I really don't like this. The foundation already has many multiples more money than it needs to cover its core goal: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais... This can, at best, be useless, at worst, corrupt its mission to serve corporations. There used to be an expression "don't fix what ain't broke." I feel like this old maxim is now completely ignored.
Wikimedia Enterprise announces Google and Internet Archive as first customers
71–80 of 133 posts
Re: Wikimedia Enterprise announces Google and Internet Archive as first customers
#72At this point, Wikimedia the organization is parasitic on Wikipedia the open-source information project. The latter generates all the goodwill and the former fucks around doing vanity projects with the ensuing resources. What's that pithy "law" about eventually any organization existing simply to perpetuate itself and serve the insiders who work there, rather than further its mission? Ironically what came to mind is…
The latest WMF "vanity project" is Wikidata, started in 2012. It is currently getting more edits than the most popular version of Wikipedia, and has been playing a pivotal role in the "open-source information" ecosystem. If that kind of thing is "parasitic" then maybe we should welcome such parasitism.
Re: Wikimedia Enterprise announces Google and Internet Archive as first customers
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, they're spending less than 3MM per year for hosting. "Other operating expenses" are ~10MM, and everything else on the list has essentially nothing to do with Wikipedia. However, at the current rate it won't take long until they actually do spend 100MM+ on their own salaries. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikim...
>everything else on the list has essentially nothing to do with Wikipedia I would say that engineer/product/analytics salaries are part of the cost of running and updating a webpage. Then you have HR which is needed to support those employees and Legal which is especially needed given the high risk nature of Wikipedia. Good luck keeping Wikipedia up in a useful manner without those people. edit: Then you need Finance…
Re: Wikimedia Enterprise announces Google and Internet Archive as first customers
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikimedia is certainly bloated. They're spending upwards of $100 million a year.
How much is the correct amount for a site that serves such a huge amount of the internet?
Re: Wikimedia Enterprise announces Google and Internet Archive as first customers
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, they're spending less than 3MM per year for hosting. "Other operating expenses" are ~10MM, and everything else on the list has essentially nothing to do with Wikipedia. However, at the current rate it won't take long until they actually do spend 100MM+ on their own salaries. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikim...
>everything else on the list has essentially nothing to do with Wikipedia I would say that engineer/product/analytics salaries are part of the cost of running and updating a webpage. Then you have HR which is needed to support those employees and Legal which is especially needed given the high risk nature of Wikipedia. Good luck keeping Wikipedia up in a useful manner without those people. edit: Then you need Finance…
These claims are often made, but I'm not sure they check out. Plenty of much much more controversial stuff stays online / is available. But supposedly wikipedia will be destroyed without these experts.
Re: Wikimedia Enterprise announces Google and Internet Archive as first customers
#76At this point, Wikimedia the organization is parasitic on Wikipedia the open-source information project. The latter generates all the goodwill and the former fucks around doing vanity projects with the ensuing resources. What's that pithy "law" about eventually any organization existing simply to perpetuate itself and serve the insiders who work there, rather than further its mission? Ironically what came to mind is…
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective…
The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
— Oscar Wilde
These kinds of laws, adages, quotes etc need to be short and sweet.
Re: Wikimedia Enterprise announces Google and Internet Archive as first customers
#77At this point, Wikimedia the organization is parasitic on Wikipedia the open-source information project. The latter generates all the goodwill and the former fucks around doing vanity projects with the ensuing resources. What's that pithy "law" about eventually any organization existing simply to perpetuate itself and serve the insiders who work there, rather than further its mission? Ironically what came to mind is…
Re: Wikimedia Enterprise announces Google and Internet Archive as first customers
#78At this point, Wikimedia the organization is parasitic on Wikipedia the open-source information project. The latter generates all the goodwill and the former fucks around doing vanity projects with the ensuing resources. What's that pithy "law" about eventually any organization existing simply to perpetuate itself and serve the insiders who work there, rather than further its mission? Ironically what came to mind is…
I have no problem with wiki trying to expand into other areas, that’s how a company grows. I don’t see any degradation in their primary product and the value they provide is immense. I’m more than happy to see what else they can do in other spaces.
Re: Wikimedia Enterprise announces Google and Internet Archive as first customers
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective…
Too long for my tastes. I prefer: The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. — Oscar Wilde These kinds of laws, adages, quotes etc need to be short and sweet.
Re: Wikimedia Enterprise announces Google and Internet Archive as first customers
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't this apply to any organization? If you care about the goals of an organization you are going to be promoted because of your value to that task nor would you seem it. Those that don't are going to care more about the organizations structure and focus on improving their standing.
Not necessarily no, not all organizations are hierarchal. "Reinventing Organizations" has some good examples of such.
THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS by Jo Freeman:
> Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness -- and that is not the nature of a human group.
> This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly "laissez faire" philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.