Cost of participation (paywalls, conference costs etc.)

[HRIP7]

Increasing numbers of news outlets (including the Washington Post and the New York Times) are restricting free access to their online publications.

There is now a discussion about the costs volunteers incur to access paywalled sources, and the lack of help provided by WMF to date. Plus a mention of the $275 registration fee for Wikimania:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =795330491

Should the WMF use a greater share of its budget to reduce the costs of participation for the average, nameless volunteer?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I recall suggesting something of the kind on the wikimedia-l list.

I suggest there are two horses to run in this race. On the one hand, encourage the masses to believe that the WMF could and should be spending more making it easy for them to edit, as in the suggestions referred to, and deepen teir resentment at getting precisely nothing from the squllions of dollars raised by the Foundation. On the other, encourage the lunatic anti-copyright fringe in the view that free knowledge requires free sources (as in, free beer) and that Wikipedia should be rigorously purged of all references which require payment (including, of course, all books), and of course all content based on those references. This is what I call a "best lack all conviction strategy" -- paralyse the constructive contributors in disputes over their entitlements while firing up the destructive with a tempting new thing to slash and burn. With any luck, between the two, we will bring the whole edifice crashing down in ruin.

[Poetlister]

Increasing numbers of news outlets (including the Washington Post and the New York Times) are restricting free access to their online publications.

There is now a discussion about the costs volunteers incur to access paywalled sources, and the lack of help provided by WMF to date. Plus a mention of the $275 registration fee for Wikimania:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =795330491

Should the WMF use a greater share of its budget to reduce the costs of participation for the average, nameless volunteer?

I don't see that attending the WMF convention has any direct benefit to the aims of the WMF. Giving financial assistance to good content contributors to help them in their work would have a direct benefit, and indeed there have occasionally been moves to do this.

Many books are of course freely available in libraries. You get idiotic backlashes like "you should only use books available in most libraries" (in the USA, in the world?) but these can be ignored.

[HRIP7]

Two Jimmy Wales quotes from that page:

First, I think it's a really interesting idea to think about how the WMF might negotiate for bulk discounts for access for individual Wikipedians to the archives of newspapers (to be paid for by the WMF). I totally disagree with Carrite's cynicism and negativism about this sort of thing - I really wish people with this kind of negative attitude would actually come to Wikimania or actually engage with the Foundation in a constructive way. Just being negative is not really useful, neither to oneself nor others. Rather than ignoring the facts of reality in order to complain, it might be more useful to look at programs like the Rapid Grants program and think about how they might be improved/adapted to provide more support for editors. Positive engagement is very likely to yield good results. Being a jerk is very likely to lead to people regarding you as a jerk, and nothing more. [...]

My translation: "I have absolutely no intention of lifting a finger to make anything like this happen. However, I will quickly make clear that anyone who is not satisfied with lip service, but actually wants me to get stuff like this done, like this bloke Carrite, should be considered a jerk by all right-thinking Wikipedians."

I support expansion of the scholarship program, which is already quite good, and a reduction in the cost of attending Wikimania. The main thing wrong with "this picture" is that your comment is unnecessarily aggressive. Please stop posting to my talk page with this kind of negative attitude - or stop posting here altogether, I don't care which you choose.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

My translation: "I have absolutely no intention of lifting a finger to make anything like this happen. However, I will quickly make clear that anyone who is not satisfied with lip service, but actually wants me to get stuff like this done, like this bloke Carrite, should be considered a jerk by all right-thinking Wikipedians."


It's just my experience that whenever Wales forcefully announces that he fully supports something, or finds it really interesting, there is never afterwards any follow-up, or any visible indication that he has expended any effort to make it happen – and indeed, there is sometimes circumstantial evidence suggesting that he is more likely to have actively engaged in behind-the-scenes efforts to prevent that very thing from happening (as in the case of the Knowledge Engine documentation he said he wanted released).

[Randy from Boise]

How about the ridiculously high cost of attending Wikimania ($275 Canadian for a three day pass)? That seems like an insanely high "cost of participation" for a normal person to incur, particularly since our "non-profit" WMF is cashing checks to the tune of $80 million American or more every year to advance "the mission of the project."

Some asshole pointed this out on Jimbotalk linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =795325867[/link] and got thumped in the nose by The Chief Perpetrator for his trouble... It's sad really, but as Eric Corbett said, if you don't want to be called a jerk, don't act like a jerk — or something like that...

RfB

[Vigilant]

Dear WMF,

Make entry to wikimania free for everyone.
Spend the donations on providing food and support for the people who attend.
Stop behaving like douchecanoes.

Your friend,
Vigilant

P.S. Disregard everything I said and continue to fuck over your unpaid workers.

[thekohser]

Plus a mention of the $275 registration fee for Wikimania:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =795330491

Congrats to Carrite for nudging Jimbo out of a fortnight-long slumber apart from JimboTalk!

[Rogol Domedonfors]

If the WMF believe that these junkets advance their mission to spread free knowledge to the world, then they should be willing to pay for them, with low prices to encourage participation and maximise benefit, subsidised out of the donations. The fact that they run them as a profit-making exercise suggests that they do not see them as beneficial to that mission.

At least, that is how it should be presented to the volunteer community -- WMF do not believe in Wikimania.

We know that in reality the WMF make a profit out of these events because they can, and their mission is not to spread knowledge so much as to gather up the maximum amount of money. In which case, running it like Comic-Con makes perfect sense.

[thekohser]

We know that in reality the WMF make a profit out of these events...

Do we know that Wikimania is profitable for the WMF? I'm going to guess that it represents (overall) an outlay on their general ledger, especially when you consider airfare and hotel for all the important dignitaries from San Francisco who must make the difficult trip to the event, to make sure it goes off according to plan.

[Poetlister]

And of course taking all these important people away from San Francisco must have a negative impact on the work of WMF HQ. If it doesn't, why are all these people necessary?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

We know that in reality the WMF make a profit out of these events...

Do we know that Wikimania is profitable for the WMF? I'm going to guess that it represents (overall) an outlay on their general ledger, especially when you consider airfare and hotel for all the important dignitaries from San Francisco who must make the difficult trip to the event, to make sure it goes off according to plan.

I don't know, that, no. But I have some experience with running conferences and my guesstimate is that the fees paid by those attending more than cover the costs of providing them with whatever it is that they were provided with. The costs, direct and indirect, of the WMF jollies presumably comes out of the boondoggle budget. Bear in mind that the primary function of the WMF, based on the way it spends its revenues, is to channel money, one way or another, into the pockets of its own staff.

If you doubt that last assertion, look at the 2016-7 Annual Plan: Staffing 35M out of 65M operating expenses.

[Kingsindian]

What would be a good level of fees for the conference?

[Randy from Boise]

What would be a good level of fees for the conference?

10 units of the local currency per day. A token sum, with the great majority of costs picked up by WMF.

RfB

[Rogol Domedonfors]

What would be a good level of fees for the conference?

10 units of the local currency per day. A token sum, with the great majority of costs picked up by WMF.

RfB

Sounds about right to me.

[Kingsindian]

Are there other non-profits who work on this model of free entry for their conference?

I don't know what an appropriate standard of comparison would be. Some people on Jimbo's talk page have made comparisons to Comic-Con (it's commercial) and a scientific conference (registration fees is sometimes taken care of by grants from departments or other sources, especially if one is presenting a paper).

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Yes: the Royal Society, the oldest learned society in the world, typically makes no charge for admission to its scientific conferences in London, which are open to anyone to attend (registration beforehand is required, numbers limited, usually to 200). They charge for lunch, a bit on the high side, but they are right in the centre of the city and it's not exactly hard to go out for a sandwich.

[HRIP7]

The scholarship criteria for Wikimania are interesting.

I was surprised by the extent to which content creation seems to be de-emphasised in favour of various forms of social interaction (incl. tool building).

[Poetlister]

Yes: the Royal Society, the oldest learned society in the world

What about the Royal College of Physicians (T-H-L)? It is certainly regarded as a learned society.

[Kingsindian]

The scholarship criteria for Wikimania are interesting.

I was surprised by the extent to which content creation seems to be de-emphasised in favour of various forms of social interaction (incl. tool building).

Here is the list of people who got scholarships. They number 110.

From a cursory clicking of a few random names, a lot of them are part of some "user group" or the other. One was a bureaucrat.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Yes: the Royal Society, the oldest learned society in the world

What about the Royal College of Physicians (T-H-L)? It is certainly regarded as a learned society.

They describe themselves as a professional body. And their conferences are expensive.

[Poetlister]

Yes: the Royal Society, the oldest learned society in the world

What about the Royal College of Physicians (T-H-L)? It is certainly regarded as a learned society.

They describe themselves as a professional body. And their conferences are expensive.

On their own website it says clearly "As a learned society with a continued existence now of nearly five centuries". Yes, they charge for conferences. I'm giving an example of a non-profit that does so.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

The RCP mission and strategy page says "We are the professional membership body for physicians", so you can see why the casual reader might have been confused into thinking that they are a professional body. Do you think it makes a great deal of difference to the fact that the Royal Society can sustain free admission tp world-class conferences if they are merely the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence rather than the oldest learned society in existence?

[Kingsindian]

Leaving aside this "who was the oldest" business...

The Royal Society might be a special case because of its age and prestige. What I am mostly interested in is whether free conferences are a normal practice of non-profits vaguely comparable to the WMF.

[Kingsindian]

Incidentally, can someone parse this paragraph from Jimbo:

I agree with you. I think that those who can pay, should pay, and that there should be a generous scholarship program for those who can't. I don't think it is a valid goal that the conference be provided completely for free for everyone, nor do I think it should turn away people (especially local people) who can't afford to pay. I should also note that in general this is exactly the approach that has been taken this year as in every other year. I say this even while saying, with all due respect to everyone involved in decision making so far, that I'd like to see the scholarship program expanded. Others may disagree - I only hope and wish they'd do so respectfully rather than in the spirit of faux scandal and outrage!

He thinks that the conference should not be free, but the conference shouldn't turn away people (especially local people) for lack of payment? How does that work, exactly? This "can't afford to pay" business seems frightfully vague: are they supposed to bring their income tax returns to show that they can't afford to pay?

[Zoloft]

Leaving aside this "who was the oldest" business...

The Royal Society might be a special case because of its age and prestige. What I am mostly interested in is whether free conferences are a normal practice of non-profits vaguely comparable to the WMF.

AFCEA WEST is a free conference. Meals and training are something you pay for.

[Midsize Jake]

He thinks that the conference should not be free, but the conference shouldn't turn away people (especially local people) for lack of payment? How does that work, exactly? This "can't afford to pay" business seems frightfully vague: are they supposed to bring their income tax returns to show that they can't afford to pay?

My guess is that he means they'd let in people free-of-charge as "seat fillers" if the number of paying marks customers isn't enough to fill up the venue. Once they let those people in, they'd do full body-cavity searches on them to make sure they're not hiding big wads of cash up their, uhh, you know, private areas. If they are, they grab the cash and take photos of the whole cash-removal process to ensure the attendee's silence - if anyone talks, the photos go up on Commons and are used as the Main Page Photo of the Week.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

The Royal Society might be a special case because of its age and prestige. What I am mostly interested in is whether free conferences are a normal practice of non-profits vaguely comparable to the WMF.

The Royal Society's income is about the same as that of the WMF. It views these scientific events as one of its core activities: one of the things it raises its money to spend on. It shows that it is perfectly possible to run these events for free if you want to. But if you don't like that, then ... the British Science Association events, such as the four-day British Science Festival (very similar to Wikimania in style, except with actual science), are almost all free. Its income is about £3M, less than a tenth of the WMF. Again, it regards these events as part of its core business, not an annoying overhead.

To get a view about what the actual costs are, consider Eastercon, a four-day UK science fiction convention with no supporting body, so it has to break even, but does not aim to make a profit. It charged £80, say C$130.

[Midsize Jake]

To get a view about what the actual costs are, consider Eastercon, a four-day UK science fiction convention with no supporting body, so it has to break even, but does not aim to make a profit. It charged £80, say C$130.

I was gonna say, they could probably be forgiven for charging $100, maybe $150 tops, but $275 really does look like they're gouging just a bit.

Personally, I suspect a lot of this has to do with the fact that the people working for the WMF all live in San Francisco, which is a ridiculously expensive place to live/work - people there tend to be paid accordingly, which completely skews their own notions of how much things are worth and what people can be expected to pay for them. Still, you have to figure they're communicating with the Wikipedians about this... maybe the Wikipedians want the price tag to be high because they think it will keep the riff-raff out, whoever they happen to be. Hard to say, really.

[Poetlister]

The RCP mission and strategy page says "We are the professional membership body for physicians", so you can see why the casual reader might have been confused into thinking that they are a professional body. Do you think it makes a great deal of difference to the fact that the Royal Society can sustain free admission tp world-class conferences if they are merely the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence rather than the oldest learned society in existence?

A society can easily be both a learned society and a professional body. As many here know, I am a member of one such. And the Royal Society claims to be the world's oldest scientific academy; a learned society is not necessarily a scientific academy, and indeed the Royal Society is "the independent scientific academy of the UK and the Commonwealth", i.e. the only one.

Yes, of course all this makes a difference. As the independent scientific academy of the UK, the Royal Society is expected to do this sort of thing. As far as I am aware, the WMF makes no claim to be a scientific academy.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Thank you for clarifying that. The question, though, is not whether the WMF, or indeed any other body, is or is not an academy, a learned society, a professional body or some combination thereof. It is whether the WMF views running conferences such as Wikimania as part of its core mission or not. Those bodies which do run conferences as part of their core mission, and I have given some examples, find it entirely possible to run those conferences either for free (as does the Royal Society or the BSA), funding them out of their other income, or at a price of about £20 a day (as does Eastercon), running on a cost-recovery basis. The fact that Wikimania is charging double that, and that many locals have complained that they find it expensive, suggests that WMF sees Wikimania as being extraneous to its core mission and therefore (quite properly for a non-profit) something needs to cover its costs, direct and indirect, as a higher priority than delivering the benefit of the conference, whatever that might be, to the volunteer community or the public at large. This is a tenable position for them to hold, but one which they for some reason prefer to keep obscure.

[Cedric]

First, I think it's a really interesting idea to think about how the WMF might negotiate for bulk discounts for access for individual Wikipedians to the archives of newspapers (to be paid for by the WMF). I totally disagree with Carrite's cynicism and negativism about this sort of thing - I really wish people with this kind of negative attitude would actually come to Wikimania or actually engage with the Foundation in a constructive way. Just being negative is not really useful, neither to oneself nor others. Rather than ignoring the facts of reality in order to complain, it might be more useful to look at programs like the Rapid Grants program and think about how they might be improved/adapted to provide more support for editors. Positive engagement is very likely to yield good results. Being a jerk is very likely to lead to people regarding you as a jerk, and nothing more. [...]

My translation: "I have absolutely no intention of lifting a finger to make anything like this happen. However, I will quickly make clear that anyone who is not satisfied with lip service, but actually wants me to get stuff like this done, like this bloke Carrite, should be considered a jerk heretic by all right-thinking Wikipedians. Gather faggots and pitch!"

FTFY

One by one, every Wikimedia Movement participant who is the least bit critical of how the Wikimedia Foundation finances its activity and growth... shall be suppressed, muted, deprecated, and cast out.

Welcome to the club, Tim.

[Midsize Jake]

Some (barely-) related posts regarding the question of Jimbo's assumption of authority and/or ownership over his WP talk page were split to this other thread.