Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2023-08-31/In the media: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages Signpost Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:24, 14 September 2023 editGuy Macon Alternate Account (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users728 edits →Orlowski: Evidence please.← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:08, 14 September 2023 edit undoJayen466 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,625 edits →Orlowski: +Next edit →
Line 27:		Line 27:
	:# The article does not claim that the Knowledge Equity Fund is funded through the Wikimedia Endowment. It separates them quite clearly, describing the Knowledge Equity Fund as "another recipient" of WMF money, in addition to the Wikimedia Endowment.		:# The article does not claim that the Knowledge Equity Fund is funded through the Wikimedia Endowment. It separates them quite clearly, describing the Knowledge Equity Fund as "another recipient" of WMF money, in addition to the Wikimedia Endowment.
	:# You say, {{tqq\|the full value of the fund is not available for use.}} Again, the article does not claim otherwise, but specifically points out that the WMF intends to grow the pot further.		:# You say, {{tqq\|the full value of the fund is not available for use.}} Again, the article does not claim otherwise, but specifically points out that the WMF intends to grow the pot further.
	:# You say, {{tqq\|The Foundation does not apply fundraising overruns intended to support Foundation operating costs to the Endowment.}} The Foundation made annual donations of $5 million to grow the Endowment, in addition to millions of dollars in donations it passed through to the Endowment. The WMF has also donated significant staff resources financed through Misplaced Pages donations. As for the Knowledge Equity Fund, the WMF itself the Knowledge Equity Fund as a way to use a fundraising overrun.		:# You say, {{tqq\|The Foundation does not apply fundraising overruns intended to support Foundation operating costs to the Endowment.}} The Foundation made annual donations of $5 million to grow the Endowment, in addition to millions of dollars in donations it passed through to the Endowment. (Since 2021, this has included ].) The WMF has also donated significant staff resources financed through Misplaced Pages donations. As for the Knowledge Equity Fund, the WMF itself the Knowledge Equity Fund as a way to use a fundraising overrun.
	:# You have failed to address one of the key points of the article: that after more than seven years, {{tqq\|'''we still lack basic details of the Endowment's expenses and salaries'''.}} We from Jimmy Wales last month that over the past couple of years, the Endowment seems to have had annual expenses of around $2 million, but that raises as many questions as it answers. All questions since have remained unanswered. Regards,		:# You have failed to address one of the key points of the article: that after more than seven years, {{tqq\|'''we still lack basic details of the Endowment's expenses and salaries'''.}} We from Jimmy Wales last month that over the past couple of years, the Endowment seems to have had annual expenses of around $2 million, but that raises as many questions as it answers. All questions since have remained unanswered. Regards,
	:] <small>]]</small> 08:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)		:] <small>]]</small> 08:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:08, 14 September 2023

← Back to In the media

Discuss this story

Hunter Biden

Interesting that there was no discussion of the administrators being "in kahoots" with article subjects when Vivek Ramaswamy was revealed to have hired people to scrub his Misplaced Pages page a couple weeks ago. I wonder what the difference could possibly be for such esteemed sources like The Federalist to bring this issue up. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) 11:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The edits on Vivek Ramaswamy's biography were reversed, the edits on Hunter Biden's biography were not reversed. Here is the difference you wondered about. BookNotion (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Orlowski

The Orlowski piece is pretty spot on. Regardless of how much you may support a social or political cause, readers who support it too should donate to that cause. What people are donating to here is this cause, with the reasonable expectation this is what their money will be used for. Even paying zillion dollar golden parachutes for high level employees can at least somehow be connected back to the project, even if it's not the most responsible use of funds.This right here, increased access to free knowledge, is supposed to be the social justice cause. Many people don't have access to a library. Even in developed parts of the world like the US, we've got people banning books and even banning libraries. So who fills that gap? I dunno, probably the first friggin thing that shows up when you google basically anything. GMG 10:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why I advise people to not give money to the WMF anymore. They are better off donating time by editing any of the projects. However, I disagree with Orlowski about contributors being paid; that's a terrible idea. Ciridae (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Paying editors is one of those ideas that seems "fine" (barely) in theory but would be virtually impossible to implement in any kind of equitable way. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) 11:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
We could still hire a bunch of extra programmers if nothing else. Just because content needs to be volunteer to ensure neutrality, doesn't mean WP:PHAB needs to be the same way. GMG 12:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, ThadeusOfNazereth, Ciridae: It is worth noting that even today, some volunteers do get paid by the WMF, both for committee jobs and for certain types of editing.

See discussion at User_talk:BilledMammal/2023_Wikimedia_RfC for examples and thoughts about spending priorities. Andreas JN 466 12:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Please note that The Telegraph column linked here contains numerous inaccuracies. For background, before the article was published, our team provided a detailed response to questions from the reporter. Unfortunately, no part of the Foundation's statement was included in the published piece. This is not the first time that, despite providing the author with information and answering their questions, they have misrepresented how the Foundation works. Since the piece was published last Monday, our team has contacted The Telegraph requesting an immediate correction on several points related to the Foundation, including (in summary):

- It is misleading to say that just 2% of Misplaced Pages's revenue goes to hosting costs. Data centers and technical infrastructure require significant staffing to operate and maintain, in addition to other equipment and operating costs. Nearly half (48.7% or $86.1 million) of our budget is spent directly on technical infrastructure.

- Comparing Misplaced Pages's operating expenses now with 2010 numbers is a false equivalent, given we now have the same (if not higher) levels of traffic as many other for-profit internet companies at a fraction of the budget and staffing.

- The Knowledge Equity Fund is not funded through the Wikimedia Endowment. It is a one-time fund of $4.5 million that is still being allocated.

- The Wikimedia Endowment is a permanent safekeeping fund, and the full value of the fund is not available for use.

- The Foundation does not apply fundraising overruns intended to support Foundation operating costs to the Endowment.

- The article mischaracterizes Foundation spending and accountability, misrepresenting the facts. As we told the reporter before the article was published, our annual operating budget in FY 2022-23 was $175 million. The Board of Trustees sets our annual budget. The Wikimedia Foundation has long-followed industry best practices for nonprofits and has consistently received the highest ratings by nonprofit groups like Charity Navigator for financial efficiency and transparency.

LDickinson (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@LDickinson (WMF) Let's have a look at these complaints, taking each in turn.

It's not "misleading" to report the precise figure given for "Internet hosting" in the WMF's own audited financial statements. Moreover, the Telegraph article clearly distinguishes between staffing and hosting costs. It says: Salary costs have also ballooned: from $7m in 2010/11 to $88m in 2021/22. A mere 2pc of the money raised goes on hosting costs.
The WMF was a top-10 website operator in 2010. The increase in page views since then has hardly been earth-shattering, according to stats.wikimedia.org, especially given the reduction in bandwidth costs since then – from 13.8B in August 2010 to 24.7B in August 2023.
The article does not claim that the Knowledge Equity Fund is funded through the Wikimedia Endowment. It separates them quite clearly, describing the Knowledge Equity Fund as "another recipient" of WMF money, in addition to the Wikimedia Endowment.
You say, the full value of the fund is not available for use. Again, the article does not claim otherwise, but specifically points out that the WMF intends to grow the pot further.
You say, The Foundation does not apply fundraising overruns intended to support Foundation operating costs to the Endowment. The Foundation made annual donations of $5 million to grow the Endowment, in addition to millions of dollars in donations it passed through to the Endowment. (Since 2021, this has included all money left to the WMF in someone's will.) The WMF has also donated significant staff resources financed through Misplaced Pages donations. As for the Knowledge Equity Fund, the WMF itself announced the Knowledge Equity Fund as a way to use a fundraising overrun.
You have failed to address one of the key points of the article: that after more than seven years, we still lack basic details of the Endowment's expenses and salaries. We learnt from Jimmy Wales last month that over the past couple of years, the Endowment seems to have had annual expenses of around $2 million, but that raises as many questions as it answers. All questions since have remained unanswered. Regards,

Andreas JN 466 08:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

From User talk:BilledMammal/2023 Wikimedia RfC#Fact_check, please.:

"I have asked again and again for a copy of the legal document that says that the W?F cannot drain the endowment principle to continue spending if things go bad. So far, nothing but the usual W?F silence when asked reasonable questions."

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@LDickinson (WMF), you claimed "The Wikimedia Endowment is a permanent safekeeping fund, and the full value of the fund is not available for use", part of which which you copied from . That page goes on to say "This policy will be reviewed by the Investment Committee annually". Do you have a shred of evidence that supports the above claim? It sure looks like "permanent until we decide to change it".

And, BTW, what's the deal with people from the W?F making statements and then not participationg in the discussion they started? Are you being pressured by management to never have any back and forth interaction with the volunteers? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Katherine Maher

I'm glad for her, but... world tour early 2022? In the middle of COVID?! Adam Cuerden _{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 08:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:24, 14 September 2023 editGuy Macon Alternate Account (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users728 edits →Orlowski: Evidence please.← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:08, 14 September 2023 edit undoJayen466 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,625 edits →Orlowski: +Next edit →
Line 27:		Line 27:
	:# The article does not claim that the Knowledge Equity Fund is funded through the Wikimedia Endowment. It separates them quite clearly, describing the Knowledge Equity Fund as "another recipient" of WMF money, in addition to the Wikimedia Endowment.		:# The article does not claim that the Knowledge Equity Fund is funded through the Wikimedia Endowment. It separates them quite clearly, describing the Knowledge Equity Fund as "another recipient" of WMF money, in addition to the Wikimedia Endowment.
	:# You say, {{tqq\|the full value of the fund is not available for use.}} Again, the article does not claim otherwise, but specifically points out that the WMF intends to grow the pot further.		:# You say, {{tqq\|the full value of the fund is not available for use.}} Again, the article does not claim otherwise, but specifically points out that the WMF intends to grow the pot further.
	:# You say, {{tqq\|The Foundation does not apply fundraising overruns intended to support Foundation operating costs to the Endowment.}} The Foundation made annual donations of $5 million to grow the Endowment, in addition to millions of dollars in donations it passed through to the Endowment. The WMF has also donated significant staff resources financed through Misplaced Pages donations. As for the Knowledge Equity Fund, the WMF itself the Knowledge Equity Fund as a way to use a fundraising overrun.		:# You say, {{tqq\|The Foundation does not apply fundraising overruns intended to support Foundation operating costs to the Endowment.}} The Foundation made annual donations of $5 million to grow the Endowment, in addition to millions of dollars in donations it passed through to the Endowment. (Since 2021, this has included ].) The WMF has also donated significant staff resources financed through Misplaced Pages donations. As for the Knowledge Equity Fund, the WMF itself the Knowledge Equity Fund as a way to use a fundraising overrun.
	:# You have failed to address one of the key points of the article: that after more than seven years, {{tqq\|'''we still lack basic details of the Endowment's expenses and salaries'''.}} We from Jimmy Wales last month that over the past couple of years, the Endowment seems to have had annual expenses of around $2 million, but that raises as many questions as it answers. All questions since have remained unanswered. Regards,		:# You have failed to address one of the key points of the article: that after more than seven years, {{tqq\|'''we still lack basic details of the Endowment's expenses and salaries'''.}} We from Jimmy Wales last month that over the past couple of years, the Endowment seems to have had annual expenses of around $2 million, but that raises as many questions as it answers. All questions since have remained unanswered. Regards,
	:] <small>]]</small> 08:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)		:] <small>]]</small> 08:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)