2012-2013 Annual Plan

[HRIP7]

There has been a discussion of WMF's 2012–2013 Annual Plan on Wikimedia-l:

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/w ... ion/288327

Related discussions on Meta:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research ... evaluation

[thekohser]

The natives are restless. It seems they are finally starting to wonder why it takes $47 million to run a website that has true operational expenses of about $3 million to keep up and running.

[HRIP7]

The natives are restless. It seems they are finally starting to wonder why it takes $47 million to run a website that has true operational expenses of about $3 million to keep up and running.

Jimbo this morning removed a post of mine from his talk page that referenced that figure. Here is what I wrote:

:<tongue in cheek>This sort of thing is actually part of this site's business model, whose aim is to maximise site traffic. Anonymous editing is designed to attract editors acting from malice, or with an undisclosed conflict of interest (= traffic). Then people like you come along, horrified at what they read, and feel it needs to be fixed (= traffic). Perhaps they will stick around, to help fix it, flattering themselves they are "doing good" (= traffic). Sometimes the press will write about these problems, and link to them (= traffic). What is the traffic good for? Traffic means eyeballs, eyeballs mean influence, and influence attracts million-dollar donations from those who would like to wield this influence in their favour. It also attracts donations from smaller donors, who think Wikipedia is a good thing, and would like to help it solve the problems of poor or malicious editing by anonymous contributors, perhaps using smart software solutions such as vandalism bots and flagged revisions. The model works: the Wikimedia Foundation's annual budget has increased more than twenty-fold over the past six years or so, from $2 million to $46 million. So, it is good for this site to have problems like this. Why is this true? Because it causes churn; and if it weren't true, these problems would have been fixed long ago. How? Editors would be required to register with their names, so they would be accountable, and contributions from new people would be checked by trusted users before being displayed to the public. But that would take all the fun out of it, and kill the site.</tongue in cheek> -- JN466 23:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

His edit summary read:

- rm off-topic snark and related commentary in the interest of furthering attention to the real problem

[thekohser]

You know you've hit a live nerve when Jimbo deletes content from JimboTalk.

[Anroth]

Stuff

Well you did directly accuse the WMF of intentionally fostering 'issues' in order to maximise profit. Did you expect it to stay there long?

[HRIP7]

Stuff

Well you did directly accuse the WMF of intentionally fostering 'issues' in order to maximise profit. Did you expect it to stay there long?

Well, given that a bureaucrat, checkuser, oversighter and admin commented my post with "Well said", I thought perhaps what I expressed had not been all that terrible, especially as I had marked it tongue in cheek.

There is certainly a fairly large nugget of truth in what I said. There have been many junctures where WMF and the Wikipedia community could have privileged quality over high traffic and churn, and in almost every case they decided not to, in full cognizance of the inevitable consequences.

[EricBarbour]

Dammit, this is ANOTHER item that belongs in the Jimbo article on the "Bad Wiki".......

[thekohser]

Mods... shouldn't this thread go in The Money Trail? It seems perfect for that folder.

[Anroth]

Stuff

Well you did directly accuse the WMF of intentionally fostering 'issues' in order to maximise profit. Did you expect it to stay there long?

Well, given that a bureaucrat, checkuser, oversighter and admin commented my post with "Well said", I thought perhaps what I expressed had not been all that terrible, especially as I had marked it tongue in cheek.

There is certainly a fairly large nugget of truth in what I said. There have been many junctures where WMF and the Wikipedia community could have privileged quality over high traffic and churn, and in almost every case they decided not to, in full cognizance of the inevitable consequences.

I dont disagree in the slightest. It was just your original post sounded a little surprised that it had been removed. Its probably your avatar! I guess I am far more cynical than yourself, in that I fully expect (justified) criticism of that sort to have a visible life counted in the minutes on wikipedia...