PDA

View Full Version : Wiki founder Jimmy Wales



Cougar
2010-Dec-20, 07:04 PM
Is anybody else creeped out by the various photos of wiki founder Jimmy Wales at the top of wikipedia pages?

I don't mind him asking for donations, but the guy's photo just creeps me out! Those watery eyes... Ewwww! :eek:

For a while, he was using other wiki editors' photos, and I thought maybe he'd gotten the message, but now he's back. Man, he needs to run his donation request banner by a focus group!

BigDon
2010-Dec-20, 07:09 PM
You too, huh?

Is this one of those, "If you give me enough money, I'll take the picture down." things?

National Lampoon did it better with their "buy this issue or we'll shoot this dog" cover.

That worked on me. I bought a copy. That border collie was cute.

rommel543
2010-Dec-20, 07:31 PM
I though he looked stoned, so what does he need 15 million for anyways?

MAPNUT
2010-Dec-20, 08:06 PM
You guys are just too used to celebrities looking glamorous. It wouldn't be too hard to make a list of homely or even ugly or at least non-photogenic successful people, although it might not be easy to get their photos.

Elukka
2010-Dec-20, 08:09 PM
I though he looked stoned, so what does he need 15 million for anyways?
He has this website that costs a bit of money to run. :p

rommel543
2010-Dec-20, 08:38 PM
He has this website that costs a bit of money to run. :p

Ok, he has to pay for hosting and I'm assuming bandwidth The actual content is user driven though so it's not like they have to pay for that.

His statement: (http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=WMFJA026/en/CA&utm_source=20101219_JA027B_US&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=20101219JA045&referrer=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)

I'm a volunteer.
I don't get paid a cent for my work at Wikipedia, and neither do our thousands of other volunteer authors and editors.

Wikipedia:About (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About)


Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism). Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or with their real identity, if they choose.


Now I will plead ignorance to how many servers they have running, but do they need 15 million to keep them running? For that much they could build their own data center. The site has gone through 16 revisions in the last 7 years and are working on two more, but the source code is created by the Wikimedia Foundation, a charitable organization created by Jimmy Wales, so it's not like he has to pay for that either. The Wikimedia Foundation does have some paid employees but from what I read about the organization, it's definitely not hurting for income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation

.. In 2007, the foundation continued to expand, ending the year with net assets of $1,700,000.

In March 2008 the foundation announced its largest donation to date: a three-year, $3 million grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.[56] In 2009, the foundation received three grants – the first grant was a $890,000 Stanton Foundation grant and aimed to help study and simplify user interface for first-time authors of Wikipedia.[57] The second was a $300,000 Ford Foundation Grant, given in July 2009, for Wikimedia Commons that aimed to improve the interfaces and workflows for multimedia uploading on Wikimedia websites.[58] In August 2009, the foundation received a $500,000 grant from Hewlett Foundation.[59] In August 2009, the Omidyar Network issued a potential $2 million in "grant" funding to Wikimedia.[60] In 2010, Google donated $2 million to the Wikimedia foundation.[61]



Now please explain to me why they NEED people to donate 15 million?

mike alexander
2010-Dec-20, 08:57 PM
Weird. I think he is a rather handsome galoot and that the photo is quite flattering.

As for whatever he could possibly need money for, you might try writing him and asking for some sort of cost breakdown. Since Wikipedia is a nonprofit it has no advertisements. So every so often I surmise he holds a fundraiser, much like National Public Radio or TV does in the US.

Of course, he might just be setting everyone up to make a killing and head for an offshore hideaway with the $15 mil.

Elukka
2010-Dec-20, 09:00 PM
The donations are their only source of money since they don't do ads. I think they include large donations from corporations and such in the total number. I found an article arguing it's somehow deceiving and dishonest that they do that. :rolleyes:
Yes, the site's code is made by the Wikimedia Foundation... who are the people seeking the donations. The coders probably don't work for free.

I'm not intimately familiar with Wikipedia's financials, but if you want to know where the money goes they have financial reports (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports) available.

By the way, the newest banner is creepy not because of Wales but because the picture is sort of a shade of pale green.
The lizardpeople are coming.

Strange
2010-Dec-21, 11:22 AM
Weird. I think he is a rather handsome galoot and that the photo is quite flattering.

He doesn't look like you, by any chance ...

I just thought, what sort of ego does this man have that makes him think people will give money based on his photo rather than the work they do. Talking of which, must remember not to send them a check...


As for whatever he could possibly need money for, you might try writing him and asking for some sort of cost breakdown. Since Wikipedia is a nonprofit it has no advertisements.

Isn't a non-profit organization required to make its accounts public?

ETA: I see Elukka beat me to it. With an actual useful link and everything.

Elukka
2010-Dec-21, 12:20 PM
I think the point of having his or someone else's face on the banner is to, well, give it a face.

Swift
2010-Dec-21, 04:20 PM
Now please explain to me why they NEED people to donate 15 million?
My guess is that $15 million isn't for a single year's budget, but to set up an endowment, from which they can draw their annual expenses, and not have to deplete their endowment. So it is a one-time fund-raising and then they are set.

BigDon
2010-Dec-21, 05:49 PM
Nice answer Swift.

Celestial Mechanic
2010-Dec-22, 05:47 AM
Gee, who do they think they are -- PBS? :wink:

thekohser
2010-Dec-26, 02:38 PM
I wonder when the news media will figure out that the Wikimedia Foundation spends on mission-relevant program services only 41 cents of every dollar they scam from donors, which earns them ONE STAR (out of four!) from Charity Navigator in organizational efficiency. In fact, their KPMG audit discovered that it only takes about $2.5 million to keep the servers running, provide ample bandwidth, and staff a team of code developers to keep things running smoothly. Why, then, is the ask for $20 million?

I also wonder why the news media never thought to cover the 2009 story of how the Wikimedia Foundation needed extra office space, and as if by magic, they hand-picked Jimmy Wales' for-profit corporation to be their landlord, THEN obtained competitive bids, THEN asked Wales' for-profit company to match the average of the competitive bids.

I too wonder why the media don't seem to care that the 2010 market research study of past Wikimedia Foundation donors was awarded to the former employer of the WMF staffer running the project, without any competitive bidding whatsoever. And when the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation was asked how much the project cost (http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts), the guy asking the question was banned from the online discussion.

I'll leave you with some links:

10 Reasons Not to Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation (http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia)

Ongoing journalistic reports on bad governance at the Wikimedia Foundation (http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/gregory-kohs)

Cougar
2010-Dec-28, 07:52 PM
The Wikimedia Foundation scam...

Well, I didn't really want to bash wikipedia - just their banner ad with Jimmy's creepy picture staring at you. Now they've got him looking off into space, which is slightly better, but not by much.

The content of wikipedia is generally quite good and very handy, and we refer to it a lot around here. When I'm searching for information on something or someone specific, say, Edwin Hubble, I'll type into google "edwin hubble" wiki and first in line will be wiki's article on Hubble, which quite often has more info that I was looking for.

The people who keep wiki up and running should be paid like everybody else. Jeez, put up a single unobstrusive ad on every page, and, with wiki's traffic, the outfit would be set.

Cougar
2010-Dec-28, 07:53 PM
Weird. I think he is a rather handsome galoot and that the photo is quite flattering.

:sick:

Githyanki
2010-Dec-29, 06:09 AM
I trust Jimmy Wales as far as I would beat him.

Swift
2010-Dec-29, 02:31 PM
I trust Jimmy Wales as far as I would beat him.
That seems a little harsh.