There have been a number of Wikipedia projects or initiatives that have been launched with at least some fanfare and/or promise that they are important and that they will be carried out.

But then they fail.

Some examples:

• Greenspun illustration project
  
• Flagged revisions implementation on English Wikipedia (a dream since August 2007, a suggestion since January 2009, a Foundation-level proposal since January 2009, and a call to raise hell* if not implemented by September 25, 2009)
  
• Release of Episode 45 on Wikivoices (so volatile an issue, we are forbidden to discuss it on Wikipedia.

I believe we can add WMF staff member Rand Montoya's 2009 Fundraising Survey to this list now. Repeated asks for status updates have gone ignored now for several months. Even a Foundation-level inquiry has been met with silence.

Is anyone here a member of a business or an organization where if a project comes off the rails, and if junior employee or volunteer who contributed to the project asks publicly what the status of that project is, deafening silence is the prescribed response?

Why is this behavior accepted within the Wikimedia community? Is Rand Montoya unaccountable for his responsibilities, or is this some kind of "quiet period" leading up to his termination from the WMF payroll? I strongly suspect the former, because accountability just isn't on the WMF docket.




* If you're wondering what "raising hell" constitutes, it is "I strongly support that we get this turned on as quickly as reasonably possible, and I let the staff know this often."

(color intentional)

Well, if we're talking about Wikipedia projects in general (and not just Foundation-level stuff), let's not forget the "quality, not quantity" drive of Summer '06, the post-Essjay "Credentials Verification" boondoggle of Spring '07, and the creation (and hype) of Wikiversity. Not to mention all the talk about "fostering" non-English versions of WP that essentially amount to providing the hosting and nothing else. These are all things that were announced to great fanfare in the tech media, and once Jimbo & Co. got the PR boost they wanted, the initiatives themselves just vanished.

And don't forget Wikiprojects. The current list is about 50% red links.
Some of the actually-existing projects have been successful, such as the philosophy
project (although Peter Damian might take issue with this evaluation). Some are okay, and
some are a disaster (transhumanism, anyone?).

That ought to be a "rotten pillar" of Wikipedia: it strongly attracts people with fringe/crackpot religious, philosophical and social-science beliefs. And gives them a place to pass their ideas off as "truth".

Sounds just like wikipedia review.

The difference: Google doesn't link to Wikipedia Review threads as if they were "factual".

Excellent points, Somey; although, I can't say that I ever got the sense that Wikiversity was being "hyped". Do you have a choice quote, diff, or press release?

The ideas presented in this thread have inspired me to update (and I hope improve) my treatise on why you don't want to donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Here's another one. Small donations make Wikipedia irresponsible and unresponsive to accountability. This actually is analogous to why wiki authored atomized content production breeds irresponsibility. No one has sufficient influence over an article to reach a threshold of accountability. Foundation giving, gifts by wealthy individual donors or government grants all facilitate accountability. Embarrassing scandals, BLP problems or lack of proper concern for children can be shaken off like water off a ducks back when raised by micro-donors. Not so when a foundation, rich person or government agency have their name on the line.

If you want to use it maybe put it in where the "CP instead" stuff resides now, as that promise has faded a good bit over time.

You're right, actually. The only time the WMF put out any sort of press release on Wikiversity was in Summer 2007, which resulted in these articles, easily missed (the story didn't get picked up by the MSM). And it wasn't really "hype," though of course they weren't exactly being pessimistic about it (this article is typical). However, someone did point out that "one drawback ... has been that some teachers start courses, then disappear, abandoning students," so there's that at least.

What do you mean by "CP instead"? You mean Citizendium?

Yeah, I have to find something to replace that section.

Yeah, I meant "CZ" or something, but you figured it out.

So, what do we all make of the 2009 Fundraising Survey project, headed by paid Wikimedia employee Rand Montoya?