Talk:Top 10 Reasons Not to Donate to Wikipedia/Archive 1

This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify or add to it.

Some ideas from Unrepentant Vandal

Let's not get too hung up about keeping everything in a coherent order yet. Let's start with coherent sentences, move on to coherent paragraphs, and from there move to a coherent whole. Worrying about the precise number of points, or their titles, is also likely to be fairly counter productive at present. Unrepentant Vandal 17:40, 12 August 2007 (PDT)

Sounds cool but we need more references here and Top 10+ reasons why not to waste dough!BoxingWear 22:28, 5 November 2008 (PST)

Some comments from Kamal

I think this article has some points, but honestly the following points, in my opinion, make this article look unreliable: 1. Where are the "industry analysts" that "contend that Wikipedia and all its sister projects could probably operate on a budget of $1.6 million"? Are they only that link to Yahoo answers? It looks like the accepted answer comes from a user named "MyWikiBiz". It's like the name of the author of this article - strange! 2. About the rent paid to Wikia, the same report that you cite says: "Rent paid to Wikia for the year ended June 30, 2009 totaled $13,470. After October, 2009, the office rental with Wikia came to an end.". Why don't you mention this? 3. You define Wikipedia as "a fluid forum where ultimate editorial control belongs to a corps of administrators, most of whom act without real-world accountability because they don't reveal their real names, locations, and potential conflicts of interest". What about the real name, location and potential conflicts of interest of the author of this same article? P.s. I'm not a Wikia employee or a Wikipedia administrator / fanboy; just a user interested about donation to Wikipedia. --Kamal 14:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Answers... (1.) KPMG also confirmed the cost of hosting and bandwidth. They are "industry analysts". (2.) I think the duration and the amount of the rental of office space by Wikia is somewhat immaterial to the fact that it wasn't properly shopped competitively. It certainly exceeded the WMF policy amount of $5,000 that requires director-level approval, so the graft is squarely on Sue Gardner's shoulders. (3.) I have no conflicts of interest that pertain to the corruption found at the Wikimedia Foundation. This is simply a personal interest. -- MyWikiBiz 18:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)