Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

Post by bitstan » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 3:51 PM UTC

buran77 wrote: post #175

the_duke wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you cite specific examples of wrong or actually harmful information? That would give more credence to your arguments. Maybe also link to your rejected contributions to show that you are not just disgruntled because your edits were reverted. I do agree that there are lots of inaccuracies in articles, but having Wikipedia with at least somewhat helpful information is infinitely better than having nothing at all.

> at least somewhat helpful information is infinitely better than having nothing at all Maybe, at least as long as we still have a good ratio between reliable and unreliable info (whatever that ratio may be). But as long as someone can piggy-back on this reputation, and most people simply take all that info for granted, the effect of a disingenuous Wiki article is far higher than your average FB "fake news". It's tha…

Post by whimsicalism » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #172

whimsicalism wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should assume that every charitable organization you are donating to might throw the occasional party for their administrative employees and will certainly throw parties to attract donations.

Having worked for both a small and a mid-size charity (~50, ~500 employees), and known people at others, in my experience an annual "staff party" or similar is usually fairly low-key. People are very aware that the money comes from donations. Why have the party at all? Because spending €20 or whatever per employee/volunteer on an annual party has benefits beyond increasing everyone's salary by that amount: job satisf…

Post by pwinnski » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

dlubarov wrote: post #140

pwinnski wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that in the face of existing encyclopedia companies, generations of people who had always used print encyclopedias, and the general public still figuring out what the internet is all about, Wikimedia should be restrained from answering criticisms or making a case for their value? That seems... odd.

Eh, Wikipedia is 20 years old, and has been a top 20 site for the past 15 years. At this point, they don't have much serious competition. Britannica stopped printing physical encyclopedias in 2012. The WMF can certainly make their case and answer criticisms, but there are cost-efficient ways of doing that. I don't see much value in funding parties, conferences, etc. for a product that has already dominated in most ma…

Post by sudosysgen » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 5:37 PM UTC

Macha wrote: post #157

mikepurvis wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it? Mozilla has cut or spun-off basically everything other than Firefox.

The most prominent project on mozilla.org at time of writing is Mozilla VPN. Pocket also gets substantial screen space dedicated: https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/

Post by fastball » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 6:31 PM UTC

Clewza313 wrote: post #199

fastball wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, it is not like most large orgs. So the excuse "most large orgs throw parties" is not a good one, imo. Though tbh "other orgs do it" is never a good argument, but it is especially bad here.

I've attended a bunch of Wikimedia/Wikimania conferences. These are held on a shoestring budget, and any drinking and dancing is on participants' own dime. WMF's per-employee T&E cost is apparently $7k/year. Working in sales at a company you've heard of, I've flown single flights and attended single dinners that cost more than that.