Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

> No, I do not think the situation was solved two years ago. Some of the > topics discussed here over the last year have indicated some of the > continuing problems. > > The attitude that the volunteers are here only to write articles, and > should leave the general concerns of the site to the pro

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

For those who have experienced it, the availability of immediate access to a very wide range of resources is an incredible advantage. The same is true for the availability of print resources. On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > -- On Wed, 9/3/11, SlimVirgin wrote: > >> The nea

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

No, I do not think the situation was solved two years ago. Some of the topics discussed here over the last year have indicated some of the continuing problems. The attitude that the volunteers are here only to write articles, and should leave the general concerns of the site to the professionals,

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

-- On Wed, 9/3/11, SlimVirgin wrote: > The nearest university to me will give access to databases > for $150 a > year, but they make non-students and staff travel to the > university > itself to do it; no logging in from home, and that turns > into a > serious hassle over time (travelling there,

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 9 March 2011 23:02, David Goodman wrote: > Until recently, the foundation has been increasing its staff by hiring > the best person immediately available, rather than a person good > enough to do the necessary job. I don't think that's true, at least not for the past couple of years. The WMF o

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 3/9/2011 3:09 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 9 March 2011 23:02, David Goodman wrote: >> Until recently, the foundation has been increasing its staff by hiring >> the best person immediately available, rather than a person good >> enough to do the necessary job. > Citation needed. It depends on y

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 9 March 2011 23:02, David Goodman wrote: > Until recently, the foundation has been increasing its staff by hiring > the best person immediately available, rather than a person good > enough to do the necessary job. Citation needed. > 1. keep the job unfilled , and search again and again un

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Until recently, the foundation has been increasing its staff by hiring the best person immediately available, rather than a person good enough to do the necessary job. I''ve seen this sort of situation numerous times in my library career, and dealing with it in this way is not good practice. Goo

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote: > On 09/03/2011, at 10:15, MZMcBride wrote: > > > All of this makes for one of the stronger arguments for a more > decentralized > > office structure at this point, in my opinion. (Lightly echoing what Liam > > said.) > > > > MZMcBride > > That's

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:50, aude wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Andreas Kolbe >> wrote: >> >>> --- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder wrote: >>> > From: Fred Bauder >>> > Fred Bauder >>> > I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and >>> > databases >>> > such as those

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:50, aude wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > >> --- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder wrote: >> > From: Fred Bauder >> > Fred Bauder >> > I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and >> > databases >> > such as those ProQuest sell

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 09/03/2011, at 10:15, MZMcBride wrote: > All of this makes for one of the stronger arguments for a more decentralized > office structure at this point, in my opinion. (Lightly echoing what Liam > said.) > > MZMcBride That's actually not what I said, or at least not what I meant to say. I am

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 9 March 2011 00:24, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > Thank you for your enlightening response. > * Reddit ... a project with values similar to ours > * Google  ... a project with values similar to ours > * OWA  ?¿ > * CivicCRM  ... this one offers services to help internal management > * Creative Common

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 3/8/2011 4:24 PM, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Arthur Richards > wrote: >> I don't know much about any official partnerships the Foundation has, >> but a non-trivial amount of in-person collaboration and information >> sharing goes on on a regular basis in the office

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

> * Reddit ... a project with values similar to ours > * Google ... a project with values similar to ours > * OWA ?¿ > * CivicCRM ... this one offers services to help internal management > * Creative Commons ok, finally one project with similar values than > ours: free content > > Now, out of

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Arthur Richards wrote: > >> Yes, that was what we were said several years ago >> >> and I think now there's ample evidence to show it was true, look at >> all the partnerships and support we got > > I presume you meant that sarcastically? > > I don't know much about

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

> Yes, that was what we were said several years ago > > and I think now there's ample evidence to show it was true, look at > all the partnerships and support we got I presume you meant that sarcastically? I don't know much about any official partnerships the Foundation has, but a non-trivial a

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Arthur Richards wrote: > >> As Wikimedia's paid staff continues to grow, the decision to move to San >> Francisco (and its consequences) actually gets amplified, doesn't it? It >> would only be offset by the benefits that Wikimedia gets for being in that >> particul

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

> As Wikimedia's paid staff continues to grow, the decision to move to San > Francisco (and its consequences) actually gets amplified, doesn't it? It > would only be offset by the benefits that Wikimedia gets for being in that > particular location (partnerships with other San Francisco-based comp

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Birgitte SB wrote: > But seriously it's 2011, can we be stop discussing "the move to SF". > Is anyone seriously complaining about funds from the 2006 fundraiser? Sure, in a sense, what's done is done. However, it has (or had) little to do with the relocation costs. You have to maintain salaries, b

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

- Original Message > From: SlimVirgin > To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > > Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 10:03:48 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser > > Why is there a feeling alienation? Because

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:20 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > > I don't mean to derail this thread off-topic ... but I'm a Wikipedian, > I can't help myself :) > > Most (all?) university libraries sign contracts with database/journal > vendors restricting access to only faculty/staff/students at the > un

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Am 08.03.11 21:19, schrieb phoebe ayers: >> As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the German chapter of Wikimedia has >> just negotiated the first settlement for a premium database provider in >> chemistry, see >> . >> There

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 8 March 2011 19:20, phoebe ayers wrote: > Most (all?) university libraries sign contracts with database/journal > vendors restricting access to only faculty/staff/students at the > university. The library pays according to how many people that is. > Giving access to others is generally a viola

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Juergen Fenn wrote: > > > Am 08.03.11 20:20, schrieb phoebe ayers: > >> Most (all?) university libraries sign contracts with database/journal >> vendors restricting access to only faculty/staff/students at the >> university. > > This may hold true for the U.S., but

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Am 08.03.11 20:20, schrieb phoebe ayers: > Most (all?) university libraries sign contracts with database/journal > vendors restricting access to only faculty/staff/students at the > university. This may hold true for the U.S., but as far as Europe is concerned the situation is different in some

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > --- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder wrote: >> From: Fred Bauder >> Fred Bauder >> I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and >> databases >> such as those ProQuest sells. Not sure how that would fit >> into our >> budget. > > >

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > --- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder wrote: > > From: Fred Bauder > > Fred Bauder > > I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and > > databases > > such as those ProQuest sells. Not sure how that would fit > > into our > > budg

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 8 March 2011 13:24, Jimmy Wales wrote: >> On 3/5/11 7:48 AM, MZMcBride wrote: >>> While most donations come from people outside the Wikimedia (editing) >>> community, the people within the community often feel that the very small >>> staff o

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 8 March 2011 13:24, Jimmy Wales wrote: > On 3/5/11 7:48 AM, MZMcBride wrote: >> While most donations come from people outside the Wikimedia (editing) >> community, the people within the community often feel that the very small >> staff of the past was more productive, more agile, less bloated,

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

--- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder wrote: > From: Fred Bauder > Fred Bauder > I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and > databases > such as those ProQuest sells. Not sure how that would fit > into our > budget. I would like to second that as well -- this is a very important wa

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 3/5/11 7:48 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > While most donations come from people outside the Wikimedia (editing) > community, the people within the community often feel that the very small > staff of the past was more productive, more agile, less bloated, and overall > more efficient than the larger sta

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > On the target itself, I want to note that the strategic plan numbers > aren't set in stone. The financial targets for the 2011-12 fiscal year > are defined in the annual plan process, which just kicked off. This > plan, when approved by the Bo

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 22:32, Fred Bauder wrote: > I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and databases > such as those ProQuest sells. Not sure how that would fit into our > budget. That would be amazing. There was a company that offered 100 accounts to a database, I forget whic

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 8 March 2011 03:54, Fred Bauder wrote: > My own feeling is that the amount of money is so small, as is the staff, > and special projects, in relationship to potential needs that I never > thought of having a bad feeling, at least not about that. > I have the same impression. There's no short

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 21:54, Fred Bauder wrote: >>> The point is that we seem to be >>> raising more money than we need, which is arguably unfair to donors, >>> then not spending it in ways that increase quality or help the >>> volunteers, which is arguably unfair to us. That's causing bad >>>

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 21:54, Fred Bauder wrote: >> The point is that we seem to be >> raising more money than we need, which is arguably unfair to donors, >> then not spending it in ways that increase quality or help the >> volunteers, which is arguably unfair to us. That's causing bad >> feeling

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

> The point is that we seem to be > raising more money than we need, which is arguably unfair to donors, > then not spending it in ways that increase quality or help the > volunteers, which is arguably unfair to us. That's causing bad > feeling. Whether it's fair or not is beside the point. The bad

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 18:11, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 8 March 2011 00:03, MZMcBride wrote: >> Andrew Garrett wrote: >>> We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would >>> hesitate to say that we're still "small" and "running on a shoestring >>> budget". The websites that w

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

2011/3/4 church.of.emacs.ml : > In that regard, I believe we have to think about how we can ensure that > we're being friendly and respectful towards our readers and donors, > raise enough money, define what 'enough money' is and how all that > affects our mission. Yes, I think we're all in agreem

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 8 March 2011 00:03, MZMcBride wrote: > Andrew Garrett wrote: >> We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would >> hesitate to say that we're still "small" and "running on a shoestring >> budget". The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds >> of millions

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Andrew Garrett wrote: > We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would > hesitate to say that we're still "small" and "running on a shoestring > budget". The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds > of millions to billions of dollars. Which websites would t

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

we have 0,5M$ expenses in bank fees, 0,4M$ in capital expenditures and not a single cent in financial incomes. Message: 10 > Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 18:48:34 + > From: David Gerard > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser > To: Wikimedia Founda

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 7 March 2011 18:19, Joan Goma wrote: > Perhaps there is something I don't understand. It seems strange to me that > having 24M$ of current assets we don't have any financial income but 0,5M$ > bank fees. AIUI, it was long a goal for the foundation *not* to be living hand to mouth, but to sta

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

n > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hoi, > So far the balance has been seriously wrong. Because of the underinvestment &

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Am 07.03.11 18:41, schrieb church.of.emacs.ml: > On 03/07/2011 06:30 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> Indeed. Juergen, are you saying the X wasn't present, or that it >> didn't work for you? It seemed to for everyone else that tried it. > > There were some reports that banners came back after a short

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 03/07/2011 06:30 PM, David Gerard wrote: > Indeed. Juergen, are you saying the X wasn't present, or that it > didn't work for you? It seemed to for everyone else that tried it. There were some reports that banners came back after a short while, probably because of client-side cookie problems.

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 7 March 2011 17:29, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Juergen Fenn wrote: >> this time it >> was not possible to switch the banners off, even you were logged in as a >> user. > It's disturbing to hear you say that:  every banner run by WMF (and, i > believe, every b

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 7 March 2011 17:19, church.of.emacs.ml wrote: > I don't know if you're directing this at me, but if you are, I seriously > would be interested why you think that I'm trolling or assuming bad faith. I'm not, several others in this group of threads are. The essential issue is the underlying a

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Juergen Fenn wrote: > this time it > was not possible to switch the banners off, even you were logged in as a > user. > Juergen, It's disturbing to hear you say that: every banner run by WMF (and, i believe, every banner run by a chapter as well) had a "hide"

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 03/07/2011 06:08 PM, David Gerard wrote: > Indeed. This thread appears to have been an exercise in: > > [a whole lot of insults] I don't know if you're directing this at me, but if you are, I seriously would be interested why you think that I'm trolling or assuming bad faith. To clarify: I don

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 7 March 2011 16:02, Juergen Fenn wrote: > Well, I think there is no "right" measure for a fundraiser. But I would > like to return to the point Tobias raised in the first place: Fundraiser > marketing is growing more aggressive year by year. E.g., this time it > was not possible to switch the

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:13 AM, aude wrote: > > Andrew Garrett writes: >> >> We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would >> >>> hesitate to say that we're still "small" and "running on a shoestring >>> budget". The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundred

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Mar 7, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > Andrew Garrett writes: > > We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would >> hesitate to say that we're still "small" and "running on a shoestring >> budget". The websites that we compete with run budgets in the >> hundreds

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 7 March 2011 17:02, Mike Godwin wrote: > Andrew Garrett writes: > We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would >> hesitate to say that we're still "small" and "running on a shoestring >> budget". The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds >> of millio

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Andrew Garrett writes: We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would > hesitate to say that we're still "small" and "running on a shoestring > budget". The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds > of millions to billions of dollars. > This point can't be

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Am 07.03.11 13:56, schrieb Gerard Meijssen: > Because of the underinvestment many of our Wikipedias are not doing > as well as they should. There are for instance technical solutions to > give many of the Indian language Wikipedias the traffic back they > lost. > The notion that we are raising m

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Hoi, So far the balance has been seriously wrong. Because of the underinvestment many of our Wikipedias are not doing as well as they should. There are for instance technical solutions to give many of the Indian language Wikipedias the traffic back they lost. As this is not considered as a problem

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 7 March 2011 11:44, John Vandenberg wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> On 6 March 2011 10:14, Pavel Richter wrote: >>> But who says that the sole purpose of the WMF is to keep Wikimedia wikis >>> running? >> >> I don't think many people would say that's the sole

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 6 March 2011 10:14, Pavel Richter wrote: >> But who says that the sole purpose of the WMF is to keep Wikimedia wikis >> running? > > I don't think many people would say that's the sole purpose of the > WMF, but I think most would agree tha

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Sunday, March 6, 2011, geni wrote: > I know you follow the media with regards to wikipedia to at least some > extent. You must have noticed the "WMF is a tiny little organisation > running a great big website" story played well. The foundation was > still trying to play that card until fairly r

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 03/05/2011 11:56 PM, geni wrote: > A skin targeted at users with limited bandwidth would probably help. Yes, that'd be awesome! Also for mobile users with a small bandwidth. (Did I mention Wikipedia mobile needs a complete re-write?) --Tobias signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signa

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 6 March 2011 10:14, Pavel Richter wrote: > But who says that the sole purpose of the WMF is to keep Wikimedia wikis > running? I don't think many people would say that's the sole purpose of the WMF, but I think most would agree that it is the primary purpose. The amount of other work the WMF d

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 6 March 2011 09:48, geni wrote: > On 6 March 2011 09:12, David Gerard wrote: >> Indeed. That claim's a definite "citation needed". > > I know you follow the media with regards to wikipedia to at least some > extent. You must have noticed the "WMF is a tiny little organisation > running a great

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Hello, 2011/3/6 geni : > ... > > A skin targeted at users with limited bandwidth would probably help. That's a top priority for me. > Something like &printable=yes with the pics replaced by links (is > there a way to detect low bandwidth connections and serve that > automatically?) but I can't s

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Am 06.03.11 11:14, schrieb Pavel Richter: > But who says that the sole purpose of the WMF is to keep Wikimedia wikis > running? Wikipedia is much more than just a website where people get > information fast and for free. Wikipedia is a cultural phenomenon and > spearhead of a large movement f

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Am 05.03.2011 13:48, schrieb MZMcBride: > church.of.emacs.ml wrote: >> However the main point of mail was to discuss how we're going to raise >> funds without being annoying to readers, and I welcome any input from >> WMF staff, chapters and volunteers :-) > There's a fairly easy solution: raise le

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 6 March 2011 09:12, David Gerard wrote: > Indeed. That claim's a definite "citation needed". I know you follow the media with regards to wikipedia to at least some extent. You must have noticed the "WMF is a tiny little organisation running a great big website" story played well. The foundatio

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 03:12, David Gerard wrote: > On 6 March 2011 04:03, Dan Rosenthal wrote: >> On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:30 PM, SlimVirgin wrote: > >>> The attraction of Wikipedia -- to editors, readers, and donors -- was >>> that it was run on a shoestring by a bunch of volunteers, for the >>> b

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 6 March 2011 04:03, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:30 PM, SlimVirgin wrote: >> The attraction of Wikipedia -- to editors, readers, and donors -- was >> that it was run on a shoestring by a bunch of volunteers, for the >> benefit of other people. > I sincerely doubt that poverty

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Well, it is nice that our editors are not getting paid $100,000 a year to write from the perspective of whoever is paying them. There is a connection between well-paid writing and editing and control of content. Wealthy, or powerful, people don't usually put out big money for the publishing of mate

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

I sincerely doubt that poverty is anyones attraction to wikipedia. -- Dan Rosenthal Sent from my iPhone. My apologies for any brevity. On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:30 PM, SlimVirgin wrote: > On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 06:48, MZMcBride wrote: >> church.of.emacs.ml wrote: >>> However the main point of m

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 06:48, MZMcBride wrote: > church.of.emacs.ml wrote: >> However the main point of mail was to discuss how we're going to raise >> funds without being annoying to readers, and I welcome any input from >> WMF staff, chapters and volunteers :-) > > There's a fairly easy solution

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 03/06/2011 12:06 AM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > It seems to me that we spent a year building a strategic plan, which > included huge business planning components for exactly this > conversation There are numbers for estimated expenses: $51M for 2014/2015 http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wik

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 5 March 2011 23:06, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > It seems to me that we spent a year building a strategic plan, which > included huge business planning components for exactly this conversation Which page of the document covers why the foundation needs 188 employees in 2014-2015 to archive i

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 5 March 2011 23:16, David Gerard wrote: > On 5 March 2011 23:06, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > >> It seems to me that we spent a year building a strategic plan, which >> included huge business planning components for exactly this conversation > > > Yes, you'd think lots of smart people had n

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 5 March 2011 23:06, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > It seems to me that we spent a year building a strategic plan, which > included huge business planning components for exactly this conversation Yes, you'd think lots of smart people had not only thought about this precise question in detail

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

:: remove Head of Reader Relations hat, and put on "I worked on the strategic plan" hat :: On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:31 PM, church.of.emacs.ml wrote: > > Sure. I'd love to get opinions from more people (perhaps at Wikimania, > too?) > The (editing) community should to be comfortable with Wikime

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 5 March 2011 20:51, David Gerard wrote: > On 5 March 2011 20:38, Sebastian Moleski wrote: >> the mission, e.g. allow every human to freely share in >> the sum of all knowledge? > > > Indeed. Although it's quite possible Tobias is correct and WMF can > achieve the mission with its current budg

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

David Gerard wrote: > On 5 March 2011 21:15, MZMcBride wrote: > >> "Defined by what the Foundation wants to accomplish"? I think you've >> highlighted the problem pretty well, right there. > > Then please answer my question, and give your plan, working backward > from the mission statement to th

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 03/05/2011 09:38 PM, Sebastian Moleski wrote: > In terms of annoyance, I think we all need to be careful not to > substitute our own judgment for that of others. Just because you or I > find banners annoying, it's a far jump to argue that our readers in > general also found them annoying. In fac

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Hoi, As far as I am concerned, there are so many things we could do if we had the capacity that would still only be about enabling our communities to write their Wikipedia in their language. There are development projects that will not benefit all our projects. We are still at a stage where there

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 5 March 2011 21:15, MZMcBride wrote: > "Defined by what the Foundation wants to accomplish"? I think you've > highlighted the problem pretty well, right there. Then please answer my question, and give your plan, working backward from the mission statement to the necessary Foundation. Show yo

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Sebastian Moleski wrote: > I would venture that growth, or rather size, is defined by what the > Foundation wants to accomplish and what resources are needed for that. Would > it be inherently wrong if, for example, WMF were an organization with a > headcount of 10,000 and a budget of a billion dol

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 5 March 2011 20:38, Sebastian Moleski wrote: > On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:31 PM, church.of.emacs.ml googlemail.com> wrote: >> It's hard to tell. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it should be >> smaller, but it is obvious that we need to think about stop growing at >> some point (and in my op

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:31 PM, church.of.emacs.ml wrote: > Sure. I'd love to get opinions from more people (perhaps at Wikimania, > too?) > The (editing) community should to be comfortable with Wikimedia raising > funds, and if it isn't, we need to find ways so that it will be > (disabling banne

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 03/05/2011 08:37 PM, Zack Exley wrote: > I promise that we kept the annoyance of the fundraiser almost to a minimum > given the amount of money we had to raise. "we had to raise" sounds absolute, but it is relative to a self-set (some would say "arbitrary") fundraising goal. This year the goal

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:30 AM, church.of.emacs.ml wrote: > However the main point of mail was to discuss how we're going to raise > funds without being annoying to readers, and I welcome any input from > WMF staff, chapters and volunteers :-) > > I promise that we kept the annoyance of the fundr

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:50 AM, church.of.emacs.ml wrote: > Our banners are getting more annoying every year. We're being more > aggressive. And we're putting words like "Urgent"[2] on the banners and > suggest that we haven't paid our bills for 2010 yet[3] (which is at the > very least mislead

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

I still think it was a bad thing that the fundraiser crew decided to use "Sue Gardner director of Wikipedia" in the banners because it raised more money... A very bad thing because everybody knows here that she isn't the director for Wikipedia. ___ founda

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

church.of.emacs.ml wrote: > However the main point of mail was to discuss how we're going to raise > funds without being annoying to readers, and I welcome any input from > WMF staff, chapters and volunteers :-) There's a fairly easy solution: raise less money. It costs about $2 million/year to ke

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 03/05/2011 06:28 AM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > So that we're not hypothesizing, I'll say it: I sincerely regret the way I > put that. I was attempting to say that the choices that we make have real > world consequences. I used a terrible example to point that out. Thanks Philippe, I appre

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Zack Exley wrote: > > "The Wikimedia movement doesn’t owe you a job; You are here to serve the > Wikimedia movement; If you want a job, start looking." I'm very serious > about that. > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > fo

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Zack Exley wrote: > > > I think he'd tell you he regrets the way he put that. Our jobs don't > matter > at all if they're not significantly helping the movement. And I know he > feels that way too. > > So that we're not hypothesizing, I'll say it: I sincerely regr

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:50 AM, church.of.emacs.ml wrote: > I found that comment to be very disturbing. It makes the Wikimedia staff > look like it is mostly concerned with keeping their jobs,[4] instead of > making Wikimedia's mission succeed. Money is not something inherently > good that we sh

Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

On 4 March 2011 19:50, church.of.emacs.ml wrote: > Previously, we limited our efforts to text > banners. Only if our fundraising goal wasn't going to be met, we used > our Joker card "Personal appeal by Jimmy Wales". I agree with your sentiments, but I don't think that point is true. It was alway

[Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

Hi, perhaps now that most of the fundraising stress is over, we can discuss the direction WMF should be taking in terms of raising funds. While I'm glad that WMF and most chapters reached or exceeded their fundraising goals, I feel qualmishly about where we're heading. In order to meet a very amb