Florence Devouard, chairwoman of the Wikimedia Foundation, has touched off a tempest with her suggestion in a talk at the Lift07 conference that Wikipedia has funding for only another quarter and "might disappear" if donations don't pick up.
Dire stuff ... if true.
According to this post by media producer Philippe Mottaz, Devouard told the audience: "At this point, Wikipedia has the financial resources to run its servers for about 3 to 4 months. If we do not find additional funding, it is not impossible that Wikipedia might disappear."
Nick Carr picked up the thread and wove it into a post headlined "Wikipedia's cash crunch," at which point Wikimedia spokesperson Sandy Ordonez stepped up with this attempt at backpedaling:
"Ms. Devouard's comment was taken out of context," Ordonez claims, although it's difficult to imagine the context in which "might disappear" could be taken differently. "Wikipedia will not be closing any time soon. Ms. Devouard was simply referring to the ongoing, pressing needs for funds that Wikipedia, like most nonprofit organizations, face. Ms. Devouard was attempting to showcase how, because of our global reach, Wikipedia needs to be much more creative in its fundraising efforts."
On the last score there can be little dispute.
But why the talk about disappearing?
As this blogger suggests, Wikipedia's disappearance is an absurd suggestion for the simple reason that it's worth about a zillion dollars as a marketable asset. Of course, Google Wikipedia would be an entirely different beast.
Hyperbole aside, there can be little doubt that the organization is indeed strapped for cash. Its worldwide operations now require 350 servers and they don't run themselves.
When you think about the impact that Wikipedia has had upon our society - not all of it good, certainly - it's astounding that the organization tasked with keeping it afloat has to resort to bake sales and begging. When last we checked in on Wikipedia's fundraising efforts they were closing in on a $1 million, with the current total about $1.1 million. They say they need $5 million a year to sustain operations.
That math certainly doesn't look good.
And while I personally do not have the $4 million balance on hand at the moment, it is chump change in the grand scheme, a year's salary for a so-so baseball player.
And while I am no expert on charitable fundraising (my mother-in-law is one; I'd call her if it wasn't 5 a.m.) it seems to me as though the problem likely lies with the fundraisers here, not the cause.
But it sure wouldn't hurt for a few of you rich folks to step up.
Welcome regulars and passersby. Here are a few more recent Buzzblog items. And, if you'd like to receive Buzzblog via e-mail newsletter, here's where to sign up.
Vinnie the IT pro vs. Verizon customer service.
Why phone-record thieves laugh at the law.
Santa's unimaginable data disaster to mean empty stockings on Christmas.
Gates on education: Knowledge is good.
Average Joe asks Bill Gates a priceless question.
BSA, software giants target little guys most often.
Can the geek press handle a Microsoft sex scandal?
Hacking for better grades gets 4 preppies bounced from elite school in Mass.
This year's "25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries."
When the patient is a Googler and the doctor is a pompous jerk.
Cell phone jamming on the rise.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Did you call your mom ? If
Did you call your mom ?
If so, tell her to contact the Foundation here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us
There is a time to write and a time to act.
Anthere
Crocodile tears and charitable fundraising
Anyone familiar with public broadcasting should be familiar with this sort of "your silence is killing us" appeal.
So they have only four months operating revenue on hand? Many small businesses have only short-term reserves for operational purposes. Many charities support next quarter's activities with this quarter's donations. Even PBS continues to struggle with a desire to fund operations from endowment proceeds when charitable donors don't seem to find the charity worthy of endowment funding. Wikimedia Foundation can get in line with thousands of other charitable soliciters who beleive their cause is worthy of big money.
Until that money comes in, there's plenty Wikimedia Foundation can do to cut expenses, which have skyrocketed in recent months. First, they can cut payroll, which has grown exponentially in the past year. It could cut expenses such as the recent hiring of a head-hunter firm to select the foundation's next well-paid executive director. That's an odd approach -- wikis are good for writing dubious biographies but apparently the community that is entrusted with the responsibility of compiling "all the world's knowledge" is not qualified to select from among itself a qualified executive director.
Then the Foundation could look at its travel budget. Wikimedia Foundation supposedly thrives on volunteer contributions, but some volunteers get more perks than others, including subsidized vacations at wikipedia's many off-line community-building events.
Even if the Wikimedia Foundation were to fold, which might not be a bad thing, Wikipedia content and development of MediaWiki software would survive. That is the purpose of the GFDL license. Wikipedia has been forked by hundreds of other sites. If wikis work, as the founders of WF claim, they can work elsewhere. Chances are, if the Foundation folds, the first company to benefit will be Wikia, Inc. -- founded by Wikimedia Foundation board members -- and which offers free hosting to almost any wiki that can demonstrate public interest.
Hosting by a for-profit company would be a much more honest approach. Instead of presenting the project as "undoutably (sic) good) as Jimbo Wales presents wikipedia, it could be presented as would be any other enterprise -- an effort of its principles to advance their social standing (prifit) while advancing their individual ideals (in Wales' case, libertarian objectivism of the Ann Rand variety).
Got a source for any of these claims?
Anonymous unsubstantiated allegations are worthless. Suppose you stop being an anonymous coward and explain how you know the things you claim to know.
saving grace
If I have read your genius commentary correctly regarding the cash flow situation with wikipedia, from your vast experience with same, there are plenty of alternatives to starving and dying in the gutter.
Fire people -- as many firings as possible. No business needs a support staff. Be sure to let them know that the reason is because they are dead wood, and then those people and their families, can starve and die in the gutter, instead.
Get rid of researchers and writers -- they don't do anything and their biographies are dubious. There is no need to investigate this presumption, clearly a princeton graduate would not be a staffer for wikipedia.
Headhunter, an outrage -- why pay a headhunter to find an executive director, when you could do it yourselves. I am not sure which selves or what I am talking about, but don't interrupt me when I'm on a roll.
I cannot go on. I am breathless with anticipation to see what happens when wikipedia folds, and then based on your recommendation, sells itself off in pieces, like midwestern small farm families.
You are so smart and supremely competent, you sound just like our president.
Ah, well, it all depends on
Ah, well, it all depends on definitions, now doesn't it? yes, the payroll has increased exponentially: and there's still less than 10 FTE. Yes, some people got their tickets paid to events... a small number of people to 2 public conferences and a handful of board meetings. No one on the board is paid; very few of the people who donate hundreds of hours time, support and expertise are. You show me a similar organization, charitable or otherwise.
Wikimedia *is* acting like other charities by asking for money; no one is suggesting they aren't. Wikimedia is valuable not because Jimmy Wales is behind it, but because tens of thousands of volunteers are; those volunteers would leave if it became a for-profit company, plain and simple.
Too expensive?
Does anyone know what hosting company handles
Wikipedia? You can get a *VERY* powerful,
dedicated server to host nearly any site... for
as little as $300 per month.
... a $300 per month
... a $300 per month dedicated server would never come with the bandwidth necessary to host wikipedia, nor would one average server keep up with this kind of demand. Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites in the world.
Simply not true
It's simply not true that Wikimedia could disappear in a few months. Here's my analysis.
Probably not...
Wikipedia can easily lease more hardware rather than buy it straight out...
OH, and Dell is giving them steep discounts on new servers now.
Also, almost everything they have is donated. Server Administration: Donated. Editing: Donated. Jimmy's Salary: $0.
And there have been MANY offers from other organizations to host significant amounts of Wikipedia for free or next to nothing.
Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. And if they are in such of a crux, just sell targeted advertising on the search pages.
Karma!
'Shouldn't have made such a fuss about those Microsoft employees!
'Cause... cha-ching!