Disclaimer: I only skimmed parts of it, so maybe my take is wrong, but I take issue with these arguments. Only two of the five points relate to why I give to WMF: 1.1 (keep WMF from dying) and 1.4...
Disclaimer: I only skimmed parts of it, so maybe my take is wrong, but I take issue with these arguments.
Only two of the five points relate to why I give to WMF: 1.1 (keep WMF from dying) and 1.4 (give back for a service).
The author's argument against 1.1 rubs me the wrong way. The reasoning seems to be that WMF won't go under if we don't donate, because someone else will donate. This is problematic because if everyone truly believed that, then WMF would get $0, and go under.
(I have this same problem with people who argue that your vote doesn't matter because you are unlikely to be the determining vote. Yes, your vote is unlikely to be the one that "determines" a close election, but you needed the thousands of votes to even get to the point of having a close election.)
1.4 puts too much of the credit on WMF's content creators. They are certainly a key part of the equation, but the author puts almost no value into the effort it takes to keep WMF sites operating. It would be great if the content creators were paid in some way - but just because they aren't doesn't mean that DevOps also shouldn't!
The author addresses this point a few times, mainly in the second section: The author doesn't really make a point about who should or shouldn't be paid. As for who's putting the most effort in,...
The author's argument against 1.1 rubs me the wrong way. The reasoning seems to be that WMF won't go under if we don't donate, because someone else will donate. This is problematic because if everyone truly believed that, then WMF would get $0, and go under.
The author addresses this point a few times, mainly in the second section:
"The Kantian moral imperative to donate is about seeking a good general rule that, if everybody (or sufficiently many people) followed, the world would be a better place. From this perspective, the rule "don't donate to the WMF" isn't a good rule, because if everybody followed that, the WMF would not have any money, and Wikipedia would not be able to survive. The Kantian imperative argument is not an argument about the practical consequences of your marginal decision to not donate, but about what general principles are best for the overall working of society... "
"Rather than adhering to the Kantian imperative, I think it's better to look at the issue from the perspective of room for more funding: is the WMF in danger of failing to meet its core functions that have been known to deliver value, or of exploring directions that I think are particularly promising? The answer for me is a clear no at the current margin. But if the answer changed, either because funding went down a lot or because they started taking up much more promising projects, then I'd reconsider my decision in light of the new evidence (and blog my modified views, to set straight the public record)... "
1.4 puts too much of the credit on WMF's content creators. They are certainly a key part of the equation, but the author puts almost no value into the effort it takes to keep WMF sites operating. It would be great if the content creators were paid in some way - but just because they aren't doesn't mean that DevOps also shouldn't!
The author doesn't really make a point about who should or shouldn't be paid.
As for who's putting the most effort in, the contributors are clearly the ones doing the majority of the work.
Here's a quote from Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales:
“So, we’re doing around 1.4 billion page views monthly. So, it’s really gotten to be a huge thing. And everything is managed by the volunteers and the total monthly cost for our bandwidth is about 5,000 dollars, and that’s essentially our main cost. We could actually do without the employee … We actually hired Brion [Vibber] because he was working part-time for two years and full-time at Wikipedia so we actually hired him so he could get a life and go to the movies sometimes.”
More context and follow-up is provided in part 2.1 of the article.
Regarding 1.1 - okay, the "room for funding" idea makes sense. I'll need a bit of time to digest that idea, though, because it still disturbs me to see people essentially write that they're not...
Regarding 1.1 - okay, the "room for funding" idea makes sense. I'll need a bit of time to digest that idea, though, because it still disturbs me to see people essentially write that they're not donating because they can rely on others to donate. It's a tactic that only works because not everyone is using it.
Regarding 1.4, though...
The author doesn't really make a point about who should or shouldn't be paid.
The author clearly does, right near the top:
I believe that insofar as there inheres a strong moral obligation to pay back, this obligation is to content creators
As for that Jimmy Wales quote - it's wildly out-of-date and thus kind of weird to use as a justification for expenses. Not sure why that was included at all, but the numbers put up all around the quote give a better idea of the situation (e..g $66MM expenses vs. $82MM revenue for hosting + ~300 staff, via the wiki page). I bet the content creators still dwarf the work of 300 people, but it's not like it's an "obviously" sort of situation.
I agree that the Jimmy Wales quote is outdated, many things could have changed by then. But in my opinion and from what I gathered by reading WMF's finances, they still only spend a minimal amount...
I agree that the Jimmy Wales quote is outdated, many things could have changed by then. But in my opinion and from what I gathered by reading WMF's finances, they still only spend a minimal amount and effort into maintaining Wikipedia and improving it.
Most of the expenses go to Salary and Wages, and Awards and Grants. Combined with weirdly vague expenses of "Donations processing expenses" and "Professional service expenses" (which both didn't exist before 2014) they make up about 80% of yearly expenses (in 2017). You can read their financial statements here and here.
I believe that insofar as there inheres a strong moral obligation to pay back, this obligation is to content creators
From what I understand the author himself seems to think that in the current state of Wikipedia, it would be better (in simple terms) to support the contributors instead of WMF. However he does admit that this is only his personal opinion, and that there's nothing wrong with donating directly to WMF.
This isn't to say that there is anything categorically wrong about donating to the WMF as a way of discharging the (perceived) obligation. I don't think it's the most effective or sensible apprach, but it's not obviously wrong.
My personal take on all of this is; It is a worthy cause to support WMF, because they created and keep maintaining one of the most important tools on the internet. I also think that they do a decent job of communicating their financial plans
My problem however is the fact that they keep 'aggressively' asking for donations and painting themselves as if they are on the brink of financial failure. Even though they are extremely profitable. They've been increasing their year-to-year profit ratio since 2003.
But still almost everyone on the internet --myself included before I've read up on it-- thinks that they are barely getting by, only asking for measly donations to survive. And that's where I see a problem.
I agree that their marketing is too aggressive! I also definitely think it's worth digging into whether your money is being frivolously wasted, too. My point is just that I still support WMF,...
I agree that their marketing is too aggressive! I also definitely think it's worth digging into whether your money is being frivolously wasted, too. My point is just that I still support WMF, despite this article.
Obviously I'm not arguing everyone should be a generalist; specialization is how we got to here. What I worry about is that one can convince themselves of a lot of possibly negative activities...
Obviously I'm not arguing everyone should be a generalist; specialization is how we got to here.
What I worry about is that one can convince themselves of a lot of possibly negative activities with this line of reasoning. My prime example being "I shouldn't vote because enough other people are voting that my vote won't count anyways."
The criticisms against the idea that donations keep Wikipedia running don't really hold up for me. Lasting for 4 years without donations doesn't seem like a huge cash reserve. Yes it's a healthy...
The criticisms against the idea that donations keep Wikipedia running don't really hold up for me. Lasting for 4 years without donations doesn't seem like a huge cash reserve. Yes it's a healthy amount and as long as things are typical, donations should cover things. But if for some reason donations dropped and costs increased they could end up in trouble. The most reasonable cause for something like this would be a scandal that resulted in some type of long lasting legal battle(s). But the point is that it should be prepared for unpredictable events.
The author also mentions that individual donations help maintain independence from outside influence which to me contradicts the idea that people don't have to donate because other people & organizations will do it.
After a great discussion about donating to Wikipedia, a reddit user sent me this article. It's one of the more well written articles I've read in recent memory. It is well worth the (long) read....
After a great discussion about donating to Wikipedia, a reddit user sent me this article.
It's one of the more well written articles I've read in recent memory. It is well worth the (long) read.
The chapters 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.3, and 2.5 are especially vital for anyone who just wants to get the gist of it.
Disclaimer: I only skimmed parts of it, so maybe my take is wrong, but I take issue with these arguments.
Only two of the five points relate to why I give to WMF: 1.1 (keep WMF from dying) and 1.4 (give back for a service).
The author's argument against 1.1 rubs me the wrong way. The reasoning seems to be that WMF won't go under if we don't donate, because someone else will donate. This is problematic because if everyone truly believed that, then WMF would get $0, and go under.
(I have this same problem with people who argue that your vote doesn't matter because you are unlikely to be the determining vote. Yes, your vote is unlikely to be the one that "determines" a close election, but you needed the thousands of votes to even get to the point of having a close election.)
1.4 puts too much of the credit on WMF's content creators. They are certainly a key part of the equation, but the author puts almost no value into the effort it takes to keep WMF sites operating. It would be great if the content creators were paid in some way - but just because they aren't doesn't mean that DevOps also shouldn't!
The author addresses this point a few times, mainly in the second section:
The author doesn't really make a point about who should or shouldn't be paid.
As for who's putting the most effort in, the contributors are clearly the ones doing the majority of the work.
Here's a quote from Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales:
More context and follow-up is provided in part 2.1 of the article.
Regarding 1.1 - okay, the "room for funding" idea makes sense. I'll need a bit of time to digest that idea, though, because it still disturbs me to see people essentially write that they're not donating because they can rely on others to donate. It's a tactic that only works because not everyone is using it.
Regarding 1.4, though...
The author clearly does, right near the top:
As for that Jimmy Wales quote - it's wildly out-of-date and thus kind of weird to use as a justification for expenses. Not sure why that was included at all, but the numbers put up all around the quote give a better idea of the situation (e..g $66MM expenses vs. $82MM revenue for hosting + ~300 staff, via the wiki page). I bet the content creators still dwarf the work of 300 people, but it's not like it's an "obviously" sort of situation.
I agree that the Jimmy Wales quote is outdated, many things could have changed by then. But in my opinion and from what I gathered by reading WMF's finances, they still only spend a minimal amount and effort into maintaining Wikipedia and improving it.
Most of the expenses go to Salary and Wages, and Awards and Grants. Combined with weirdly vague expenses of "Donations processing expenses" and "Professional service expenses" (which both didn't exist before 2014) they make up about 80% of yearly expenses (in 2017). You can read their financial statements here and here.
From what I understand the author himself seems to think that in the current state of Wikipedia, it would be better (in simple terms) to support the contributors instead of WMF.
However he does admit that this is only his personal opinion, and that there's nothing wrong with donating directly to WMF.
My personal take on all of this is; It is a worthy cause to support WMF, because they created and keep maintaining one of the most important tools on the internet. I also think that they do a decent job of communicating their financial plans
My problem however is the fact that they keep 'aggressively' asking for donations and painting themselves as if they are on the brink of financial failure. Even though they are extremely profitable. They've been increasing their year-to-year profit ratio since 2003.
But still almost everyone on the internet --myself included before I've read up on it-- thinks that they are barely getting by, only asking for measly donations to survive. And that's where I see a problem.
I agree that their marketing is too aggressive! I also definitely think it's worth digging into whether your money is being frivolously wasted, too. My point is just that I still support WMF, despite this article.
Obviously I'm not arguing everyone should be a generalist; specialization is how we got to here.
What I worry about is that one can convince themselves of a lot of possibly negative activities with this line of reasoning. My prime example being "I shouldn't vote because enough other people are voting that my vote won't count anyways."
The criticisms against the idea that donations keep Wikipedia running don't really hold up for me. Lasting for 4 years without donations doesn't seem like a huge cash reserve. Yes it's a healthy amount and as long as things are typical, donations should cover things. But if for some reason donations dropped and costs increased they could end up in trouble. The most reasonable cause for something like this would be a scandal that resulted in some type of long lasting legal battle(s). But the point is that it should be prepared for unpredictable events.
The author also mentions that individual donations help maintain independence from outside influence which to me contradicts the idea that people don't have to donate because other people & organizations will do it.
After a great discussion about donating to Wikipedia, a reddit user sent me this article.
It's one of the more well written articles I've read in recent memory. It is well worth the (long) read.
The chapters 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.3, and 2.5 are especially vital for anyone who just wants to get the gist of it.
SO and I were just talking about this! Very interesting points. Thanks for posting!