Changes

:::'''Answer''': Compensation for people not really doing anything besides watch the servers, enjoy global jet-setting, and run damage control for Jimbo's dalliances.

:::'''Answer''': Compensation for people not really doing anything besides watch the servers, enjoy global jet-setting, and run damage control for Jimbo's dalliances.

==Wikipedia has too much power.==

==Wikipedia has too much power.==

Some examples:

Some examples:

* The [http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/213/reflections-on-pgip-phase-1 Greenspun illustration grant] was received, but less than 10% of it was disbursed properly.

* The [http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/213/reflections-on-pgip-phase-1 Greenspun illustration grant] was received, but less than 10% of it was disbursed properly.

* We are still waiting for Flagged Revisions implementation on English Wikipedia (a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Sighted_versions&diff=prev&oldid=154463978 dream] since August 2007, a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=261790016 suggestion] since January 2009, a Foundation-level [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=265584048 proposal] since January 2009, and a call to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum&diff=prev&oldid=302095508 raise hell] if not implemented by September 25, 2009).

* We are still waiting for Flagged Revisions implementation (now renamed "Pending Changes") on English Wikipedia (a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Sighted_versions&diff=prev&oldid=154463978 dream] since August 2007, a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=261790016 suggestion] since January 2009, a Foundation-level [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=265584048 proposal] since January 2009, and a call to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum&diff=prev&oldid=302095508 raise hell] if not implemented by September 25, 2009).

* [http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/wikivoices-episode-45/4hmquk6fx4gu/378# Release of Episode 45] on Wikivoices is permanently suppressed.  (So volatile an issue, we are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikivoices&diff=next&oldid=316384628 forbidden] to even discuss it on Wikipedia.)

* [http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/wikivoices-episode-45/4hmquk6fx4gu/378# Release of Episode 45] on Wikivoices is permanently suppressed.  (So volatile an issue, we are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikivoices&diff=next&oldid=316384628 forbidden] to even discuss it on Wikipedia.)

* WMF staff member Rand Montoya's 2009 Fundraising Survey never launched in 2009.  Repeated asks for status updates went ignored for several months.  Even a Foundation-level inquiry has been [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-December/056376.html met with silence].

* WMF staff member Rand Montoya's 2009 Fundraising Survey never launched in 2009.  Repeated requests for status updates went ignored for several months.  Even a Foundation-level inquiry has been [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-December/056376.html met with silence].  Montoya left the Foundation in mid-2010, the Fundraising Survey still unlaunched.

* A [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2902 quality, not quantity] drive in 2006, as well as the post-Essjay "[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7090 Credentials Verification]" boondoggle of 2007 were announced to great fanfare in the tech media, but once Jimbo Wales and his crew got the public relations boost they wanted, the initiatives themselves just vanished.

* A [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2902 quality, not quantity] drive in 2006, as well as the post-Essjay "[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7090 Credentials Verification]" boondoggle of 2007 were announced to great fanfare in the tech media, but once Jimbo Wales and his crew got the public relations boost they wanted, the initiatives themselves just vanished.

* A WikiProject of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists_of_topics topic lists] has existed since November 2007, but it is still half unfinished.

* A WikiProject of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists_of_topics topic lists] has existed since November 2007, but it is still half unfinished.

Indeed, in a way, all those big donations that overly generous donors gave have missed the target completely. To paraphrase [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28967&view=findpost&p=227814 one insightful observer], '''it is not the Wikimedia Foundation that makes the Wikipedia, it is the editors'''.  Giving money to the WMF is like leaving a gratuity for a cotton plantation owner because you like the quality of work the slaves are doing.  Giving the slave owners an even bigger carrot to dangle over the heads of the worker donkeys who are ultimately going to get the stick, not the carrot.  It's irresponsible use of money; unethical.

Indeed, in a way, all those big donations that [[Directory:Wikimedia_Foundation/Grand_Donors|overly generous donors]] contributed have missed the target completely. To paraphrase [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28967&view=findpost&p=227814 one insightful observer], '''it is not the Wikimedia Foundation that makes the Wikipedia, it is the editors'''.  Giving money to the WMF is like leaving a gratuity for a cotton plantation owner because you like the quality of work the slaves are doing.  Giving the slave owners an even bigger carrot to dangle over the heads of the worker donkeys who are ultimately going to feel the stick, not taste the carrot.  It's irresponsible use of money; unethical.

Where the money needs to go is exactly where the Foundation will not put it -- into quality copy-writing tutoring and services, as well as expert content adjudicators.  Not to mention a healthy dose of political lobbying "on wiki" to rein in the more radical of the "free culture" zealots who think absolutely nothing of blocking tens of thousands of British users of the site, just to be able to proclaim as "art" [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/12/wikipedia-block/ exploitative nude child photography] used in service of a mediocre metal rock band.

Where the money needs to go is exactly where the Foundation will not put it -- into quality copy-writing tutoring and services, as well as expert content adjudicators.  Not to mention a healthy dose of political lobbying "on wiki" to rein in the more radical of the "free culture" zealots who think absolutely nothing of blocking tens of thousands of British users of the site, just to be able to proclaim as "art" [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/12/wikipedia-block/ exploitative nude child photography] used in service of a mediocre metal rock band.  Indeed, the Foundation recently [http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-rules-on-naughty-bits paid a consultant] to count how many photographs of Caucasian penises reside on Wikimedia servers.  That's where their priorities are.

Surely, even the largest donors have never actually thought this through and never examined Wikipedia closely enough. They probably don't realise that the Wikimedia Foundation has nothing to do with the creation of content, that the content happens ''despite'' their involvement, not because of it.  No, many fat donors simply received a fat and glossy public relations briefing with lot of fat statistics that seduced them into making their fat donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, who will simply stuff 50 cents of every donated dollar into a very fat bank account.  

Surely, even the largest donors have never actually thought this through and never examined Wikipedia closely enough. They probably don't realize that the Wikimedia Foundation has nothing to do with the creation of content, that the content happens ''despite'' their involvement, not because of it.  No, many fat donors simply received a polished and glossy public relations briefing with lot of juicy statistics that seduced them into making their bloated donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, who will simply stuff 50 cents of every donated dollar into a very fat bank account.  

The money doesn't help Wikipedia improve.  At all.

The money doesn't help Wikipedia improve.  At all.

==Wikipedia is unpredictable, inaccurate, and unmanageable.==

==Wikipedia is unpredictable, inaccurate, and unmanageable.==

Wikipedians have leaned on a so-called study by ''Nature'' magazine that supposedly proved Wikipedia's accuracy rivaled that of Encyclopedia Britannica.  Even though the study was [http://news.cnet.com/Belatedly,-Britannica-lambastes-Wikipedia-findings/2100-1025_3-6053754.html faulty to the core], it still showed if you look only at scientific topics, and if you ignore the structure and clarity of the writing, and if you treat all inaccuracies as equivalent, then you would still conclude that Wikipedia is [http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/02/community_and_h.php about 32% less accurate] than Encyclopedia Britannica.

Wikipedians have leaned on a so-called study by ''Nature'' magazine that supposedly proved Wikipedia's accuracy rivaled that of Encyclopedia Britannica.  Even though the study was [http://news.cnet.com/Belatedly,-Britannica-lambastes-Wikipedia-findings/2100-1025_3-6053754.html faulty to the core], it still showed if you look only at scientific topics, and if you ignore the structure and clarity of the writing, and if you treat all inaccuracies as equivalent, then you would still conclude that Wikipedia is [http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/02/community_and_h.php about 32% less accurate] than Encyclopedia Britannica.  

In other research, the 100 articles about the hundred United States Senators [[Wikipedia Vandalism Study|have been shown]] to render erroneous, if not libelous, information about '''6.8% of the time'''.  The Wikipedia leadership have been promising for over two years that a systematic fix for this kind of garbage (called "flagged revisions") is always just around the corner.  It is time to [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22057&hl= call the Wikipedia leadership on their obfuscation].

In other research, the 100 articles about the hundred United States Senators [[Wikipedia Vandalism Study|have been shown]] to render erroneous, if not libelous, information about '''6.8% of the time'''.  The Wikipedia leadership have been promising for over two years that a systematic fix for this kind of garbage (called "flagged revisions") is always just around the corner.  It is time to [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22057&hl= call the Wikipedia leadership on their obfuscation].