3 ms·

My problem is it seems like there is near zero odds of them going under anytime soon. With so much money, why not expand their mission? Surely it doesn't cos

My problem is it seems like there is near zero odds of them going under anytime soon. With so much money, why not expand their mission? Surely it doesn't cost 1 million to write a textbook, does it? Google tells me it costs $130k. Couldn't they do dozens a year, and probably get even more donations? Why don't they try to replace Facebook? Hire pro creators for Wikimedia? Start their own newspaper? A scientific journal? Where is the money all going? Everyone likes them and trusts them, for now, and they clearly want to do more than just Wikipedia, why don't they really make wikibooks and wikiversity happen?

akolbe 4y ago
It's a good question. They have spent half a billion dollars during the past five years, and have almost another half billion in reserves. The fundraising seems to have become an end in itself, just because they can. They keep talking about wanting to grow Wikipedia in the global south (Indian and African languages) but the spending in those regions, even though rising slowly, is still a minute portion of their expenses which mostly go to pay rising US salaries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-06-26/News_and_notes#Where_does_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_spend_its_money%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... So you have people in India (where people are currently shown fundraising banners on Wikipedia) donating a couple of dollars ... it takes over 200,000 donations like that to pay the salary of the Wikimedia CEO. $2 doesn't even buy a coffee in San Francisco. You could do a lot more with it in Kolkata. It's not like India doesn not have more pressing needs than sending money to the US because people are made to think money is needed to keep Wikipedia online for everyone.
akolbe 4y ago
As for Wikibooks and Wikiversity, I think it's because the quality content just isn't there. Wikipedia works reasonaby well with volunteer editors because of the requirement to cite published sources. Without that constraint, content quality becomes a lot more mixed. Also, they are in partnership with Google and other Big Tech companies, and what those companies need is Wikipedia- and Wikidata-type content that can be surfaced in response to search engine queries, be read out by Alexa or Siri or even your car's digital assistant, etc. Wikibooks and Wikiversity don't fit that bill, nor does Wiktionary, which is actually great, but is not promoted by the WMF nor by Google. Their 2030 strategy is all about becoming the dominant source of online information: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/...
- swores 4y ago
  Wouldn't it be a good thing rather than a problem if something like educational textbooks were written in such a way that everything in them needs a citation? - Simple to then have a paid professional (in the field, not in proofreading) proofread and dive into / fix anything questionable (edit: well... maybe less simple that editing an un-cited work written by another professional, I'm not sure actually) - Easier (potentially) to keep track of which bits of textbooks are out of date based on the source matter - Optionally publish them with citations impact, so that teachers or curious students can look into background material that led to the textbook being created I think the bigger problem isn't the use of citations to confirm quality, but that when your goal is to store info about as many things as possible it's easy to ask volunteers to work on whatever subject they choose to, whereas for something like a textbook you need one or more people figuring out what the subject matter should be based on the target audience, potentially based on a specific region's legally required curriculum, perhaps based just on "what will educators think useful enough", or a mix, etc. That's where citations are no longer enough (perhaps that's what you meant in your comment).
  - akolbe 4y ago
    I don't know Wikiversity very well. My impression is that it is a mixture of cranks and actual academics. Neither of them would want a Wikimedia-appointed expert come and revise their stuff. Also, the Foundation will not pay experts to vet content on principle. One consideration is that they do not want liability. Another is that they do not want conflict with the community over content.
the_biot 4y ago
Those are amazingly great ideas, but they would take vision and leadership to implement. Bloated rent-seeking organizations like Wikimedia don't attract people with vision and leadership skills, so they won't have any.

akolbe 4y ago

It's a good question. They have spent half a billion dollars during the past five years, and have almost another half billion in reserves. The fundraising seems to have become an end in itself, just because they can. They keep talking about wanting to grow Wikipedia in the global south (Indian and African languages) but the spending in those regions, even though rising slowly, is still a minute portion of their expenses which mostly go to pay rising US salaries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-06-26/News_and_notes#Where_does_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_spend_its_money%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... So you have people in India (where people are currently shown fundraising banners on Wikipedia) donating a couple of dollars ... it takes over 200,000 donations like that to pay the salary of the Wikimedia CEO. $2 doesn't even buy a coffee in San Francisco. You could do a lot more with it in Kolkata. It's not like India doesn not have more pressing needs than sending money to the US because people are made to think money is needed to keep Wikipedia online for everyone.

akolbe 4y ago

As for Wikibooks and Wikiversity, I think it's because the quality content just isn't there. Wikipedia works reasonaby well with volunteer editors because of the requirement to cite published sources. Without that constraint, content quality becomes a lot more mixed. Also, they are in partnership with Google and other Big Tech companies, and what those companies need is Wikipedia- and Wikidata-type content that can be surfaced in response to search engine queries, be read out by Alexa or Siri or even your car's digital assistant, etc. Wikibooks and Wikiversity don't fit that bill, nor does Wiktionary, which is actually great, but is not promoted by the WMF nor by Google. Their 2030 strategy is all about becoming the dominant source of online information: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/...

swores 4y ago
Wouldn't it be a good thing rather than a problem if something like educational textbooks were written in such a way that everything in them needs a citation? - Simple to then have a paid professional (in the field, not in proofreading) proofread and dive into / fix anything questionable (edit: well... maybe less simple that editing an un-cited work written by another professional, I'm not sure actually) - Easier (potentially) to keep track of which bits of textbooks are out of date based on the source matter - Optionally publish them with citations impact, so that teachers or curious students can look into background material that led to the textbook being created I think the bigger problem isn't the use of citations to confirm quality, but that when your goal is to store info about as many things as possible it's easy to ask volunteers to work on whatever subject they choose to, whereas for something like a textbook you need one or more people figuring out what the subject matter should be based on the target audience, potentially based on a specific region's legally required curriculum, perhaps based just on "what will educators think useful enough", or a mix, etc. That's where citations are no longer enough (perhaps that's what you meant in your comment).
- akolbe 4y ago
  I don't know Wikiversity very well. My impression is that it is a mixture of cranks and actual academics. Neither of them would want a Wikimedia-appointed expert come and revise their stuff. Also, the Foundation will not pay experts to vet content on principle. One consideration is that they do not want liability. Another is that they do not want conflict with the community over content.

the_biot 4y ago

Those are amazingly great ideas, but they would take vision and leadership to implement. Bloated rent-seeking organizations like Wikimedia don't attract people with vision and leadership skills, so they won't have any.