Wikipedians and their begging bowls

[CrowsNest]

A thread to collect those times there's a problem in Wikiland, and some Wikipediot has the bright idea that the WMF can just pay for the solution.

This happens so often, and on so many occasions it has little to nothing to do with the WMF's core competency/responsibility (fundraising, server maintenance, legal issues, strategic partnerships), and so often it is actually for something that is related directly to this basic grunt work of building, curating or maintaining the 'knowledge', that you really have to wonder if there's anyone in the lower ranks of Wikiland who appreciates what the actual business model is.

You, the dumb volunteer now addicted to the cult, you're the one who is meant to be doing everything related to content. If you can't do it alone, you're meant to collaborate. If you don't know how to do it, you're meant to recruit someone who does. If all that means you have to actually pay for something, it's your love and passion for the idea of free knowledge, that is meant to induce you to pay for it. The "free" refers to the service provided to users, it does not imply being all the Wikipediot you can be, isn't meant to cost you money. So stop you're mooching!

They do this in part because they're ignorant, but also because they know fine well the WMF is sitting on a pile of donor cash, so much so they're now able to fund the essentials just off the interest on an endowment. They're trying to burn the excess with an ever-larger payroll, and assorted grants and initiatives, but that's really no reason just to needlessly waste it by paying for stuff the plebs should be forking out for.

Kicking us off, is this example, which relates to the medical videos controversy thread posted in Content.

Is there no funding for us to make theses vids? Don't think we would need to ask for much cash.....some cash for hosting software so Wikipedia editors could collaborate on making videos of this nature. Having a third party doing this no matter who they are looks bias on our part.--Moxy (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Cash, cash, cash!

[CrowsNest]

This is a typical complaint from Carrite (via home base, a.k.a. Wikipediocracy)....

Much information is paywalled. WMF is raking in nearly $90 million a year from gullibles to fund its empire, very little of which goes to the actual improvement of encyclopedic content. Dishing a couple million bucks to make sure serious content people have access to the best available information is money well spent. Compare and contrast to sending The Little Girl from Africa on an all expenses paid junket to Wikivacation in the Italian alps, or paying the rent and salaries for a WP user group in London...

I pointed out that his figures were likely wrong, that such an endeavour would make a significant dent even in $90m, only a small proportion of which is already budgeted for the dept. that does actually already do things like try to negotiate preferential access to paywalled sources. All of this was basically supported by what the WMF actually said at the time, full details here....
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 16#p213916
Needless to say, the Wikipedian had no answer (other than to point out that giving him a free subscription had in his case helped him write an article, and therefore on a sample of one, the economic benefit was proven!). He was never seen again in the thread, unsurprisingly. None of these people ever really think through what they're asking, nay demanding.

I absolutely detest Malik Shabbaz, but I will give credit where it is due for this very wise post.....

Maybe it's my unique perspective -- I'm older than the average Wikipedia editor -- but I know that things aren't free and if I want them I have to pay for them. Maybe it's because I never lived in my parents' basement, but the thought of asking them -- or the Wikimedia Foundation -- to pay for me to participate in non-essential things I think are important seems absurd to me, as I imagine it does to most adults.

Sadly, most of the editors who do this, are adults.

[CrowsNest]

Thanks to Kupdung's Op-Ed for reminding me that of course, when the volunteer community began to seriously lose interest in keeping their community newsletter The SignPost alive, one solution proposed was of course, grant funding......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =760507889

.....slurp, slurp, slurp.

Disturbingly, from the response of the (now departed) Editor in Chief, it does sound like they actually considered it, although thankfully he managed to at least spot the two glaring issues.....

Bluerasberry, thank you for the detailed comments; your thinking aligns closely with options we have discussed, and I hope to talk with you about it in greater detail. One area I want to be sure we address is, if we do anything involving money, we need to be sure to have a framework in place that ensures responsible spending and editorial independence; very achievable, I believe, but it takes some work.

[ericbarbour]

FWIW the WMF is little different from any number of nonprofits who have a good donation income--a great deal of it goes to waste. Wikimedians love to give themselves fat salaries, "honoraria", and money for plane tickets and lodging in distant countries for their endless meetings and "edit-a-thon" stuff.

Consider what the Red Cross has been doing lately. One of the world's major humanitarian groups--suffering from the same corruption, incompetence and madness as Wikimedia. At a much higher level too. Unlike Wikimedia, this results in deaths.
https://money.howstuffworks.com/american-red-cross4.htm
https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/americas ... index.html

[singora]

FWIW the WMF is little different from any number of nonprofits who have a good donation income--a great deal of it goes to waste. Wikimedians love to give themselves fat salaries, "honoraria", and money for plane tickets and lodging in distant countries for their endless meetings and "edit-a-thon" stuff.

Consider what the Red Cross has been doing lately. One of the world's major humanitarian groups--suffering from the same corruption, incompetence and madness as Wikimedia. At a much higher level too. Unlike Wikimedia, this results in deaths.
https://money.howstuffworks.com/american-red-cross4.htm
https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/americas ... index.html

A long time ago, my mother in England got a temporary job with what was called the Spastics Society.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-ouch-26788607

I remember she talked at length about her boss, his incompetence and the salaries he and his co-workers awarded themselves.

I remember she was disgusted by the way the society operated, and how they abused donations.

[CrowsNest]

The key differences being, of course, is that the charity sector is heavily regulated, and if you don't like the way a particular organisation is run, it's almost certain there's another one doing the exact same thing. Not to mention all these other organisations, for all the waste and incompetence they might feature, it is inarguable that they actually help people and benefit society.

And if you don't believe Wikipedia can kill people, ponder on the fact they are used as a medical resource by people without the money or brains to seek alternatives. It is also a highly addictive, highly stressful, extremely lonesome so called hobby, and so to the wrong people with the wrong psychological makeup, it can and probably already has contributed to suicides. There's probably more ways too, but two is surely enough to prove the point.

[singora]

The key differences being, of course, is that the charity sector is heavily regulated, and if you don't like the way a particular organisation is run, it's almost certain there's another one doing the exact same thing. Not to mention all these other organisations, for all the waste and incompetence they might feature, it is inarguable that they actually help people and benefit society.

And if you don't believe Wikipedia can kill people, ponder on the fact they are used as a medical resource by people without the money or brains to seek alternatives. It is also a highly addictive, highly stressful, extremely lonesome so called hobby, and so to the wrong people with the wrong psychological makeup, it can and probably already has contributed to suicides. There's probably more ways too, but two is surely enough to prove the point.

One thing I always felt was wrong concerned that little prick, Cassianto.

I read somewhere that he spent lots of money buying books in order to write his articles. He wrote somewhere that he spent 600 GBP on a rare (or hard-to-obtain) book to author a piece about a theatrical performer.

I felt that moderators should have intervened and encouraged him not to do this.

In simple English, he was just putting his money down the fucking toilet.