Jimmy Wales and Rebecca Handler of the Wikimedia Foundation stopped by the office last week to pitch me on upping my contribution tenfold. Rex, you made a much better case for increased funding than they did! I will forward this post to them so they can use it in their fundraising materials. It makes such a good case for support. (Most people don't know Wikipedia is nonprofit, most of the work is done by passionate, dedicated, UNPAID volunteers, and that it is the contributions of the public that support this astounding enterprise.) So, Rex, how much are YOU going to give to the Wikimedia Foundation this year?
Rex Hammock
· 2 months ago
Writing this post reminded me to do just that. Thanks for "outing" me. By the way, we miss you in Nashville. Ever come back to town?
RuthAnnHarnisch
· 2 months ago
I do. I'm still active in the nonprofit community. I'd love to see a few hundred of my closest Middle Tennessee friends at the Power of the Purse luncheon in April, 2010 where Jennifer Buffett will be the keynote speaker. She and I are members of Women Moving Millions and we're hoping to encourage some Nashville area women to join us!
ampressman
· 2 months ago
I'm embarrassed to admit that I never thought of going to Wikipedia for news on a developing current event but it is amazing.
Rex, how do you think this plays into the debate about aggregation sites "stealing" traffic or mojo or whatever from media sites and thereby exacerbating the decline and fall of journalism? Because from what I'm reading on Wikipedia, I'm not feeling a great need to click through to the underlying sources. The entry is, in many ways, more useful and comprehensive than the story in my morning paper. But, the entry couldn't really exist and evolve like this in real-time without those media sites, no?
It's also interesting to peek at the history page for the wikipedia entry on the earthquake. It looks like just a few people (well, maybe a dozen) are doing most of the additions and edits. And while some are active wikipedian, others look like this is the the first or one of the first entries they've ever helped with.
Rex Hammock
· 2 months ago
History is a good place to look to learn that most posts are the work of a few people. In reality (this is my longer post) each entry on Wikipedia should be thought of as an individual website with its own community. Also, another tab to click on to learn about the "back channel" is the discussion tab. The "discussion" part of Wikipedia is about to undergo a radical overhaul with the introduction of "liquid threads" that make that page work more like a forum. Stay tuned.
Later: Yes, Wikipedia is built on the work of others, but in their case, I don't think newspapers or other news sources have the same type of argument that they have against Google. #1, it's a non-profit that carries no advertising. Fair use is a little more cut and dry in Wikipedia's case than in Google's. #2. I can't think of an argument a newspaper can make that would "show harm" related to linking to a news-source (this is a separate argument from someone aguing they were personally harmed by content found in an entry). #3. It's a wiki. Any news source that doesn't want to be linked to can edit the entry. Take 30 seconds to roll-back an edit. The news media can annotate the entry and explain why it disagrees with the usage of its material. Everytime someone edits an entry, they are required to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia, one of which is to not upload copyrighted material. "Citing" and reposting are not the same thing.
Rob Williams
· 2 months ago
My wife is a Virginia Tech alum and we were overseas when the massacre happened on campus. I was online at the time and found the best site to monitor for updates was Wikipedia. I tried CNN and some of the other news outlets, but Wikipedia kept it clean and easy to follow. Flipped over to the discussion tab to get more insights as well. We were really appreciative of it.
Gregory Kohs
· 2 months ago
Before you all trip over yourselves upping your financial donations to the Wikimedia Foundation's big sham, you might wish to enlighten yourself with a few reasons why you should be cautious before donating anything to that operation.
I hope you'll read it with an open mind, then act to demand governance reforms of the Foundation before you give them another dime.
Rex Hammock
· 2 months ago
I am very aware of the anti-Wikipedia crowds. And I've written on this blog about valid reasons to criticize Wikipedia. I don't need conspiracy theorists and followers of certain cults to attempt to convince me that anything as successful as Wikipedia must be evil.
Gregory Kohs
· 2 months ago
That's a rather dim-witted response, Rex. I began as, and continue to be, a big believer in the potential that resides within the Wikipedia project. My research and experience, though, has informed me that the Wikimedia Foundation's leadership (note, not "Wikipedia") is comprised of some individuals who have demonstrated very poor governance practices. I won't go into details here, as they are readily available in the mainstream and non-traditional media, if you're willing to look for them. However, I suspect that you are unwilling to learn more about these individuals and their more disgraceful characteristics. There is a delicious irony in your using the word "cult" to describe a critic of the Wikimedia Foundation's financial and governance practices. I'm really not a kook, but you're welcome to hold that opinion of me if it comforts your worldview. I hold a director-level position within a Fortune 100 company, and I serve on the boards of two different non-profit corporations.
Rex Hammock
· 2 months ago
Perhaps if you weren't commenting annonymously, I could take you more seriously. And, first warning, this is my blog: You can call me dim-witted anyplace else you like, but not here.
Gregory Kohs
· 2 months ago
Rex, I would have figured that someone who is "very aware of anti-Wikipedia crowds" would be aware of "thekohser", as my avatar was named (a simple Google search on the name would have removed all doubt of anonymity). But, regardless, I've updated my Disqus profile to reveal myself in all my middle-aged glory. I didn't call YOU dim-witted, I labeled your RESPONSE as such. You're the one who started throwing labels on people, calling them "conspiracy theorists" and "cult followers". I think you're perfect for Wikipedia culture, Rex. Enjoy your encyclopedia. Don't worry that it only takes about $1.4 million to physically run, despite a projected budget of $10 million for 2010. Let your conscience roam free, unfettered by facts.
kmartin
· 2 months ago
Wikipedia does a good job covering natural disasters. This is because there's generally nobody out there rooting for the tsunami, so there's not going to be an war over whether it was "great" or "terrible" that 1500 people (or however many it is in any given situation) died.
The same is not true of most of the articles on Wikipedia. For most news events there are going to be disparate interpretations of events that involve deeply held political views, and whenever that happens Wikipedia is anything but a useful resource; instead, it turns into a shouting match between combatants.
Also, please note that the Wikimedia Foundation does not consider the editors of Wikipedia to be "volunteers". They are, in fact, customers, and treated as such. Jimmy will sometimes claim that they're "volunteers" in order to convince people to donate money, but internally the Foundation treats them as, at best, annoyances.
Liquid threads have been "coming" on Wikipedia for four years. Don't hold your breath on that.
All Comments
Rex, you made a much better case for increased funding than they did!
I will forward this post to them so they can use it in their fundraising materials. It makes such a good case for support.
(Most people don't know Wikipedia is nonprofit, most of the work is done by passionate, dedicated, UNPAID volunteers, and that it is the contributions of the public that support this astounding enterprise.)
So, Rex, how much are YOU going to give to the Wikimedia Foundation this year?
I'd love to see a few hundred of my closest Middle Tennessee friends at the Power of the Purse luncheon in April, 2010 where Jennifer Buffett will be the keynote speaker. She and I are members of Women Moving Millions and we're hoping to encourage some Nashville area women to join us!
Rex, how do you think this plays into the debate about aggregation sites "stealing" traffic or mojo or whatever from media sites and thereby exacerbating the decline and fall of journalism? Because from what I'm reading on Wikipedia, I'm not feeling a great need to click through to the underlying sources. The entry is, in many ways, more useful and comprehensive than the story in my morning paper. But, the entry couldn't really exist and evolve like this in real-time without those media sites, no?
It's also interesting to peek at the history page for the wikipedia entry on the earthquake. It looks like just a few people (well, maybe a dozen) are doing most of the additions and edits. And while some are active wikipedian, others look like this is the the first or one of the first entries they've ever helped with.
Later: Yes, Wikipedia is built on the work of others, but in their case, I don't think newspapers or other news sources have the same type of argument that they have against Google. #1, it's a non-profit that carries no advertising. Fair use is a little more cut and dry in Wikipedia's case than in Google's. #2. I can't think of an argument a newspaper can make that would "show harm" related to linking to a news-source (this is a separate argument from someone aguing they were personally harmed by content found in an entry). #3. It's a wiki. Any news source that doesn't want to be linked to can edit the entry. Take 30 seconds to roll-back an edit. The news media can annotate the entry and explain why it disagrees with the usage of its material. Everytime someone edits an entry, they are required to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia, one of which is to not upload copyrighted material. "Citing" and reposting are not the same thing.
http://mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Dona...
I hope you'll read it with an open mind, then act to demand governance reforms of the Foundation before you give them another dime.
The same is not true of most of the articles on Wikipedia. For most news events there are going to be disparate interpretations of events that involve deeply held political views, and whenever that happens Wikipedia is anything but a useful resource; instead, it turns into a shouting match between combatants.
Also, please note that the Wikimedia Foundation does not consider the editors of Wikipedia to be "volunteers". They are, in fact, customers, and treated as such. Jimmy will sometimes claim that they're "volunteers" in order to convince people to donate money, but internally the Foundation treats them as, at best, annoyances.
Liquid threads have been "coming" on Wikipedia for four years. Don't hold your breath on that.