Wikipedia's tenth anniversary is in January 2011*. By coincidence, my book on a major medieval philosopher will (hopefully) be published around then. I still haven't decided whether to use the opportunity to publicise the problems of Wikipedia (I think the story of why a writer who had made significant contributions to our undertanding of that philosopher was prevented from editing the philosopher's biography on Wikipedia would be of curiosity value to the press). In any case, this would be a good occasion for a campaign on the following lines

1. Letters to major donors.

2. Use of the publicity from these letters to get placings in the popular press, or the sort of press that the smaller donors would read, and which might put them off contributing.

What would go in such a letter? This involves the question of why major donors are giving large sums to Wikipedia. I imagine they are impressed by the idea of "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet".

What reasons could be given, and what evidence could be provided that this impression was misplaced? Ideas please.

[edit] For example, Omidyar Network made a grant of $2m to "support Wikimedia's key goals: to bring free educational content to every person on the planet, to engage and empower more people to author that content and to continually increase the quality and breadth of the information provided through Wikimedia’s projects. "

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_...ant_August_2009

What evidence that this grant is helping (1) bringing free educational content to every person on the planet (2) empowering more people to author that content (3) continually increasing the quality and breadth of that information? Examples please.

[edit]The Sloan Foundation provided a $3m which included support for "a software feature called Flagged Revisions, which will allow experienced editors to publicly and visibly grade the quality status of articles -- in effect, functioning as a kind of "nutrition labeling" for Wikipedia content. "
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_...ndation_Support.

* edited, was 2001.

Wikipedia has a fundamentally intractable problem regarding who is permitted to edit an article. Most subject-matter experts who would be qualified to write or work on an article on a given subject may also earn some or all of their living by virtue of being a subject-matter expert, and that raises the WP:COI problem. There really isn't any practical way to resolve this issue, other than advertising WP as compendium written by amateurs, none of whom are professional vetted subject-matter experts on the articles they are permitted to edit.

How are you going to state that problem succintly and briefly as one of the points in a letter to donors? Is it going to influence the donor not to commit funds in future?

The obvious reply would be to concede that Wikipedia is mostly written by amateurs, but that it has been jolly successful notwithstanding.

With what publisher, Mr. Damian, are you producing this book?

None of your business. It's an academic publisher.

Jeez, a bit touchy for no reason, are we? I ask because what publisher (and thus what editor) would make a heck of a lot of difference in if they would even allow such an aside at Wikipedia or not.

Congratulations Peter.



Because Wikipedians are a vindictive lot who would ruin Peter's enjoyment of his real achievement especially if coupled with comment on their delusional "achievements" if they possibly could.



I didn't know (or maybe just didn't appreciate the significance when I first heard) that the Sloan grant was tied to FR. I had a pretty negative view of Sloan's, involvement believing it was for general support while Sloan remained silent on porn, child protection and BLP issues. This puts them in a more favorable light.

Educating the donors of Wikipedia is the least of my concerns. I don't even know how to educate the general public on issues of basic science.

Sorry. It's nothing to do with the publisher in any case. On any book launch you get the opportunity to talk to the press as an individual author. The publisher might be interested because of the curiosity value and hence the publicity.

I'm not saying who they are or what the subject is because I have not yet discussed with the publisher or my co-writer (who is a much more distinguished and notable person than I, and may object, though I doubt it).

Brilliant.

Does 'Basic Science' have big breasts or does it want to fiddle with your kid, your a-hole, your immediate self-interests?

Nah ... simple, so they are not interested. It is too complex and irrelevant. Science is something done by someone else and merely consumed. But ... strangely enough ...

'The general public' are actually quite responsive to issues relating to basic morality and child protection, and big funding trustees sensitive over their reputations for probity.

How to punt science? Bleach it blonde and dress it in heels, as Marina Orlova showed us with etymology recently, use it to blow things up, or make motorcars faster.

Template letter to donor though ... great idea. Did anyone speak to the dame from Fox about who she spoke to and what response she got? Sounds like that would make a great blog story if she is willing to report it up.

As mentioned in other threads I am collating material about Wikipedia, preparing articles and so on in preparation for letters to the main donors to Wikipedia. Here's what I think should go in such a letter, in the following order, with my comments in square brackets.

1. Wikipedia is failing as a comprehensive and reliable reference source. [A donor who is giving a million dollars is probably not going to be interested in 'HR' issues like unpleasant admins, bunfights, the nasty stuff inside the sausage factory and all the things dear to the hearts of WR. All these things go on inside real workplaces too, but you just don't get to see them. Some academic departments are really evil and horrible places to be, indeed they tend to be so for various reasons - low pay, academic jealousy and status, appalling infrastructure, the existence of students etc. The donor cares relatively little about how Wikipedia helped the little girl in Africa, they just want to be sure she was helped in some way.] And the evidence for this is ... [There needs to be plenty of solid evidence, stacked in an appendix somewhere, that shows exactly how bad the problem is. There needs to be evidence that the problem is getting worse. As others have mentioned here, there was a sort of peak around 2004-5 when there were a few things of value. Since then it has either been an endless cycle of vandalise-revert, or articles have actually deteriorated].

2. And the reasons Wikipedia is failing are as follows .... and the way the problems could be resolved are ... [Some basic reasons, and suggestions for resolution. Also important because the larger the donation, the more the donor feels entitled to the wise use of their money. If you can point to plausible reasons for the problem, and show how they could easily be resolved, the more the donor will want to get on the phone, or email the WMF and ask if these things can be sorted out. Generally, people prefer solutions to whingeing about problems. The reasons I will point to are those I have mentioned elsewhere. Since 2005 Wikipedia has turned into a strange sort of social networking site, run by people whose talents lie far away from the job of producing a comprehensive and reliable reference work. Give examples. ]

And that's it. Wikipedia is failing, here's why, and here's how it could be improved, Mr Donor.

I have missed out stuff like pedophilia, teenage admins, BLP problem and so on. Suggestions welcome. But remember the point of this. There has to be a short letter, perhaps with substantial attachments, that a donor (or rather an employee of the donor) will read and quickly understand, and will give him or her instant and powerful regret that they ever sent a cheque for x million dollars to WMF.

Perhaps there should be something about possible misuse of funds? Greg has material on this, I know. That's another thing donors hate. They want all the money to go to those girls in Africa. Not, er, the other sort of girls, you know ...

I still say you take an 8.5 x 11 paper.

In the upper-left 4 x 7 space goes the "electric cock and ball torture" photo from Commons (you know the one), with proper attribution and maybe "X page views since publication on Wikipedia".

In the upper-right 4 x 7 space goes two elegantly italicized quotes from Jimmy Wales about how Wikipedia is intended for that girl in Africa, and about how Wikipedia is suitable for 9-year-olds and up (he did say that, I'd have to dig it up -- he might have said 10- or 11-year-olds... it doesn't really matter).

And then in bold print across the bottom 8 x 4:

This is how your donation to the Wikimedia Foundation is shaping your kids, and Africa's kids. Are you donating again this year?

I like that idea, show where the monies go. Lest not forget about the cost of Suzie G and her high brow stipend.

It depends on the audience. For a large institution which employs a board and working committees to study the worthiness of each application in dry and technical detail, perhaps not quite right. As Larry said, it has to be documented and researched carefully, moderate in tone, rather than hysterical and strident.

For the mass market audience, probably quite the reverse. The problem is to get to this audience. I suggest

(1) keeping on with the campaign of feeding the tabloid press with stories. There have been notable successes so far (nearly all down to you Greg - my interview with the Register came from you).

(2) I have suggested before that we get together and pay for an advertisement in a suitable publication, which a short and sharp message (probably without the, er, cock and ball). I researched this a while ago and it would probably be $10,000. I am willing to contribute $1,000. Anyone else?

Peter, I'm wondering when you will realize that when dollar amounts exceed about $500 in aggregate, there is a possibility of someone running off to St. Kitts with the money. At some point a credentialed, registered organization (preferably non-profit) has to take ownership of the initiative for it to work coherently. That was a bit of my vision with the (now lapsing) Internet Review Corporation.

I suggest that you keep your wallet shut until you can at least "fill in" those "we need details about..." spots above.

No problem with that. But is it a registered charity - it needs to be tax-deductible ! As you know, I never liked the name 'corporation'. Sounds like a corporation. Has to be a foundation or an organisation, something that has academic credibility.

[edit] On the other details, I am researching all of this now. Bad articles, editors, all of that. I am also working on a list of academics who would be prepared to put their name to such an advertisement. I have actually done this before in connection with something else and this was actually free, being published in a number of journals. This then span off into educational papers read by the whole profession and finally the national press - all for free.

This is not only a good thing, it is the right thing to do.

Just a quick thought ...

Rather than something that might be seen as a simple "anti-" Wikipedia stance, I wonder if some attention ought be paid to the idea of diverting funds instead of stopping them.

By this I mean, the big foundations are in their minds supporting the Wikipedia community. They give money to the WMF because they think the WMF is, supports or leads "the community" to produce the knowledgebase. They have bought the "success" story and are giving to the only place they can find to give to.

We know that the WMF and "the community" are two separate things, that the WMF does as little to nothing as it can (as far as product is concerned), have numerous well founded criticisms of it as the source of problems, and that it does little to directly support or direct the voluntary creators of the knowledgebase.

A few alternative management proposals have been put forward, notably Glassbeadgame's model.

Where I am leading here is the idea of an approach which says, "if you want to and are going to financially support the Wikipedia community you are making a mistake giving it to them, where the money needs to go is here ..." along with the offer or suggestion of some other body 'within the Wikipedia community' in which to invest that would have a bigger and better return, e.g. a phalanx of professional copywriters and facts and rights checkers, and an independent, professional arbitration service.

... Leading to the creation of the same. Personally, I am against workers being exploited to labor without any reward at all. What Jimbo's organ needs is at the least is paid copywriters and paid ombudspersons.

Accepting the Wiki exists and will continue to exist as a raw resource, I am basically suggesting take it and forming it into something that is good. For example, as the simplest level, one good argument against the Wikipedia is its written language is more than often shit poor. I would not want it to be left as the literary benchmark of information education for the internet generations ... as it is becoming ... which, say, the Britannia was. "Was" as in 'was consistently well written'.

One thing for sure, that famous research about the accuracy of the Wikipedia versus the accuracy of the Britannia did not take into consideration the accuracy of its written language (nor a comparison of the amount of porn and trivia).

Why charities should fund the hosting of a porn and trivia game is beyond me.

Wikipedia Review Foundation - does what it says on the label. You have the seed of expertise here.

Internet Review is a wonderful idea if it could have gotten big but, unfortunately, the internet is just too big and broad a topic for a small group to review.

Agree absolutely, and was my point about offering constructive suggestions. Needs some more detailed thought.

How is this for text?

Would you give hundred or thousands of dollars to an organization that publishes pornography on a web site with a higher than normal level of juvenile readers?

Would you give hundred or thousands of dollars to an organization that encourages juveniles to be involved in the review of pornographic materials?

Would you give hundred or thousands of dollars to an organization that routinely allows libel to be published - including articles that falsely accuse people of being involved in murder?

Woud you give hundred or thousands of dollars to an organization that routinely violates copyright and intellectual property laws - including plagiarism created by the organization's administrators, who are never punished for their actions?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, then congratulations -- your money is helping to fund Wikipedia.

I suggest it ought to be done in a way that would split the board over the issues, e.g. that new Indian woman trustee looked promising, so suggest we aim to pay 100 English language copywriters/fact checkers in India under the guidance of a handful of qualified and experienced Wikipedia. Go for a god gender balance, e.g. 90% women and moral ones too. There are some very good and very well educated India womans under employed and lacking in alternatives. Far better even to employ 200 part-timers.

Dangle some carrots out and empower known good characters on Wikipedia. Make it clear the purpose of all this is an ethical reform to produce a responsible but mature family based publication, a publication that the funding foundations WOULD want to support, and that would have the porno-pushing "Free Kulture" mob screaming for the hills.

It really would not take many, or that much cash, to push the agenda through ... and the response of the WMF would be enlightening. They might even support it.

I really wonder if Jimbo and Sue are sick of all the pervs and screamers by now?

Apparently not.

I still think the porno-to-children angle isn't going to have much impact. Especially in Europe, the attitude is more laissez-faire than not. Unless you can get a right-wing outfit with some political clout interested, it will be difficult in the US also.

However, you might consider summarizing a bunch of blatant copyright violations committed on WP, and send them to the appropriate NGO. There are very few audio, musical or video recordings sitting on WP servers that might be copyright violations, but there may be a number of photos which could be reported to artists whose work appears on a WP article without their permission. There are also the stock-photo firms like Corbis, Getty Images, Black Star, etc. If you can scrape up some photos on Commons that have been snitched without proper permissions, it might be possible to get the pro-copyright extremists interested.

WIPO and other groups are arguing over the ACTA right now, which is due to be approved later this year. So this would be a good time to seek publicity for WP's anti-copyright tendencies, and to inform the copyright holders of the problem. You could also send a copy of the list of infringements to the U.S. Trade Representative, who is the primary negotiator for ACTA in the US.

I've suggested this before. It is a helluva lot of work. And of course, this approach would encourage the increasingly abusive legal copyright climate, which would make you an enemy of people like Michael Geist, the EFF, and all those free-culture fans who think the world of Brother Jimbo. How committed are you folks to embarrassing the WMF publicly?

Employment law comparison with respect to Wikipedians doing 16 hours shifts etc.

I don't know Eric. I think the "no porn in education" angle is quite a strong one. Personal use is one thing, 99.9% of adults are going to agree it has no place in education and, e.g. porn star bios are really not educational.

See recent links in the Wiki Porn Roundup topic.