WMF Endowment

[michaelo]

Wikipedia is not winding down - they're doing just fine, especially donation wise.

I wrote several paragraphs making the case for this but then decided it wasn't worth the bother. Let's agree to disagree on whether Wikipedia is slowly winding down (by which I mean that it is in decline, losing power like wind-up clockwork toy, not closing itself up as an entity).

I didn't say Wikipedia should make a Google-style search and said exactly the opposite: they should make a limited search, something vastly more focused. This would be easier than keeping up a whole Wiki - search results would be 20 or so links, max, to external sites plus the initial link to Wikipedia. That's far less information to manage.

Remember that time where you quoted Jimbo out of context so thoroughly as to reverse the meaning of what he said? I didn't say what you claim I said.

No - I remember that I put an entire quote in with Jimbo using the term bankruptcy which he shouldn't have and that follows a long, long pattern of overtly or covertly claiming poverty which is entirely untrue. Maher was recently on The Daily Show sans disclosure the wife of Wikimedia's PR firm, Minassian Media, works there. Trevor said "you often struggle to have enough money to keep Wikipedia running" and she smiled and nodded and didn't say a word to refute that ... which is exactly the same pattern we see from them again and again and again.

Traffic to Wikipedia's English site is up over the past five years: https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-proje ... al|monthly. The data doesn't support worrying about Google's infoboxes though it does make, like many other things, a fine way to spook people into donating.

That's my memory of what was going on at the time and still my belief.

So ... your "memory" and "belief" trump raw data, huh? This is precisely the problem with Wikipedia. I've been working on a piece about the history of vaccination. Where'd I hear that "memory" and "belief" are more credible than raw hard data? Oh, yeah - the antivaxxers have been saying that since the day Jenner opened his first vaccination clinic.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Traffic to Wikipedia's English site is up over the past five years: https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-proje ... al|monthly. The data doesn't support worrying about Google's infoboxes though it does make, like many other things, a fine way to spook people into donating.

That's my memory of what was going on at the time and still my belief.

So ... your "memory" and "belief" trump raw data, huh? This is precisely the problem with Wikipedia. I've been working on a piece about the history of vaccination. Where'd I hear that "memory" and "belief" are more credible than raw hard data? Oh, yeah - the antivaxxers have been saying that since the day Jenner opened his first vaccination clinic.

Let's look at this. Your "raw data" is pageviews of Wikimedia projects. What does that data tell us about what people were thinking in 2015? I can confidently say it tells us nothing since the data only goes back to 2016.

My opinions are based on having been around at the time, following the discussions that were going on, being familiar with the people involved, and having years of experience with Wikipedia and the WMF.

You compare me to an antivaxer, but you've got that comparison completely backwards. You're pushing the idea that "hard data" will tell you what people were thinking when they imagined something that didn't yet exist and decided to try to make it real. The way to find out what people were thinking is to go through all of the things they said and did at the time in the context of what else was going on and try to reconstruct what might have been going on in their brains. It's a lot of work. You won't like it. Asking them can sometimes help, but beware that they will give you their memories and beliefs.

[michaelo]

Traffic to Wikipedia's English site is up over the past five years: https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-proje ... al|monthly. The data doesn't support worrying about Google's infoboxes though it does make, like many other things, a fine way to spook people into donating.

That's my memory of what was going on at the time and still my belief.

So ... your "memory" and "belief" trump raw data, huh? This is precisely the problem with Wikipedia. I've been working on a piece about the history of vaccination. Where'd I hear that "memory" and "belief" are more credible than raw hard data? Oh, yeah - the antivaxxers have been saying that since the day Jenner opened his first vaccination clinic.

Let's look at this. Your "raw data" is pageviews of Wikimedia projects. What does that data tell us about what people were thinking in 2015? I can confidently say it tells us nothing since the data only goes back to 2016.

My opinions are based on having been around at the time, following the discussions that were going on, being familiar with the people involved, and having years of experience with Wikipedia and the WMF.

You compare me to an antivaxer, but you've got that comparison completely backwards. You're pushing the idea that "hard data" will tell you what people were thinking when they imagined something that didn't yet exist and decided to try to make it real. The way to find out what people were thinking is to go through all of the things they said and did at the time in the context of what else was going on and try to reconstruct what might have been going on in their brains. It's a lot of work. You won't like it. Asking them can sometimes help, but beware that they will give you their memories and beliefs.

No need for quotes around hard data - it is what it is. Hard data tells you what people are doing. Asking them may tell you what they're thinking or it may show you that people often parrot back what they think you want to hear. Factually, the flight from Wikipedia page views didn't happen. That's no more debatable than whether Wikipedia is in danger of going dark with their continual pleas of non-existent poverty.

As for your opinions on the trending of page views; I can't read your mind. If that's what you thought, ok, but in hindsight your opinion was wrong; there was no decline in page views. There's no decline in revenues, no decline in page views, and no other dire, or even not-so-dire threat to Wikipedia. The only suggestion that any of this has a grounding in reality seems to be from fundraising campaigns and those who listen to them.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Traffic to Wikipedia's English site is up over the past five years: https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-proje ... al|monthly. The data doesn't support worrying about Google's infoboxes though it does make, like many other things, a fine way to spook people into donating.

That's my memory of what was going on at the time and still my belief.

So ... your "memory" and "belief" trump raw data, huh? This is precisely the problem with Wikipedia. I've been working on a piece about the history of vaccination. Where'd I hear that "memory" and "belief" are more credible than raw hard data? Oh, yeah - the antivaxxers have been saying that since the day Jenner opened his first vaccination clinic.

Let's look at this. Your "raw data" is pageviews of Wikimedia projects. What does that data tell us about what people were thinking in 2015? I can confidently say it tells us nothing since the data only goes back to 2016.

My opinions are based on having been around at the time, following the discussions that were going on, being familiar with the people involved, and having years of experience with Wikipedia and the WMF.

You compare me to an antivaxer, but you've got that comparison completely backwards. You're pushing the idea that "hard data" will tell you what people were thinking when they imagined something that didn't yet exist and decided to try to make it real. The way to find out what people were thinking is to go through all of the things they said and did at the time in the context of what else was going on and try to reconstruct what might have been going on in their brains. It's a lot of work. You won't like it. Asking them can sometimes help, but beware that they will give you their memories and beliefs.

No need for quotes around hard data - it is what it is. Hard data tells you what people are doing. Asking them may tell you what they're thinking or it may show you that people often parrot back what they think you want to hear. Factually, the flight from Wikipedia page views didn't happen. That's no more debatable than whether Wikipedia is in danger of going dark with their continual pleas of non-existent poverty.

As for your opinions on the trending of page views; I can't read your mind. If that's what you thought, ok, but in hindsight your opinion was wrong; there was no decline in page views. There's no decline in revenues, no decline in page views, and no other dire, or even not-so-dire threat to Wikipedia. The only suggestion that any of this has a grounding in reality seems to be from fundraising campaigns and those who listen to them.

Ok, let's pretend that we are arguing about pageviews, which we're not. Present some of your hard data to support your claims. Show me data going back to 2015, at least.

Since you admit you can't read my mind, can you please stick to responding to what I've actually said and not what you imagine I'm thinking. I stated that my recollection was that the Knowledge Engine was a reaction to concerns about Google's knowledge panels. I didn't make a prediction about pageviews. Pageviews are not a very useful metric if you're interested in what is happening inside Wikipedia.

[Bezdomni]

I suspect some people think Wikipedia is dying because some of the old guard has died or left (sometimes in a huff), or in some notable cases has simply stopped editing mainspace, parlaying their name recognition instead into lobbying power (concerning policy or having people -- who either challenge their authority or call for greater transparency -- blocked). However, not all of the old guard has left. Quite a few are editing under new pseudos (though we'll actually never know how many of these there are. Not everyone is as obvious as stub-king Encyclopaedius/Blofeld); others never left in the first place. There may be something to the idea that there are fewer people doing the inglorious maintenance work than before. I don't know, but I suspect this may be true.

As most here would agree, I imagine, Wikipedia has grown considerably more influential in the past years, being used by many other tech platforms as a garde-fou. Wikipedia is also getting donations faster than they feel they can responsibly spend them (in 2020 for example, they found themselves unable to spend the money they had budgeted for the year, hence the birth of little KnowledgeEquity @ Tides).

In 2020 the user base grew, which is the logical consequence of the lockdowns. Whether Maher was right to publicize the increase in the number of women who participated (when the number of men also increased) is open to question, as is the likely longevity of this increase in "contributorship". Still, I don't think anyone disagrees with the basic datum that the user base grew.

In the last years, there has also been a concerted PR effort conducted by Minassian Media (report / c-suite level training): selective reporting, upbeat stories about hard-working WIR efforts, arguments that WP is better than facebook/reddit/youtube/twitter/gab/etc. (cf. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Whether we like it or not, for the moment, the internet is stuck with en.wp.

There are also people out there doing interesting things like just refs / naked Wikipedia.

[michaelo]

Traffic to Wikipedia's English site is up over the past five years: https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-proje ... al|monthly. The data doesn't support worrying about Google's infoboxes though it does make, like many other things, a fine way to spook people into donating.

That's my memory of what was going on at the time and still my belief.

So ... your "memory" and "belief" trump raw data, huh? This is precisely the problem with Wikipedia. I've been working on a piece about the history of vaccination. Where'd I hear that "memory" and "belief" are more credible than raw hard data? Oh, yeah - the antivaxxers have been saying that since the day Jenner opened his first vaccination clinic.

Let's look at this. Your "raw data" is pageviews of Wikimedia projects. What does that data tell us about what people were thinking in 2015? I can confidently say it tells us nothing since the data only goes back to 2016.

My opinions are based on having been around at the time, following the discussions that were going on, being familiar with the people involved, and having years of experience with Wikipedia and the WMF.

You compare me to an antivaxer, but you've got that comparison completely backwards. You're pushing the idea that "hard data" will tell you what people were thinking when they imagined something that didn't yet exist and decided to try to make it real. The way to find out what people were thinking is to go through all of the things they said and did at the time in the context of what else was going on and try to reconstruct what might have been going on in their brains. It's a lot of work. You won't like it. Asking them can sometimes help, but beware that they will give you their memories and beliefs.

No need for quotes around hard data - it is what it is. Hard data tells you what people are doing. Asking them may tell you what they're thinking or it may show you that people often parrot back what they think you want to hear. Factually, the flight from Wikipedia page views didn't happen. That's no more debatable than whether Wikipedia is in danger of going dark with their continual pleas of non-existent poverty.

As for your opinions on the trending of page views; I can't read your mind. If that's what you thought, ok, but in hindsight your opinion was wrong; there was no decline in page views. There's no decline in revenues, no decline in page views, and no other dire, or even not-so-dire threat to Wikipedia. The only suggestion that any of this has a grounding in reality seems to be from fundraising campaigns and those who listen to them.

Ok, let's pretend that we are arguing about pageviews, which we're not. Present some of your hard data to support your claims. Show me data going back to 2015, at least.

Since you admit you can't read my mind, can you please stick to responding to what I've actually said and not what you imagine I'm thinking. I stated that my recollection was that the Knowledge Engine was a reaction to concerns about Google's knowledge panels. I didn't make a prediction about pageviews. Pageviews are not a very useful metric if you're interested in what is happening inside Wikipedia.

Much as I find history fascinating, who cares what happened before five years and who knows if the pre-Hadoop data is even accurate. Lila said half the figures were from crawlers anyway which sounds steep for a website Wikipedia's size.

On responding ... I'll respond however I want to but thanks for the suggestion. I suspect you're used to being in control or maybe believe you should be in control. Get over it; you're not. Pageviews are a very useful metric to most people.

What's the point of stressing over Google as a competitor? Knol was an unmitigated flop. Their social media thing was a flop. Google and Wikipedia are like an alligator and a plover, the bird that sites on top of their head; they need one another. The info panels wouldn't be accurate (assuming they are accurate) without editors to update the underlying website. And traffic would dive without Google's high search result ranking. In any event, Wikipedia is a non-profit website, not a commercial service; what are they/you worried about?

Lisa G. said the cost to run the part anybody cares about is about 1/3rd of revenue; Wikipedia was never in danger of losing 2/3rds of revenue and, we now know, revenue went nowhere but up.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Much as I find history fascinating, who cares what happened before five years and who knows if the pre-Hadoop data is even accurate. Lila said half the figures were from crawlers anyway which sounds steep for a website Wikipedia's size.

On responding ... I'll respond however I want to but thanks for the suggestion. I suspect you're used to being in control or maybe believe you should be in control. Get over it; you're not. Pageviews are a very useful metric to most people.

Michael, I'm going to be surprised if anyone here is inclined to help you after this. Not because of any fondness for me, but because you've demonstrated what an absolute ass you are.

[michaelo]

Much as I find history fascinating, who cares what happened before five years and who knows if the pre-Hadoop data is even accurate. Lila said half the figures were from crawlers anyway which sounds steep for a website Wikipedia's size.

On responding ... I'll respond however I want to but thanks for the suggestion. I suspect you're used to being in control or maybe believe you should be in control. Get over it; you're not. Pageviews are a very useful metric to most people.

Michael, I'm going to be surprised if anyone here is inclined to help you after this. Not because of any fondness for me, but because you've demonstrated what an absolute ass you are.

Hit a nerve with the observation, huh? In any event, nobody here has helped me, including and especially you. Quite a few people have reached out through other means, email being the most common. Anybody interested in discussing Wikipedia please don't hesitate to email me at michael.olenick@gmail.com.

[michaelo]

I suspect some people think Wikipedia is dying because some of the old guard has died or left (sometimes in a huff), or in some notable cases has simply stopped editing mainspace, parlaying their name recognition instead into lobbying power (concerning policy or having people -- who either challenge their authority or call for greater transparency -- blocked). However, not all of the old guard has left. Quite a few are editing under new pseudos (though we'll actually never know how many of these there are. Not everyone is as obvious as stub-king Encyclopaedius/Blofeld); others never left in the first place. There may be something to the idea that there are fewer people doing the inglorious maintenance work than before. I don't know, but I suspect this may be true.

As most here would agree, I imagine, Wikipedia has grown considerably more influential in the past years, being used by many other tech platforms as a garde-fou. Wikipedia is also getting donations faster than they feel they can responsibly spend them (in 2020 for example, they found themselves unable to spend the money they had budgeted for the year, hence the birth of little KnowledgeEquity @ Tides).

In 2020 the user base grew, which is the logical consequence of the lockdowns. Whether Maher was right to publicize the increase in the number of women who participated (when the number of men also increased) is open to question, as is the likely longevity of this increase in "contributorship". Still, I don't think anyone disagrees with the basic datum that the user base grew.

In the last years, there has also been a concerted PR effort conducted by Minassian Media (report / c-suite level training): selective reporting, upbeat stories about hard-working WIR efforts, arguments that WP is better than facebook/reddit/youtube/twitter/gab/etc. (cf. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Whether we like it or not, for the moment, the internet is stuck with en.wp.

There are also people out there doing interesting things like just refs / naked Wikipedia.

Minassian is like dynamite: useful in the right circumstances but extremely dangerous in the wrong ones. Once the right-wing press figures out that the lead of communications for the Clinton Foundation has been effectively controlling Wikipedia (well, Wikimedia and whatever control they have on Wikipedia - best of luck explaining that to Fox) there's going to be a storm o' bull excrement. There's collusion between Big Tech to control the truth orchestrated by a senior member of the Clinton Foundation via a non-profit with lots of money at Tides. It's a perfect storm conspiracy they've been searching for, a powder keg that will eventually explode. And for what? It might make sense if there were some upside but I'm not seeing it. Wikipedia's brand was sterling before Minassian and Wikimedia haven't had fundraising issues in as far back as I've checked - long before Minassian. Sycophantic management is a bad idea.

[Bezdomni]

[T]wo Silicon Valley corporations—Facebook and Google—control 60 percent of the entire digital advertising market. They have used monopolistic control to siphon off advertising revenues from news organizations. A recent study by the News Media Alliance, a trade organization, found that in 2018, as newspaper revenues declined, Google made $4.7 billion off reporting that Google did not pay for.

source

While Wikipedia does not pay its nocturnalists either, its clients are also not advertisers, but donors. The tension between the value added (by rephrasing copyrighted works) and the fact that WP does not sell advertising and doesn't pay its writers is part (but likely only part) of the reason the endowment exists.

Today, for every working journalist, there are six people now working in public relations[.]

source

So really, it's not that unusual that the PR/comm agency the WMF has paid several million since 2016 controls Wikipedia's image in the press. That's part of what they are paid for: their connections to the Today show, to the Colbert Report §, and to international actors (as Heather Walls told me shortly after the 2016 US election).

This is one of the reasons why I opposed the removal of the word media from the WMF name. (I was far from alone, though some may be less concerned with the WMF being represented as the media corporation that it is, than with "the Community" getting credit for creating/maintaining Wikipedia.)

As it happens, all reference to Sanders' op-ed at CJR (and coverage of its "daftness", e.g. §, §) was removed from Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (T-H-L), because of course it was.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Hit a nerve with the observation, huh? In any event, nobody here has helped me, including and especially you. Quite a few people have reached out through other means, email being the most common. Anybody interested in discussing Wikipedia please don't hesitate to email me at michael.olenick@gmail.com.

To be honest, I wrote you off when I read the argument you had with Jimmy Wales, but I hope you continue to look into the WMF. Maybe you will get someone interested in digging deeper.

[Bezdomni]

Regarding the bit about "!teetering on the edge of bankruptcy", I noticed that was at the beginning of the Naked Capitalism piece but not at the beginning of the INET one (§) that JW seemed to be complaining about (imo correctly). Was the INET article changed/corrected later? This is one of those bathing baby problems... you'll notice you got no response on the substance, only on the error misquote, as it allows for facile deflection / writing off... Can you convince Yves to publish a correction?

Then, maybe JW will talk about the baby?

[michaelo]

Regarding the bit about "!teetering on the edge of bankruptcy", I noticed that was at the beginning of the Naked Capitalism piece but not at the beginning of the INET one (§) that JW seemed to be complaining about (imo correctly). Was the INET article changed/corrected later? This is one of those bathing baby problems... you'll notice you got no response on the substance, only on the error misquote, as it allows for facile deflection / writing off... Can you convince Yves to publish a correction?

Then, maybe JW will talk about the baby?

It wasn't a misquote; it was a copy and paste from something Jimy wrote, not said. The full quote, a whole paragraph, was in the first version of the story. First, he claimed he never said it. Then, when he realized he'd written it, he pivoted and said it was contextually wrong. I disagree; the context is Wikimedia has pled and constantly pleads poverty. You don't use the word "bankruptcy" lightly in any context. Seriously - Maher went on The Daily Show after that story ran. Trevor said "you often struggle to have enough money to keep Wikipedia running" and she smiled and nodded and did nothing to correct him. They are constantly implicitly or explicitly claiming they're broke and implying that a lack of funds threatens the site which is entirely false. Since I published that piece, I've found they're taking donations from poor Indians to add to an almost $300 million reserve for a website that has server costs of $2.4M/year.

I asked INET to remove the quote at the top not because it was inaccurate but because it was a distraction, a red herring. But, given it is accurate, I severely doubt Yves would change it. I don't want to double guess her but, if I had to guess, I'd say it'd be more likely she'd run a whole other story about or series about how Jimmy Wales believes a copy-and-paste quote from him is a misquote when he realized, after the fact, it sounds duplicitous and reflects on arguably dishonest fundraising methods.

Based on my experience to date, I don't see anything to suggest Jimmy or Wikimedia will answer the basic question about what they will do with all that money. This isn't a few extra million dollars: they're at ~$270 million in reserves - maybe more by now - for an organization where the entire product is user generated by volunteers and runs $2.4M in annual sever costs. If they're paying 20 sysadmins/security people $200K/year ($160 + $40/benefits) to keep the site up that'd be $4M. What are all these funds being used for?

[Giraffe Stapler]

It wasn't a misquote; it was a copy and paste from something Jimy wrote, not said. The full quote, a whole paragraph, was in the first version of the story. First, he claimed he never said it. Then, when he realized he'd written it, he pivoted and said it was contextually wrong. I disagree; the context is Wikimedia has pled and constantly pleads poverty. You don't use the word "bankruptcy" lightly in any context.

Here's what you wrote:

Feeding this soothing impression are comments by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales that the non-profit is “teetering forever on the edge of bankruptcy,” his assurance that Wikipedia is “super transparent with the public,” and even his occasional threat to run ads to assure Wikipedia’s financial stability.

Jimbo is right. He didn't make comments that Wikipedia is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. What Jimbo actually said was:

...having the WMF on sound financial footing, so that we can do more for free knowledge globally, is a stronger and more stable long term incentive to donors, as opposed to pursuing what I would regard as folly: teetering forever on the edge of bankruptcy in order to panic people into donating money. That would be terrible!

It's not (just) that you quoted him out of context so that the very sense of what he was saying was reversed, but you began with "comments by ... that the non-profit is..." Do you see how that makes a difference? If you wrote "Jimmy Wales said..." and then the thing about bankruptcy, that would just be quoting him out of context. Your lead-in phrase makes it a misquote.

You burned any chance you had getting answers out of Jimbo by arguing about it once he complained. (Not that anyone has much chance of getting answers out of Jimbo if he doesn't like the questions.)

[Moral Hazard]

It wasn't a misquote; it was a copy and paste from something Jimy wrote, not said. The full quote, a whole paragraph, was in the first version of the story. First, he claimed he never said it. Then, when he realized he'd written it, he pivoted and said it was contextually wrong. I disagree; the context is Wikimedia has pled and constantly pleads poverty. You don't use the word "bankruptcy" lightly in any context.

Here's what you wrote:

Feeding this soothing impression are comments by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales that the non-profit is “teetering forever on the edge of bankruptcy,” his assurance that Wikipedia is “super transparent with the public,” and even his occasional threat to run ads to assure Wikipedia’s financial stability.

Jimbo is right. He didn't make comments that Wikipedia is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. What Jimbo actually said was:

...having the WMF on sound financial footing, so that we can do more for free knowledge globally, is a stronger and more stable long term incentive to donors, as opposed to pursuing what I would regard as folly: teetering forever on the edge of bankruptcy in order to panic people into donating money. That would be terrible!

It's not (just) that you quoted him out of context so that the very sense of what he was saying was reversed, but you began with "comments by ... that the non-profit is..." Do you see how that makes a difference? If you wrote "Jimmy Wales said..." and then the thing about bankruptcy, that would just be quoting him out of context. Your lead-in phrase makes it a misquote.

Is Michaelo a pen-name of Glenn Greenwald (T-H-L)?

The word "Greenwalding (T-H-L)" has been inspired by Glenn Greenwald (T-H-L).

The Urban Dictionary (T-H-L) has listed greenwalding (T-H-L) (sic.) since 2016:

Gʀᴇᴇɴᴡᴀʟᴅɪɴɢ

1. Defaming somebody by cherry-picking content and then spinning it out-of-context. Named after Glenn Greenwald (T-H-L), a lawyer and author.

   The verb "to Greenwald (T-H-L)" is gaining currency .
   The Oxford English Dictionary (T-H-L) requires that it is used while no longer needing explicit definition.

   Richard Nixon was fond of Greenwalding his opponents.
   
   Goebbels was a master of the Greenwalder's art.
   
   Sam Harris is often Greenwalded.

2. The act of misrepresenting a more intelligent person's superior argument, typically on social media, in the form of poorly written material under the guise of journalism.
3. Intentionally misrepresenting someone's views.
   Just like fake journalist Glenn Greenwald does.

   Jim said that I supported the war in Iraq even though I didn't.
   He's totally greenwalding me.
   What an asshole....

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... eenwalding

Wales has problems, but he should be criticized for what he has done.

Wales should not be accused of things he has rightly criticized.

Michaelo should make a public apology and move on.

[thekohser]

To be honest, I wrote you off when I read the argument you had with Jimmy Wales, but I hope you continue to look into the WMF. Maybe you will get someone interested in digging deeper.

This is also where I wrote off Mr. Olenick. You could search the entire planet, high and low, and I doubt you could find five people more critical of Jimmy Wales than I am. Yet, in this little Twitter dispute, I marveled at how much I was siding with Jimbo's version of what "teetering on the edge of bankruptcy" meant (*in context*) and dismissing Olenick's version.

It seemed to me that if I said, "One of the worst things that could happen to me would be for flaming robotic hornets the size of avocados to suddenly attack me in bed at night while sleeping, searing my skin and flesh with their red-hot stingers," Mr. Olenick would claim that I said that I rather fancy the thought of being gently awoken by warm technologically delightful insects that provide the recipient of their visit a new perspective on dermatological thermotherapy. And then he'd argue with me that "THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID, NEENER NEENER!"

In other words, I think he's bonkers. (But then, it takes one to know one.)

[michaelo]

To be honest, I wrote you off when I read the argument you had with Jimmy Wales, but I hope you continue to look into the WMF. Maybe you will get someone interested in digging deeper.

This is also where I wrote off Mr. Olenick. You could search the entire planet, high and low, and I doubt you could find five people more critical of Jimmy Wales than I am. Yet, in this little Twitter dispute, I marveled at how much I was siding with Jimbo's version of what "teetering on the edge of bankruptcy" meant (*in context*) and dismissing Olenick's version.

It seemed to me that if I said, "One of the worst things that could happen to me would be for flaming robotic hornets the size of avocados to suddenly attack me in bed at night while sleeping, searing my skin and flesh with their red-hot stingers," Mr. Olenick would claim that I said that I rather fancy the thought of being gently awoken by warm technologically delightful insects that provide the recipient of their visit a new perspective on dermatological thermotherapy. And then he'd argue with me that "THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID, NEENER NEENER!"

In other words, I think he's bonkers. (But then, it takes one to know one.)

If a mobster sneered "It'd be folly to think I'd ever hurt you" -- and the mobster and his gang had a history of claiming to hurt people -- we'd know what he meant. Same thing. In any event, the rest of the article is from financials and, like it said, assuming anybody here read, Wikimedia repeatedly refused to answer any questions before that piece ran.

Look - this forum is basically for Wikipedia senior editors. I get it this is your thing and you'll hang your coat on anything that defends it including and especially a misdirect from the central financials. Still, the ad hominem attacks aren't useful.

Wikimedia has banked over $270 million from work. Why? What are they planning to do with that money?

[AndyTheGrump]

...this forum is basically for Wikipedia senior editors....

[michaelo]

...this forum is basically for Wikipedia senior editors....

I'm done w/ the attacks.

If anybody has anything useful to add, or even not so useful, my email is mfolenick@gmail.com. Ciao.

[Midsize Jake]

...this forum is basically for Wikipedia senior editors....

I'm done w/ the attacks.

If anybody has anything useful to add, or even not so useful, my email is mfolenick@gmail.com. Ciao.

I'm sorry that your discussions here have devolved into PvP somewhat, but for many of us, being referred to as WP "senior editors" is an attack. I, for one, have never posted anything on a Wikipedia site at all, not even as an AnonIP.

As for the quote/misquote issue, I'd have to agree that it's dicey, but at the same time you have some justification for it because that's essentially what they're doing. Still, it doesn't warrant the "senior editors" response - most all of the regulars believe in accuracy here, including contextual accuracy. Occasionally that does mean taking WP's side in a (usually minor) dispute, but that's just the price we pay, I guess.

[jf1970]

I, for one, have never posted anything on a Wikipedia site at all, not even as an AnonIP.

Seriously? Then why do you spend so much time here talking about it? How could you possibly have anything useful to say about something you've never even tried?

[AndyTheGrump]

I, for one, have never posted anything on a Wikipedia site at all, not even as an AnonIP.

Seriously? Then why do you spend so much time here talking about it? How could you possibly have anything useful to say about something you've never even tried?

The majority of people why 'try' Wikipedia do so as readers, not editors. Accordingly, in my opinion, criticism of it as a source of 'knowledge' (amongst other things) is a perfectly legitimate practice, regardless of who is doing the criticism.

And this thread is (or is supposed to be) about the WMF's financial practices. The WMF is a registered charity. And as such deserves all the scrutiny it can get.

This is Wikipediocracy. A Wikipedia criticism site. You don't have to be a disgruntled former Wikipedia contributor to post here, and some of the best criticism comes from those who've never been involved in its petty internal squabbles.

[jf1970]

... and some of the best criticism comes from those who've never been involved in its petty internal squabbles.

Please show me an example of some of the best criticism coming from someone who has never made an edit.

[Vigilant]

...this forum is basically for Wikipedia senior editors....

lol

[Vigilant]

... and some of the best criticism comes from those who've never been involved in its petty internal squabbles.

Please show me an example of some of the best criticism coming from someone who has never made an edit.

I'm your huckleberry

[Kelly Martin]

Look - this forum is basically for Wikipedia senior editors. I get it this is your thing and you'll hang your coat on anything that defends it including and especially a misdirect from the central financials. Still, the ad hominem attacks aren't useful.

This here is basically why I rarely participate here anymore. It's not why I stopped in the first place, that was different. But it's why I only occasionally (like, once every few months) pop in and look around, instead of participating on a regular basis like I used to.

Because there are just so many people coming here, often with very valid points to make (like michaelo's very legitimate point that the WMF is rolling in cash while constantly implying that they need even more money just to keep the coffee pot on) who are, well, batshit nuts. This forum is, to be frank, a crazy-magnet. (Not surprising, since Wikipedia is also a crazy magnet.) And I'm at the point in my life that I don't particularly to spend any more of my time dealing with crazy people than absolutely necessary.

It is obvious to any rational observer that this is not a "forum for senior Wikipedia editors". As someone who just discovered this thread today, and has spent the last ten minutes zipping through it to see if there is anything of merit to it, that one absurd statement has convinced me that there is not. And, sadly, that's been the case for about 90% of the threads I scan on this site in the past year: they're rehashes of things we already knew, detailed descriptions of someone's wildly insane delusions that are, perhaps, momentarily amusing but not actually useful in understanding anything except perhaps that person's person pathopsychology, or the latest updates in the momentary drama of the hothouse on-site politics that I never cared about much in the first place and care about even less now that I have a good deal of separation from it.

I remain interested in meaningful discussions about Wikipedia, but that's way less than 5% of the content here, and I adjudge my time is better spent playing Dyson Sphere Program or putting together an engine to automatically regress combinations of Minecraft mods for interoperability (yes, a project I'm working on) than trawl through the content here to see if there's anything worth reading.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Look - this forum is basically for Wikipedia senior editors. I get it this is your thing and you'll hang your coat on anything that defends it including and especially a misdirect from the central financials. Still, the ad hominem attacks aren't useful.

Michael, just in case you are still lurking here, you might be interested in visiting the other forum that discusses Wikipedia: Wikipedia Sucks!. That forum is run by Eric Barbour, the guy who started this very thread about the WMF endowment.

There's already a thread there about your bad experience here, so I am sure you would be welcomed more warmly. And it is also the home of the only real Wikipedia critic, who currently goes by "Jake is a sellout". If they haven't already emailed you, I hope they do soon.

[Bezdomni]

I think Crow missed Kelly in his list of grumpy old arbs. Welcome back, Kelly.

I thought about posting a response to your comment about Tides & ACORN

Google I am guessing?

Heh, no. Tides is arguably best known for their close relationship with ACORN.

because a bit more than 3 years after your post, Drummond Pike wrote an article with lots of google juice about the two. (§) but... I hadn't seen you around.

Anyway, good to see you, even if it's to say we all suck.

[Vigilant]

The topic of "The WMF is disingenuously begging for money when they have more than they need..." is hardly a topic that has never been discussed.

Even a cursory search shows this.

[Midsize Jake]

... and some of the best criticism comes from those who've never been involved in its petty internal squabbles.

Please show me an example of some of the best criticism coming from someone who has never made an edit.

You can ask the question any number of ways, but the answer is the same. Distance promotes objectivity, objectivity promotes fairness, fairness promotes participation. And frankly, you could just as easily reverse the question. Criticism by a participant might cause casual readers (not to mention opposing participants) to suspect a lack of objectivity.

Besides, we do more than just criticize here. We investigate, we question, we summarize, we speculate, and so on. Not everything requires (or rewards) direct participation.

[Poetlister]

Some of the worst stuff on here comes from people who have been active participants on Wikipedia and have a grievance as a result.

[No Ledge]

Look - this forum is basically for Wikipedia senior editors. I get it this is your thing and you'll hang your coat on anything that defends it including and especially a misdirect from the central financials. Still, the ad hominem attacks aren't useful.

Wikimedia has banked over $270 million from work. Why? What are they planning to do with that money?

As I suppose since I'm an administrator in the top 300 by edit count, that makes me a "senior" editor. But I hardly view this place as being "for" me. It's more a site that serves the useful purpose of helping me keep myself and Wikipedia honest. The site also tries, with less success, to keep the Wikimedia Foundation honest.

And while there are several "senior" editors participating here, I don't feel we're in the majority. I think we're outnumbered by former editors who've either reduced their participation level or quit entirely. Some of them may have been "senior"-level in the past.

-----------

The Foundation has been working for, what is it years now, on something called "2030" to decide what they want to be when they reach mid-adulthood. I don't think the plans for 2030 have been finalized yet. When they figure out what they want to do then they'll be in a position to budget money to accomplish that. In the meantime, their stockpile keeps growing, waiting for them to decide how to spend it. Or maybe they've already secretly decided, but aren't ready to go public with that yet.

[Bezdomni]

Hm. It appears that Minassian Media's latest hire is Juliet Barbara, former Communications Director at the WMF.

MoveCom would seem to have revolving doors.

§\ · o · /§

[No Ledge]

Hm. It appears that Minassian Media's latest hire is Juliet Barbara, former Communications Director at the WMF.

MoveCom would seem to have revolving doors.

§\ · o · /§

Interesting. Four out of 137 members of MoveCom identify their affiliation as "English Wikipedia".

Apparently anyone in good standing re: "friendly space" can join.

[Poetlister]

Interesting comments from Andreas Kolbe (former member here as HRIP7).

Could you provide any update on what is happening with the $8.7 million in the Tides Advocacy fund? I asked about it on the Endowment talk page on Meta two weeks ago, and while many other questions there have been answered, this one has not.

I also asked on Meta how much money the WMF had contributed to the Endowment to date. Amy Parker just replied it had been $20 million,[1] but that can't be right, as in the audited 2019/2020 financial statements published last year (page no. 14), it was already $25 million ($5 million p.a. over five years).[2]

A curious side-effect of the Endowment is that money the WMF pays into its own Endowment shows up as an Awards and Grants *expense* in the audited statements, reducing the revenue surplus. Money flowing into the Endowment, on the other hand, is included neither in Revenue nor Net Assets, as it is legally separate.[7]

So according to the financial statements for the last five years, the WMF had a revenue surplus of over $100 million over that time period (measured as increase in net assets, from $77.8 million to $180.3 million). But over the same period, the Foundation also accumulated $100 million in Tides Foundation funds (i.e. the Endowment, reported[6] to have passed $90 million in early February, and the $8.7 million in Tides Advocacy).

This means that the Foundation has actually had a revenue surplus of more than $200 million over the past five years, averaging over $40 million per annum.

Could you provide an update on exactly how much many money is in the Endowment and the Tides Advocacy fund at the moment? The Endowment is not very transparent. I understand the only page showing how much money has accumulated in the Endowment is the page on Meta, and this has only sporadically been updated. In this edit,[3] for example, it jumped from $62.9 million to $90 million. Before that, the total had last been updated more than six months prior.[4]

Would it be possible to provide, say, monthly updates for the Endowment on Meta? (If I have missed any other pages or documents containing such information, I would ask you to kindly provide a link.)

In the discussions on Meta, Pats Peña pointed me to the FAQ[5] for the most recent financial statements. One thing I miss in these FAQs is any reference to the $100 million held by the Tides Foundation. Readers of the FAQ will remain unaware that the actual amount of investments the WMF was the beneficiary of in July 2020 substantially exceeded the figure of $170 million given in the audited financial statements the FAQ refers to – including the Tides funds, by well over $70 million when the FAQ was published.

I also cannot see any reference to the fact that the expenses noted in the FAQ include $5 million that the WMF paid into its own endowment. Could this be remedied in this and future FAQs?

Finally, if we were trying to provide a best estimate of the Wikimedia Foundation's current total net assets (last reported as $180 million, excluding money in the Tides Foundation), would $200 million be in the right ballpark, for a grand total of $300 million if we include the Tides Foundation money?

I understand that fundraising this fiscal year already exceeded the combined year goal for the Foundation and endowment after the first six months, followed by the year goal being raised, and exceeded again before the end of the second quarter.[8] As fundraising continues (currently in Mexico, I understand), it seems certain the WMF net assets are once again likely to have risen substantially by the end of the fiscal year, especially given that once again, many physical events will have had to be cancelled owing to the pandemic.

Best wishes,
Andreas

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=21391565
[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/inde ... df&page=16
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=21012384
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=20317968
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=21317632
[6] https://www.axios.com/exclusive-the-end ... 4c80d.html
[7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=21366424
[8] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... cement.pdf

[Moral Hazard]

A badly managed organization generating at least 5 million USD surplus yearly, and burning even more millions yearly, just because.

I swear I just heard a lawyer salivating.

[Poetlister]

And another excellent e-mail from Andreas.

Hi Julia,

That's great. One other question:

Looking at the first quarter Advancement tuning session[1], the July 2020 –
June 2021 fiscal year started out with a WMF fundraising year goal of $108
million (+$5 million for the Endowment).

$108 million is also the total Expense figure in the 2020/2021 annual plan.[2]

By the time of the second quarter tuning session[3], the WMF year goal had
increased by $17 million to $125 million.

And according to that same page[3] the WMF had almost met that goal at the
end of the second quarter, standing at $124 million (a little over,
actually, summing the component amounts).

The Endowment had taken $17.5 million by the end of the second quarter,
$12.5 million above its $5 million target.[3]

I am reading this correctly, aren't I?

Now, according to the public fundraising data Excel file[4], the WMF has
taken $11.5 million in the calendar year to date (i.e. in the fiscal year's
third and fourth quarters running from January to June 2021).

So, if you were at $124 million by the end of December, and have taken
another $11.5 million since, would it be correct to conclude that the WMF
(excluding the endowment) is now at $135.5 million, i.e. $27.5 million
above the expense figure in the annual plan, and $10.5 million above the
revised, higher year goal?

If so, why are you currently fundraising in pandemic-stricken Latin America
(Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay)?

The WMF is a Foundation staffed by people living for the most part in the
world's richest countries. For example, it takes 200,000 people in India
donating the suggested 150 Rupees ($2) just to pay the annual compensation
of the WMF CEO.

Based on the above figures, it seems the WMF has already taken tens of
millions more this fiscal year than it spent. And yet it's still
fundraising in countries that have been hit far worse by the pandemic than
the US and Europe. In Brazil the pandemic has been a disaster. Uruguay
currently has coronavirus case rates that are nearly 7 times higher per
capita than in the US.[5] In Argentina, they are 4 times higher than in the
US. In Brazil, Colombia and Chile, 2 to 3 times higher. In Peru, 1.5 times
higher.

These are countries with weak economies that have suffered enormously,
whose social security systems are far less well equipped to help people
deal with this tragedy.

And we're asking them for money? Is this really who we want to be?

Best,
Andreas


[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... pdf&page=9
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... _2020-2021
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... df&page=11
[4] https://frdata.wikimedia.org/yeardata-day-vs-ytdsum.csv
[5] https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/corona ... -weltweit/

[Poetlister]

He won't let go. He's written an article in the Daily Dot. Sooner or later, the major donors will cotton on.

Wikipedia is swimming in money—why is it begging people to donate?

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the non-profit that owns Wikipedia and other volunteer-written websites, is about to reach its 10-year goal of creating a $100 million endowment five years earlier than it planned. Its total funds, which have risen by about $200 million over the past five years, now stand at around $300 million. Its revenue has risen every year. In just the first nine months of its current financial year, it has raked in $142 million in donations according to an internal document—and already obliterated its previous annual record.

[Giraffe Stapler]

He won't let go. He's written an article in the Daily Dot. Sooner or later, the major donors will cotton on.

Good article! I suspect the goal here is not to sway the major donors but the public at large. Perhaps if they knew that Wikipedia didn't need their small amount of donation money they would put it to some other (hopefully charitable) use.

[tarantino]

He won't let go. He's written an article in the Daily Dot. Sooner or later, the major donors will cotton on.

Good article! I suspect the goal here is not to sway the major donors but the public at large. Perhaps if they knew that Wikipedia didn't need their small amount of donation money they would put it to some other (hopefully charitable) use.

Andreas lays into Katherine Maher about this on Hacker News. Micheal Olenick is also there.

The complete thread has 592 comments.

[Vigilant]

Board meeting

- We have unanimously approved the donation of $5 million in FY 2020-21 to the Wikimedia Endowment.

[Poetlister]

Message from Andeas: The current issue of the Signpost contains an interview about his recent
Daily Dot article on WMF fundraising.

Signpost

Dear Lisa, Megan and all,

The current issue of the Signpost contains an interview about my recent
Daily Dot article on WMF fundraising.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 6-27/Forum

The piece has sparked quite substantial discussion, and there is a pretty
good consensus on the fundraising issue in the comments. Here are
representative excerpts of what people have said:

"I agree with Smallbones that one should raise funds before the situation
becomes dire, but they should be raised *honestly*. Portraying the
situation as dire when it isn't is dishonest and unethical."

"I also feel that the WMF is too pushy with its donation advertising, and I
am far from the only OTRS (VRT) agent who hates December because of some
distinctly distressing emails we get along these lines. I have also talked
to a number of WMF staffers on the topic, though I suspect they'd struggle
to go on the record on the issue, who share the concerns."

"'The WMF is asking [readers in India] for about US $2.00' - the median per
capita annual income in India is $616."

"If I thought it had any chance of passing, I would start an RfC on the
English Wikipedia to ban all fundraising banners"

"I was certaily under the impression that WP was under financial duress
because of the banners."

"I do think the daily dot article raises some fair questions; namely, *why* is
the WMF doing all of this?"

"I find Andreas's point about the (unwarranted) urgency implied by the
language of fundraising banners very compelling (though I think the US
politics tangent is one that's liable to create more heat than light).
Another turn of phrase that stuck out to me in a recent banner was "Show
the volunteers who bring you reliable, neutral information that their work
matters." (example banner
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fund ... a-2020.jpg>). As
one of those volunteers who has spent hundreds (thousands?) of hours
editing Wikipedia, I was disappointed that WMF would presume to speak for
me in this way."

"I have always found the fundraising banners annoying at best and downright
pandering and hypocritical at worst."

"It is very sad that even in 2020s there are not many promising open
knowledge and free content projects. So please stop criticizing them for
raising funds, rather make them focus on solving issues of Wikimedia
projects."

"I've long believed that were the WMF to fire half its staff, the average
volunteer to any project -- the people who contribute content, not those
who regularly interact with the Foundation -- would not notice any
difference. [...] I believe it is a significant cause for resentment
towards Foundation fundraising. (The aggressive fundraising tactics is, of
course, another cause.)"

A contributor to the discussion has pinged you and asked for your comment:

@Lgruwell-WMF <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lgruwell-WMF> and
MeganHernandez
(WMF) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MeganHernandez_(WMF)>: - it's not
quite obvious who the fundraising leads are, so please feel free to ping
someone who may be more appropriate. If you've got 15 minutes, could you
have a read of the interview
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 6-27/Forum>,
and then the discussions/concerns above. As you can see, while many of us
don't agree with everything claimed by Kolbe, concerns about the aggressive
tone, as well as claims about editors, are common. Your thoughts and
participation would be appreciated

I'm not sure how often you log into Wikipedia, so I thought I would notify you here.

Your participation in the discussion would be welcome.

Andreas

[1] https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedi ... ndraising/

[Vigilant]

The endowment sounds even sketchier than I originally thought.

[Poetlister]

Lisa Gruwell says that if you want any more info on the endowment, just post a question on Meta, where staff regularly answer questions about the endowment.

[Poetlister]

And Andreas is still on the ball.

Equally puzzling is why the 2019/2020 surplus was passed to Tides Advocacy
in the first place, rather than, say, being added to the Wikimedia
Endowment, or simply retained by the WMF, along with the rest of the year's
substantial surplus.

Money was collected from donors who were told funds were urgently needed
"to defend Wikipedia's independence". A substantial part of this money has
now been dispensed to non-Wikimedia-affiliated organisations by a small,
unelected group, via an opaque process that takes place behind closed doors.

Is this a fair summary?

Andreas

[No Ledge]

Lisa Gruwell says that if you want any more info on the endowment, just post a question on Meta, where staff regularly answer questions about the endowment.

The last post to that page by the only (WMF) that monitors the page according to its infobox, was on 7 May 2021.

We investigated the question raised (on wikimedia l) about separating the endowment gift from other grants in the financial reports. Separating the endowment gift from other grants is not an audit (GAAP) requirement. But due to the nature of the expenses and our principle of transparency, we do disclose the purpose of the Endowment Fund and the amounts funded both in the fiscal year of the report as well as cumulative to-date in Footnote 6 of the report. We can certainly add this to the FAQs going forward.--JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

404 ERROR

Imagine a world in which

there is a page here

[No Ledge]

Since that May 7 (WMF) post, there have been several more community edits (albeit last on 14 July 2021) including:

Update requested

KEchavarriqueen (WMF), you said above that you would "be able to share more information in May about the Equity Fund, its structure and eligibility for the Fund, and we will also have materials on Meta with more detail". As May is drawing to a close, could you please provide us with an update? I am not aware of any such information having been published, but if I have missed it, kindly point us to the place(s) where it can be found. (Pinging JBrungs (WMF) as well.) Best regards, --Andreas JN466 12:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

No (WMF) response to this yet. Been over three months.