That's just crazy talk.
|
Somebody has theirr hand in the pie
|
||
Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
::::::Wait...what? You are saying that instead of trying something that has never worked before again and again I should try something new? That's just crazy talk. :) Seriously though, the above makes a lot of sense. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC) |
::::::Wait...what? You are saying that instead of trying something that has never worked before again and again I should try something new? That's just crazy talk. :) Seriously though, the above makes a lot of sense. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::{{Ping|Jayen466}} Some of us have been talking about similar things. Let's you and I talk by voice or video. Thanks for writing this piece and asking question. The trust that the public has in Wikipedia is because of community oversight and participation, and in your writing you have identified places in the Wikimedia Movement where various forces are blocking that community engagement. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Bluerasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 14:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC) |
:::{{Ping|Jayen466}} Some of us have been talking about similar things. Let's you and I talk by voice or video. Thanks for writing this piece and asking question. The trust that the public has in Wikipedia is because of community oversight and participation, and in your writing you have identified places in the Wikimedia Movement where various forces are blocking that community engagement. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Bluerasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 14:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
* Is nobody going to say it? I'll say it. Broken promises and opaque communications involving more than $100 million mean one of three things: |
|||
# The money is being used for someone's profit |
|||
# The money is being used for a purpose other than what it was donated for |
|||
# The money is no longer under the control of the Foundation |
|||
Guess we'll find out when the IRS gets interested. <span style="color:red">→</span>''[[User:Stanistani|<b style="color:green">Stani</b>]][[User talk:Stanistani|<b style="color:blue">Stani</b>]]'' 05:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |
"Do you suggest we all go on strike?"Yes. W?F is safe in their rent seeking behavior because a strike is a coordination game which they know, in our collective compulsion to edit, we will never overcome. Let's remember I was publicly admonished by the community, so there's no virtue to signal, here. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to address two issues, one minor (but still annoying) and one preventable risk which may result in the death of the encyclopedia.
First the minor issue: In the thread above we once again see someone claiming that if you don't create articles you are WP:NOTHERE. As is clearly stated in WP:NOTNOTHERE, there are other ways of building an encyclopedia. Those who only write code are here to build the encyclopedia. Those who only help people at the refdesk, help desk, or teahouse are here to build the encyclopedia. Those who only "advocate amendments to policies or guidelines" are here to build the encyclopedia. Those who only deal with incoming emails are here to build the encyclopedia. And those who only oppose harmful behavior by the W?F are here to build the encyclopedia.
Now for the preventable risk which may result in the death of the encyclopedia. Consider what will happen if revenues stop growing every year and level out or even decline. Nothing can grow forever. Even cancer eventually stops growing when the patient dies.
Right now, the W?F keeps spending more and more every year to do essentially the same job they were doing ten years ago with far less spending. Will they finally reduce spending when revenues stop growing? Or will they assume that the decline in revenue is a temporary blip and dip into the principle of the endowment to support continued spending increases?
The W?F has two paths they can take.
The first path is to legally structure the endowment so that no future CEO or board can spend the principle down to zero. If we follow this path, there will always be enough money from the interest to keep the servers running and fund a few essential core functions. Maybe we wouldn't be able to have expensive Wikimanias in exotic vacation spots. Maybe we wouldn't have a headquarters in pretty much the most expensive city on earth. But we would still have an encyclopedia.
The second path is to continue to treat the endowment as a piggy bank to be raided whenever needed and hide where the money is going until debt exceeds assets and the W?F goes bankrupt. Don't worry, though. Someone will buy it. Maybe Google. Maybe Facebook. Maybe Apple. Maybe Microsoft. Maybe Elon Musk.
October 24, 2029: Bankrupt online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been acquired by ExxonInfowarsMicrosoftCNNGoop. "We believe that we have the key to making Wikipedia profitable again" EIMCG CEO Xi Jinping stated. "For a nominal fee (determined by online auction) you will be able to own a particular Wikipedia page and have compete control over that page's content." EIMCG stock rose 23% after the announcement.
--Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the W?F keeps spending more and more every year to do essentially the same job they were doing ten years ago with far less spending. The WMF had only 7 paid emloyees when I registered. TBH Snow Rise, and his further comment:
the WMF is run by incompetents incapable of keeping expenditures in line with income and capital, rather than professionals in nonprofit administration with extensive experience in just that balancing act, is a perfectly apt description. I have been working as an unpaid volunteer consultant for 'do good' NGOs on and off here in Asia for longer than Wikipedia exists and their management/executive cohorts nearly all have the same things in common: enjoying high salaries and perks, little effective output during office hours, grossly disproportionate expenditure on their own infrastructure and comfort, paying external agencies for the work they are too lazy to do themselves, squandering the rest of their easy-come;easy-go donations, and a palpable disregard for the expendable community of the hundreds (or thousands) of volunteers who do the actual work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guess we'll find out when the IRS gets interested. →StaniStani 05:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Opinion