I don't understand all the fuss. If I had to pay for access I would do so before many other things. As it is, it is free to use which benefits those less able to pay. What is the problem?
I think it's the threat of organizational bloat, as well as the danger that the organizing might veer in the direction of excessive spending instead of focusing on the sustainability of it's mission long-term.
I'm not going to argue for whether or not it's happening in this case, but generally, it's far too easy for an organization to ramp up spending and then become unable to survive on the amount of income it used it have. As one example, it's far easier for people to scale up their own compensation than it is to scale down, especially at the top levels. So something else gets cut, that might have survived had the org not experienced an income surge.
There is also the danger of the actual culture of the organization changing that TFA brings up.
So I think it is very important that there is a conversation around this subject.
It's certainly the case that the community has less and less of a say. Decisions are increasingly made behind closed doors or by committees rather than on Wikipedia itself. Professional bureaucrats doing their thing.
I have to admit this is part of what makes this so galling. These people reap goodwill and money from the work of volunteers – using fundraising methods that have often been criticised as unethical by the latter – and then disenfranchise them on top of it.
Wikipedia actually existed before the Wikimedia Foundation.
It's that the fundraising is manipulative – it creates an impression of a cash-strapped organisation that is struggling to keep Wikipedia up and running when they're richer than ever. Meanwhile, Wikipedia volunteers – all of Wikipedia is written and curated by unpaid volunteers – get posts like this at their help desk:
Dear "Good Folks" At Wikipedia,
First, allow me to sincerely express my gratitude for being one of the finest Web services provided. THANK YOU to eacxh volunteer that unselfishlessly donates their time to Helping make our world a better & more knowledgable/informed place to live.
Second, While I am a very low income Senior [ live in Gov't. H.U.D. Apt.], I do still try to contribute to certain causes. Wikipedia is 1 such Group. I believe that I have given Wikipedia small donations for about 3 years now. While I do not have much to give, It is important that You know we appreciate the great work you undertake.
I do, respectfully, need to point out 1 "process" that Wikipedia implements that "disturbs/upsets" me. I just, accidentally, got rolled over to Wikipedia on a matter I am researcing. The Wikipedia "overlay" writing asking for Donations said this was 4th time You have asked me.
THAT "NOTICE" MADE ME FEEL VERY "GUILTY/BAD"....... Right now, I have $18.00 in my bank account ! That's It !
Soon, I will get my only source of Income [ a monthly Social Security Check] & will try to make a donation at that time. While I do not mind your "Reminding" me that Wikipedia can use Donations, Please quit stating this is 1st, 2nd, 3rd time......you have aqsked !
Thank You & Best Wishes, Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.33.228.209 (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
And it's just kind of sick that Wikipedia is purposely used to create an impression in millions of people around the world that is so different from reality – just to get more cash for expanding the bureaucracy and creating an ever bigger pile of money.
My problem is it seems like there is near zero odds of them going under anytime soon. With so much money, why not expand their mission? Surely it doesn't cost 1 million to write a textbook, does it? Google tells me it costs $130k.
Couldn't they do dozens a year, and probably get even more donations?
Why don't they try to replace Facebook? Hire pro creators for Wikimedia? Start their own newspaper? A scientific journal?
Where is the money all going? Everyone likes them and trusts them, for now, and they clearly want to do more than just Wikipedia, why don't they really make wikibooks and wikiversity happen?
It's a good question. They have spent half a billion dollars during the past five years, and have almost another half billion in reserves. The fundraising seems to have become an end in itself, just because they can.
They keep talking about wanting to grow Wikipedia in the global south (Indian and African languages) but the spending in those regions, even though rising slowly, is still a minute portion of their expenses which mostly go to pay rising US salaries.
So you have people in India (where people are currently shown fundraising banners on Wikipedia) donating a couple of dollars ... it takes over 200,000 donations like that to pay the salary of the Wikimedia CEO. $2 doesn't even buy a coffee in San Francisco. You could do a lot more with it in Kolkata. It's not like India doesn not have more pressing needs than sending money to the US because people are made to think money is needed to keep Wikipedia online for everyone.
As for Wikibooks and Wikiversity, I think it's because the quality content just isn't there. Wikipedia works reasonaby well with volunteer editors because of the requirement to cite published sources. Without that constraint, content quality becomes a lot more mixed.
Also, they are in partnership with Google and other Big Tech companies, and what those companies need is Wikipedia- and Wikidata-type content that can be surfaced in response to search engine queries, be read out by Alexa or Siri or even your car's digital assistant, etc.
Wikibooks and Wikiversity don't fit that bill, nor does Wiktionary, which is actually great, but is not promoted by the WMF nor by Google.
Their 2030 strategy is all about becoming the dominant source of online information:
Wouldn't it be a good thing rather than a problem if something like educational textbooks were written in such a way that everything in them needs a citation?
- Simple to then have a paid professional (in the field, not in proofreading) proofread and dive into / fix anything questionable (edit: well... maybe less simple that editing an un-cited work written by another professional, I'm not sure actually)
- Easier (potentially) to keep track of which bits of textbooks are out of date based on the source matter
- Optionally publish them with citations impact, so that teachers or curious students can look into background material that led to the textbook being created
I think the bigger problem isn't the use of citations to confirm quality, but that when your goal is to store info about as many things as possible it's easy to ask volunteers to work on whatever subject they choose to, whereas for something like a textbook you need one or more people figuring out what the subject matter should be based on the target audience, potentially based on a specific region's legally required curriculum, perhaps based just on "what will educators think useful enough", or a mix, etc. That's where citations are no longer enough (perhaps that's what you meant in your comment).
I don't know Wikiversity very well. My impression is that it is a mixture of cranks and actual academics. Neither of them would want a Wikimedia-appointed expert come and revise their stuff.
Also, the Foundation will not pay experts to vet content on principle. One consideration is that they do not want liability. Another is that they do not want conflict with the community over content.
Those are amazingly great ideas, but they would take vision and leadership to implement. Bloated rent-seeking organizations like Wikimedia don't attract people with vision and leadership skills, so they won't have any.
