Support us or....apply for a job!

Um, they're going to miss their funding goal by a mile. They have a budget of over four million that they're going to miss and....they're hiring???

Sheez, just when you think it can't get any more surreal...

# Garrett Guillotte Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:56 am

So with all this fundraising advertised to keep WP’s servers running and fund international education projects, you’re announcing that Wikimedia’s moving to the highest-rent area of the United States?

I hope the 30,000 people who donated kept a receipt, for what it’s worth. I’d think you’d want to keep your costs as _low_ as possible so you can maximize what everyone’s investing.

San Fran is arbitrary — there’s as much talent in every field you cite in the other proposed host cities, and in much cheaper places than those. And besides that, wouldn’t it be cheaper still to bring the talent to you? What happens when the people you need — or want — to help stay away from San Fran?

Hell, WM has a staff of 10, and apparently you can’t even convince your CFO/COO to go. I’d love to know why the Chief Financial Officer doesn’t support the organization’s move to the most expensive city in the U.S.

PS: You linked to a story that mentions it, but why be ashamed that you’re also doing this for the libel cover that California law provides? That’s one of the few things that makes sense about the move.

# Nicholas Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:26 pm

“I’d really love to know who was - and I don’t know if ’stupid’ is a strong enough word - the one who decided to move to an extremely high-cost-of-living location like San Francisco. ” you are right san fransisco has the highest average property values in the country.

# Howard Elwell Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm

I think W has its place in our world of instant communication. Although I like W it is making it difficult to want to support it.

In the last few years I have started to make a very good income and yet I’ve chosen to live in a “low cost” area so I can better use that money to help others as well as to meet the needs of my family. I make large contributions to organizations that I see looking out for the welfare of others before theirs likes and dislikes. One such organization I give to is HOPE Worldwide. It is has been rated as a 4-star organization by “Navigator” 6 times in a row. This puts HWW in a group of only 45 such organizations to be rated that high and only 29 that are NGO’s (non-governmental organizations).

Please stop trying to justify the SF relocation decision due to a large number of professional people in that are as you can find just as many and even more in other “lower-costing” locations. As for it being a great location to fund-raise —- come on, do you really believe that? First of all, unless you are need to fly-in and fly-out potential fund-raisers or people donating to your organization being in a major city as compared to other locations makes no sense. Even then I would have the organization just a short drive from that city. If your fund-raising efforts are going to, for the most part, be web-based a lower costing area is the best. This lower-costing area doesn’t mean you have to be in Tibet but outside a major city would be a good compromise to all the benefits of a major city and its higher expense.

I’m sorry I can’t contribute until I see the organization get back to thinking of others before making its biased self-promoting decisions.

Support us or … apply for a job!

Um, they're going to miss their funding goal by a mile. They have a budget of over four million that they're going to miss and … they're hiring???

Sheez, just when you think it can't get any more surreal …

Okay, that one bombed! What's next???

Guys, guys. Please, you must remember to Assume Good Faith. Obviously, the Foundation is moving to "San Francisco", but you have all jumped to conclusions and assumed (in bad faith) that it's the San Francisco at the Golden Gate on the California coast.

Isn't it obvious that Jimbo, Sue, and Mike are taking advantage of labor rates and actually moving to THIS San Francisco on Tayabas Bay?

The donors' money will be spent much more economically there.

Greg

How can anybody take this seriously any more? I mean, even Airbus is relocating their business to places like Algeria, India and other such places. If WMF were really serious about this, wouldn't they look at the place in the World where the funds would go the furthest and go there?

I mean, Jimbo could always send Kira to private schools in whatever place that might be. Maybe Sue G. doesn't want to go to places like that?

Anyway, it looks suspiciously like "hey, let's move to SF! Wouldn't that be KEWL!! Don't worry. The fund-raising project will pay for it!!!"....

# E. Kevin Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 12:46 am

I think that moving to San Fran is like shooting yourself in the foot! I don’t have to spell out the conotations that you have now covered yourselves with, but none of them are pretty nor neutral. If it were up to me I would have chosen a far more mainline envrionment to base such an (on the surface) neutral information disbursing service. From now on I will be much more of a critical thinker when it comes to whatever information that I glean from your websight. Even so I will contribute to your appeal for funds up, and until, you display a serious cant in one direction or the other. Rest assured that the second I detect either a right or left “lean” to your information, my financial support will disapear in a heartbeat.....

# George Carey Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:02 pm

Unfortunately, Howard Elwell in his comment does make a very good point. Get your high power fund raiser, let him live where ever he wants/needs to. But look at your pie chart for cost allocations. It does not make sense to move to expensize costing city (like SF). Even if you increase your funding your operating expenses will be raised as well. Also, sounds like you’ll be losing some of your long time workers in the move. Is it justified from a business perspective? Or as Howard implies more for the elan of SF. After all it is a product that is locale independent so why not its core staffing as well? Need a little thinking outside the box, kind of like Jimmy Wales’s did originally! Just start a branch in SF if you want and see what synergies kick in (why limit it to SF though?). If it takes off great if not…not as much lost. Your funded allocation pie chart will likely only shrink with a move of personnel to San Francisco from St. Petersburg.

# Martin Grant Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 1:04 am

Those of us who bemoan your left wing bias are hardly surprised that you chose to move to SF.

I'll remind everyone that the Board chose San Francisco without even having a clue as to which neighborhood they would plant their new headquarters. Only after selecting San Francisco did they start asking the Foundation-l list if anybody knew of a reasonably safe neighborhood where a smallish office space could be had for not too much money. You'd think I'm joking, but I am not.
Greg

I support this move wholeheartedly. Not only is Wikipedia the shining beacon of historical revisionism, intolerance, anti-expertise, anti-scholarship and politburo-style political intrigue that is poisoning the web; it is also the single greatest reason why people mistrust the Internet.

So at a time when Wikipedia is no longer raising enough money to survive because its managed to screw-up once too often, when it can no longer cover its hosting costs, when its "begging bowl" economic model is shown up as the sham it is, I can think of no better action to shut down WP in short order than moving its head office to the most expensive office real estate in the US.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic about it. Certainly, it's more expensive than St. Petersburg, particularly rent. However, it's a better place to attract big donors, who will probably want to visit your office - especially if you're in San Francisco - and meet with Google people and the like.

What the hell: I predict Wikimedia will wind up in the Presidio or Fort Mason.