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#/media/Fi...
- aezell 5y ago
  Your response doesn't account for the vast change in scale and technology since then. I also was clear that these two things didn't explain all of the expansion just that they were examples of things some folks might not recognize are part of the Foundation's work. As for laying out their plans, there are dozens of wiki pages[1] dedicated to it and every task[2] and commit[3] to the code is public. What they tell people in these pleas for donations is the language that actually gets people to donate. If folks would donate after reading the Medium Term Plan, then they would promote but instead humans tend to act only when an emotional appeal is made. That might not work for you but testing and experimenting on those ads proves that it does for most people. [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-... [2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org https://phabricator.wikimedia.org [3] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org https://gerrit.wikimedia.org
  - akolbe 5y ago
    That's precisely the point though: telling people "what gets them to donate". That's manipulative. And it's the inevitable result of a sophisticated, decade-long program of A/B testing. And this is the outfit, remember, that wants to steward "the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge", the most-propagated information source on the planet. I'd rather have someone in charge of that who's committed to telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", rather than someone who tells people what "gets them to do what they want them to do". Wouldn't you?
    - aezell 5y ago
      In an altruistic and idealistic world, sure. But that's not the world I live in. Personally, I find the ads histrionic and would like them to change. However, an article like this that insinuates something akin to malice or subterfuge instead of recognizing the reality of non-profit fundraising isn't helpful. That was my point.
      - akolbe 5y ago
pbhjpbhj 5y ago
You've not addressed the issue presented. The page is basically an abstract to https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais.... The issue is the WMF VP of engineering estimate from 2013 says it costs about $10 million to run Wikipedia for a year. They have (according to this article) $300 million in the bank, and look to have taken $142 million more this year ... but are making desperate sounding pleas for cash. The article says maybe they have enough and could ease up on the tearful-sounding begging. They're being the corporate equivalent of a beggar king that begs all day and drives back to their mansion in a brand new car in the evening. From the Kolbe's article: >WMF’s job advertisement [...] says the WMF employs a team of over 500. Top-tier managers earn $300,000 – $400,000 a year. Over 40 people work exclusively on fundraising.
- aezell 5y ago
  If you think anyone is getting rich working at the WMF, I can disavow you of that notion. It's just not true. Each of those people is making far below market rate for their respective positions and geographical locations. As for the language in the ads, it's there because it works. The WMF has tried, many times, language which is less emotional and more objective. It doesn't work. People don't respond. What you're asking for is to have people donate because of their objective sense of value but that's not how most humans work. The WMF does what works.
  - Qub3d 5y ago
    You seem to be speaking with the authority of a WMF insider. If so, can you speak to the concerns Wikipedians have raised about the endowment responsibility? Currently, there is nothing preventing WMF from drawing down the endowment arbitrarily, effectively making it a checking account, not an endowment. This is less a complaint about fundraising (we get it, nonprofits need money) but accountability. Its one thing to ask for donations. Its another to use loaded language (ironically in violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style) that implies the site will go dead in a year unless you contribute money to the dark pool of cash with almost no oversight. "We should make spending transparent, publish a detailed account of what the money is being spent on and answer any reasonable questions asking for more details. We should limit spending increases to no more than inflation plus some percentage (adjusted for any increases in page views), build up our endowment, and structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the principal when times get bad." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...

by aezell 5y ago

akolbe 5y ago

Wikipedia was a top-10 site in 2007, when the WMF had 11 employees. Child porn got deleted. I'm all in favour of someone being paid for such work, and the WMF taking on child protection responsibilities (after many years of leaving them to volunteers) but it doesn't explain a headcount of 550 when throughout most of Wikipedia's existence the work got done by a fraction of that. ORES was built with substantial volunteer input. ClueBot, an even more important vandal-fighting feature, was created by volunteers. https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/18/5412636/this-machine-kills-trolls-how-wikipedia-robots-snuff-out-vandalism https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/18/5412636/this-machine-kill... But in a way that's immaterial. Nothing wrong with having money and expanding. They just shouldn't tell people money is needed to defend Wikipedia's independence when by any measure they are richer and more secure than ever before. If you want more money, lay out your plans. Enthuse people for the additional things you want to do with the extra funds. Don't pretend you need five or ten times more money to do the same thing you've been doing all along. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#/media/File:WMF_Support_and_Revenue,_Expenses_and_Net_Assets_at_Year_End.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#/media/Fi...

aezell 5y ago
Your response doesn't account for the vast change in scale and technology since then. I also was clear that these two things didn't explain all of the expansion just that they were examples of things some folks might not recognize are part of the Foundation's work. As for laying out their plans, there are dozens of wiki pages[1] dedicated to it and every task[2] and commit[3] to the code is public. What they tell people in these pleas for donations is the language that actually gets people to donate. If folks would donate after reading the Medium Term Plan, then they would promote but instead humans tend to act only when an emotional appeal is made. That might not work for you but testing and experimenting on those ads proves that it does for most people. [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-... [2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org https://phabricator.wikimedia.org [3] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org https://gerrit.wikimedia.org
- akolbe 5y ago
  That's precisely the point though: telling people "what gets them to donate". That's manipulative. And it's the inevitable result of a sophisticated, decade-long program of A/B testing. And this is the outfit, remember, that wants to steward "the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge", the most-propagated information source on the planet. I'd rather have someone in charge of that who's committed to telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", rather than someone who tells people what "gets them to do what they want them to do". Wouldn't you?
  - aezell 5y ago
    In an altruistic and idealistic world, sure. But that's not the world I live in. Personally, I find the ads histrionic and would like them to change. However, an article like this that insinuates something akin to malice or subterfuge instead of recognizing the reality of non-profit fundraising isn't helpful. That was my point.
    - akolbe 5y ago

pbhjpbhj 5y ago

You've not addressed the issue presented. The page is basically an abstract to https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais.... The issue is the WMF VP of engineering estimate from 2013 says it costs about $10 million to run Wikipedia for a year. They have (according to this article) $300 million in the bank, and look to have taken $142 million more this year ... but are making desperate sounding pleas for cash. The article says maybe they have enough and could ease up on the tearful-sounding begging. They're being the corporate equivalent of a beggar king that begs all day and drives back to their mansion in a brand new car in the evening. From the Kolbe's article: >WMF’s job advertisement [...] says the WMF employs a team of over 500. Top-tier managers earn $300,000 – $400,000 a year. Over 40 people work exclusively on fundraising.

aezell 5y ago
If you think anyone is getting rich working at the WMF, I can disavow you of that notion. It's just not true. Each of those people is making far below market rate for their respective positions and geographical locations. As for the language in the ads, it's there because it works. The WMF has tried, many times, language which is less emotional and more objective. It doesn't work. People don't respond. What you're asking for is to have people donate because of their objective sense of value but that's not how most humans work. The WMF does what works.
- Qub3d 5y ago
  You seem to be speaking with the authority of a WMF insider. If so, can you speak to the concerns Wikipedians have raised about the endowment responsibility? Currently, there is nothing preventing WMF from drawing down the endowment arbitrarily, effectively making it a checking account, not an endowment. This is less a complaint about fundraising (we get it, nonprofits need money) but accountability. Its one thing to ask for donations. Its another to use loaded language (ironically in violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style) that implies the site will go dead in a year unless you contribute money to the dark pool of cash with almost no oversight. "We should make spending transparent, publish a detailed account of what the money is being spent on and answer any reasonable questions asking for more details. We should limit spending increases to no more than inflation plus some percentage (adjusted for any increases in page views), build up our endowment, and structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the principal when times get bad." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...