3 ms·

The definition of 'active editor' that gives totals in the tens of thousands is anything more than 5 edits a month. That could just be minutes of time, so I dou

by gojomo 14y ago

The definition of 'active editor' that gives totals in the tens of thousands is anything more than 5 edits a month. That could just be minutes of time, so I doubt you can draw any sensible conclusions about sizing a paid full-time staff from '5+ edit' volunteer counts. FWIW, the Wikipedia article on Encyclopedia Britannica suggests that in 2007, Britannica had a credited staff of about 60, with another dozen editorial advisors. (While thousands of other advisors contributed over the decades, they're not required as continuing full-time staff.) So your suggestion that the Foundation would need a "at least 10 times the number of people/money" -- 1000+ full-time paid editors, a $400 million/year+ budget?!? -- for serious improvements seems wildly extravagant. Is it extrapolated from the known size/cost of any real-world professional/academic editorial efforts?

jessriedel 14y ago
I'm saying that if you added the staff of Encyclopedia Britannica to Wikipedia you wouldn't make a dent in Wikipedia. Britannica is about 40 million words. Wikipedia is 2 billion words, or 50 times larger. 2% is a blip.
- gojomo 14y ago
  And Wikpedia got the 2 billion words with zero paid editors, and indeed a culture that is suspicious of financial motivations, which is a big reason why the Foundation/community doesn't seem to have any interest in paid editors. But if they thought they could use them, it doesn't follow that they'd need a staff of a thousand-plus. It depends on the (unstated, entirely-hypothetical) strategy for using them. Superficial word-count-output extrapolations wouldn't be part of such a strategy. They've got plenty of money (provided each year's donation campaign meets its goals). They've got plenty of words. There's just not a clear path where "if they just had enough funding from some modern Andrew Carnegie" they could throw paid editors at their mission and improve things. (That was the particular suggestion that started this tangent about whether they need more money or not.) Other tangential evidence: while the Foundation reaches its fundraising target each year, they often spend less than planned. See for example: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers#Why_is_2011-12.27s_projected_spending_lower_than_plan.3F https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Q...

by gojomo 14y ago

jessriedel 14y ago

I'm saying that if you added the staff of Encyclopedia Britannica to Wikipedia you wouldn't make a dent in Wikipedia. Britannica is about 40 million words. Wikipedia is 2 billion words, or 50 times larger. 2% is a blip.

gojomo 14y ago
And Wikpedia got the 2 billion words with zero paid editors, and indeed a culture that is suspicious of financial motivations, which is a big reason why the Foundation/community doesn't seem to have any interest in paid editors. But if they thought they could use them, it doesn't follow that they'd need a staff of a thousand-plus. It depends on the (unstated, entirely-hypothetical) strategy for using them. Superficial word-count-output extrapolations wouldn't be part of such a strategy. They've got plenty of money (provided each year's donation campaign meets its goals). They've got plenty of words. There's just not a clear path where "if they just had enough funding from some modern Andrew Carnegie" they could throw paid editors at their mission and improve things. (That was the particular suggestion that started this tangent about whether they need more money or not.) Other tangential evidence: while the Foundation reaches its fundraising target each year, they often spend less than planned. See for example: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers#Why_is_2011-12.27s_projected_spending_lower_than_plan.3F https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Q...