4 ms·

Jimmy Wales is very active on Quora and answers pretty much any question with his name in it (and it's "free" to ask him to answer) if anybody cares to post thi

by wilfra 14y ago

Jimmy Wales is very active on Quora and answers pretty much any question with his name in it (and it's "free" to ask him to answer) if anybody cares to post this. I was going to, but since the comments here seem to say the article is without merit, I wont.

chris_wot 14y ago
I'm curious as to what questions it actually raises? There was, a long time ago, someone who has now left as COO. The WMF (which the article consistently calls "Wikipedia") runs quite an open operation. Sue Gardener put in excellent processes into place and the organization is quite a tight ship by all accounts. Probably there are some stuff ups. It's a non-profit. The business cards issue sounds like one of those. That's something that can happen with any organization, so not sure if that's enough to see some sort of nefarious scheme conning people out of their money... Of all the issues that Orlowski could nit-pick on, he chose the most ridiculous. There's nothing to see here, just a bunch of assertions with no evidence or even earth shattering revelations. Frankly, the article is a hatchet job. Bravo El Reg, a quality publication!
- DanBC 14y ago
  I hate the Register and I haven't read the article. So, ignoring that article: You have some knowledge of Wikimedia, and Wikipedia, and the foundation. What problems do you think those projects have, and how could they overcome those problems? I ask in the spirit of learning, not bashing.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    To be honest, it's been a very long time since I was an active participant on Wikipedia. The issues I had we're always with Wikipedia, and almost never the regulars (except Giano, who I notice has now left the project). I never had an issue with anyone from the WMF, they were always very professional. The few issues I did have were based on unsubstantiated rumour, so I'm not about to repeat them here, suffice to say that those perceived or real issues were cleaned up a long time ago.
- wilfra 14y ago
  >> I'm curious as to what questions it actually raises? One could just post a link to the article and ask his opinion. I'm sure he would respond.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    No thanks. He'll probably fabricate something I've said, as he did with Robert Scoble. [1] 1. http://thomashawk.com/2005/11/andrew-orlowski-and-register-bad.html http://thomashawk.com/2005/11/andrew-orlowski-and-register-b...
dkersten 14y ago
Quora is the new experts exchange. They even blur out answers like experts exchange did. I've never seen any other website do that!
wilfra 14y ago
Somebody posted it. http://www.quora.com/Wikipedia/Is-Wikipedia-collecting-more-money-than-required http://www.quora.com/Wikipedia/Is-Wikipedia-collecting-more-... His response: That article is typical of The Register - typical nonsense. The number of falsehoods in it is substantial, so in the interests of time, I will cover just a few of the highlights. 1. "The vast potential for advertising attracted venture capital firm Elevation Partners (whose investors include Bono from U2) to court Wikipedia" - at no point in our conversations with Elevation was there ever a suggestion that Wikipedia should take advertising. Indeed, Roger McNamee was quite adamant that Wikipedia should not do that. 2. "Bono also urged Wales to drop the volunteers and hire professionals instead." This is absolutely and utterly false. Bono has never suggested any such thing nor anything even remotely resembling it. He's always been in awe of the community and how it all works. The Wikimedia Foundation (and associated chapters) are incredibly transparent about our spending, hiring policies and practices, etc. The idea that the Foundation should restrict itself to the tiniest possible budget just to keep the site running is frankly idiotic. And the idea that the Foundation has steadily increased our reserve position is bad is also idiotic. There can be such a thing as having too large a reserve, but we aren't close to that level yet. One think we know our donors are interested in (because of their response to banner messaging) is that we keep Wikipedia safe - and that means, in part, being fiscally responsible and building up a cushion for the future.

by wilfra 14y ago

chris_wot 14y ago

I'm curious as to what questions it actually raises? There was, a long time ago, someone who has now left as COO. The WMF (which the article consistently calls "Wikipedia") runs quite an open operation. Sue Gardener put in excellent processes into place and the organization is quite a tight ship by all accounts. Probably there are some stuff ups. It's a non-profit. The business cards issue sounds like one of those. That's something that can happen with any organization, so not sure if that's enough to see some sort of nefarious scheme conning people out of their money... Of all the issues that Orlowski could nit-pick on, he chose the most ridiculous. There's nothing to see here, just a bunch of assertions with no evidence or even earth shattering revelations. Frankly, the article is a hatchet job. Bravo El Reg, a quality publication!

DanBC 14y ago
I hate the Register and I haven't read the article. So, ignoring that article: You have some knowledge of Wikimedia, and Wikipedia, and the foundation. What problems do you think those projects have, and how could they overcome those problems? I ask in the spirit of learning, not bashing.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  To be honest, it's been a very long time since I was an active participant on Wikipedia. The issues I had we're always with Wikipedia, and almost never the regulars (except Giano, who I notice has now left the project). I never had an issue with anyone from the WMF, they were always very professional. The few issues I did have were based on unsubstantiated rumour, so I'm not about to repeat them here, suffice to say that those perceived or real issues were cleaned up a long time ago.
wilfra 14y ago
>> I'm curious as to what questions it actually raises? One could just post a link to the article and ask his opinion. I'm sure he would respond.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  No thanks. He'll probably fabricate something I've said, as he did with Robert Scoble. [1] 1. http://thomashawk.com/2005/11/andrew-orlowski-and-register-bad.html http://thomashawk.com/2005/11/andrew-orlowski-and-register-b...

dkersten 14y ago

Quora is the new experts exchange. They even blur out answers like experts exchange did. I've never seen any other website do that!

wilfra 14y ago

Somebody posted it. http://www.quora.com/Wikipedia/Is-Wikipedia-collecting-more-money-than-required http://www.quora.com/Wikipedia/Is-Wikipedia-collecting-more-... His response: That article is typical of The Register - typical nonsense. The number of falsehoods in it is substantial, so in the interests of time, I will cover just a few of the highlights. 1. "The vast potential for advertising attracted venture capital firm Elevation Partners (whose investors include Bono from U2) to court Wikipedia" - at no point in our conversations with Elevation was there ever a suggestion that Wikipedia should take advertising. Indeed, Roger McNamee was quite adamant that Wikipedia should not do that. 2. "Bono also urged Wales to drop the volunteers and hire professionals instead." This is absolutely and utterly false. Bono has never suggested any such thing nor anything even remotely resembling it. He's always been in awe of the community and how it all works. The Wikimedia Foundation (and associated chapters) are incredibly transparent about our spending, hiring policies and practices, etc. The idea that the Foundation should restrict itself to the tiniest possible budget just to keep the site running is frankly idiotic. And the idea that the Foundation has steadily increased our reserve position is bad is also idiotic. There can be such a thing as having too large a reserve, but we aren't close to that level yet. One think we know our donors are interested in (because of their response to banner messaging) is that we keep Wikipedia safe - and that means, in part, being fiscally responsible and building up a cushion for the future.