Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

James Salsman-2
In ten years time, I predict the Foundation will raise $3 billion:
http://i.imgur.com/hdoAIan.jpg


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Salsman <[hidden email]>
Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 9:01 PM
Subject: $55 million raised in 2014
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>


Happy new year: http://i.imgur.com/faPsI9J.jpg

Source: http://frdata.wikimedia.org/yeardata-day-vs-ytdsum.csv

I don't mind the banners, although I am still saddened that several
hundred editor-submitted banners remain untested from six years
ago, when the observed variance in the performance of those that were
tested indicates that there are likely at least 15 which would do
better than any of those which were tested. Why the heck is the
fundraising team still ignoring all those untested submissions?

But as to the intrusiveness of the banners, I would rather have
fade-in popups with fuschia <blink><marquee> text on a epileptic
seizure-inducing background and auto-play audio than have the
fundraising director claim that donations are decreasing to help
justify "narrowing scope."

Best regards,
James Salsman

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
It is known that education is a great way to eradicate poverty. We know that Wikipedia brings information and is educational. When the effect of "your" 3 billion dollar brings education and effectively helps to eradicate poverty it is well worth it.

No irony intended.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 2 January 2015 at 09:11, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:
In ten years time, I predict the Foundation will raise $3 billion:
http://i.imgur.com/hdoAIan.jpg


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Salsman <[hidden email]>
Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 9:01 PM
Subject: $55 million raised in 2014
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>


Happy new year: http://i.imgur.com/faPsI9J.jpg

Source: http://frdata.wikimedia.org/yeardata-day-vs-ytdsum.csv

I don't mind the banners, although I am still saddened that several
hundred editor-submitted banners remain untested from six years
ago, when the observed variance in the performance of those that were
tested indicates that there are likely at least 15 which would do
better than any of those which were tested. Why the heck is the
fundraising team still ignoring all those untested submissions?

But as to the intrusiveness of the banners, I would rather have
fade-in popups with fuschia <blink><marquee> text on a epileptic
seizure-inducing background and auto-play audio than have the
fundraising director claim that donations are decreasing to help
justify "narrowing scope."

Best regards,
James Salsman

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

Oliver Keyes-4
3 billion being...above the upper bound of the extrapolation you've made? Uh-huh.

Extrapolation is not a particularly useful method to use for the budget, because it assumes endless exponential growth. I can see the budget increasing due to us increasingly taking on the responsibilities we've previously been unable to do anything about, but I can't see what we'd actually /do/ with 3 billion dollars (although if we want to expand the Hadoop cluster with most of that I would, of course, be most grateful ;p)

On 2 January 2015 at 04:23, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
It is known that education is a great way to eradicate poverty. We know that Wikipedia brings information and is educational. When the effect of "your" 3 billion dollar brings education and effectively helps to eradicate poverty it is well worth it.

No irony intended.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 2 January 2015 at 09:11, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:
In ten years time, I predict the Foundation will raise $3 billion:
http://i.imgur.com/hdoAIan.jpg


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Salsman <[hidden email]>
Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 9:01 PM
Subject: $55 million raised in 2014
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>


Happy new year: http://i.imgur.com/faPsI9J.jpg

Source: http://frdata.wikimedia.org/yeardata-day-vs-ytdsum.csv

I don't mind the banners, although I am still saddened that several
hundred editor-submitted banners remain untested from six years
ago, when the observed variance in the performance of those that were
tested indicates that there are likely at least 15 which would do
better than any of those which were tested. Why the heck is the
fundraising team still ignoring all those untested submissions?

But as to the intrusiveness of the banners, I would rather have
fade-in popups with fuschia <blink><marquee> text on a epileptic
seizure-inducing background and auto-play audio than have the
fundraising director claim that donations are decreasing to help
justify "narrowing scope."

Best regards,
James Salsman

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

Oliver Keyes-4
Bah; dropped a digit when reading the y-axis. My bad. My concerns about straight extrapolation for this model remain, however.

On 2 January 2015 at 11:31, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]> wrote:
3 billion being...above the upper bound of the extrapolation you've made? Uh-huh.

Extrapolation is not a particularly useful method to use for the budget, because it assumes endless exponential growth. I can see the budget increasing due to us increasingly taking on the responsibilities we've previously been unable to do anything about, but I can't see what we'd actually /do/ with 3 billion dollars (although if we want to expand the Hadoop cluster with most of that I would, of course, be most grateful ;p)

On 2 January 2015 at 04:23, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
It is known that education is a great way to eradicate poverty. We know that Wikipedia brings information and is educational. When the effect of "your" 3 billion dollar brings education and effectively helps to eradicate poverty it is well worth it.

No irony intended.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 2 January 2015 at 09:11, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:
In ten years time, I predict the Foundation will raise $3 billion:
http://i.imgur.com/hdoAIan.jpg


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Salsman <[hidden email]>
Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 9:01 PM
Subject: $55 million raised in 2014
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>


Happy new year: http://i.imgur.com/faPsI9J.jpg

Source: http://frdata.wikimedia.org/yeardata-day-vs-ytdsum.csv

I don't mind the banners, although I am still saddened that several
hundred editor-submitted banners remain untested from six years
ago, when the observed variance in the performance of those that were
tested indicates that there are likely at least 15 which would do
better than any of those which were tested. Why the heck is the
fundraising team still ignoring all those untested submissions?

But as to the intrusiveness of the banners, I would rather have
fade-in popups with fuschia <blink><marquee> text on a epileptic
seizure-inducing background and auto-play audio than have the
fundraising director claim that donations are decreasing to help
justify "narrowing scope."

Best regards,
James Salsman

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation



--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

James Salsman-2
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
Oliver Keyes wrote:
>
>... Extrapolation is not a particularly useful method to use for
> the budget, because it assumes endless exponential growth.

I agree. Formal budgeting usually shouldn't extend further than three
to five years in the nonprofit sector (long-term budgeting is
unavoidable in government and some industry.)  However, here are a
couple illustrations of some reasons I believe a ten year
extrapolation of Foundation fundraising is completely reasonable:
http://imgur.com/a/mV72T

>... I can't see what we'd actually /do/ with 3 billion dollars

I used to be in favor of a establishing an endowment with a sufficient
perpetuity, and then halting fundraising forever, but I have changed
my mind. I think the Foundation should continue to raise money
indefinitely to pay people for this task:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Revision_scoring_as_a_service

That is equivalent to a general computer-aided instruction system,
with the side effects of both improving the encyclopedia and making
counter-vandalism bots more accurate. As an anonymous crowdsourced
review system based on consensus voting instead of editorial
judgement, it leaves the Foundation immunized with their safe harbor
provisions regarding content control intact.

Best regards,
James Salsman

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

Denny Vrandečić-2
I have one or two ideas about what to do with 3 billion US Dollar. It would be a huge step towards some of my stretch goals for the movement.

On Fri Jan 02 2015 at 12:08:43 PM James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
>
>... Extrapolation is not a particularly useful method to use for
> the budget, because it assumes endless exponential growth.

I agree. Formal budgeting usually shouldn't extend further than three
to five years in the nonprofit sector (long-term budgeting is
unavoidable in government and some industry.)  However, here are a
couple illustrations of some reasons I believe a ten year
extrapolation of Foundation fundraising is completely reasonable:
http://imgur.com/a/mV72T

>... I can't see what we'd actually /do/ with 3 billion dollars

I used to be in favor of a establishing an endowment with a sufficient
perpetuity, and then halting fundraising forever, but I have changed
my mind. I think the Foundation should continue to raise money
indefinitely to pay people for this task:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Revision_scoring_as_a_service

That is equivalent to a general computer-aided instruction system,
with the side effects of both improving the encyclopedia and making
counter-vandalism bots more accurate. As an anonymous crowdsourced
review system based on consensus voting instead of editorial
judgement, it leaves the Foundation immunized with their safe harbor
provisions regarding content control intact.

Best regards,
James Salsman

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

Oliver Keyes-4
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2


On 2 January 2015 at 15:08, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
>
>... Extrapolation is not a particularly useful method to use for
> the budget, because it assumes endless exponential growth.

I agree. Formal budgeting usually shouldn't extend further than three
to five years in the nonprofit sector (long-term budgeting is
unavoidable in government and some industry.)  However, here are a
couple illustrations of some reasons I believe a ten year
extrapolation of Foundation fundraising is completely reasonable:
http://imgur.com/a/mV72T


Words tend to be more useful than contextless images.
 
>... I can't see what we'd actually /do/ with 3 billion dollars

I used to be in favor of a establishing an endowment with a sufficient
perpetuity, and then halting fundraising forever, but I have changed
my mind. I think the Foundation should continue to raise money
indefinitely to pay people for this task:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Revision_scoring_as_a_service

That is equivalent to a general computer-aided instruction system,
with the side effects of both improving the encyclopedia and making
counter-vandalism bots more accurate. As an anonymous crowdsourced
review system based on consensus voting instead of editorial
judgement, it leaves the Foundation immunized with their safe harbor
provisions regarding content control intact.

It's also not worth 3 billion dollars (no offence, Aaron!) as evidenced by the fact that it can be established with <20k.

This is not a discussion for research-l, this is a discussion for (at best) Wikimedia-l - and I have to say that I don't feel it's at all useful even /there/, but it is at least in context. Spending time discussing pie-in-the-sky "what would we do if we had 3 billion dollars" ideas is all well and nice, but I prefer to think that time is better spent doing research with the resources we have now, and editing with the resources we have now, and making pitches for additional resources as and when they become available. So on that note: I'm going to go off and do that.

--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Denny Vrandečić-2
Denny Vrandečić, 02/01/2015 21:17:
> I have one or two ideas about what to do with 3 billion US Dollar. It
> would be a huge step towards some of my stretch goals for the movement.

:) 3 billions are not that much money, for instance they're only enough
to pay 6 months of operating costs of a poor and small university system
like Italy's. ;-) But yet, if not managed by us they could be very
useful for some neglected Wikimedia projects.

I wonder if Jean-Claude Juncker is short of ideas to go from 315 to 400
G€ investments... should someone investigate? Up to 50-100 G€ I don't
have big issues imagining educational programs, beyond that I'd have to
think a bit.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

Taha Yasseri
Dear all,

Happy new year.
I'm very sorry and with all due respect, I'm guessing this is getting a bit off-topic. Let me kindly remind that this is the Wiki-research mailing list.
Thanks and have a wonderful year ahead!
.Taha

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:
Denny Vrandečić, 02/01/2015 21:17:
I have one or two ideas about what to do with 3 billion US Dollar. It
would be a huge step towards some of my stretch goals for the movement.

:) 3 billions are not that much money, for instance they're only enough to pay 6 months of operating costs of a poor and small university system like Italy's. ;-) But yet, if not managed by us they could be very useful for some neglected Wikimedia projects.

I wonder if Jean-Claude Juncker is short of ideas to go from 315 to 400 G€ investments... should someone investigate? Up to 50-100 G€ I don't have big issues imagining educational programs, beyond that I'd have to think a bit.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



--
.t

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

James Salsman-2
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
>>... here are a couple illustrations of some reasons I
> believe a ten year extrapolation of Foundation fundraising
> is completely reasonable: http://imgur.com/a/mV72T
>
> Words tend to be more useful than contextless images.

I meant that the very sharply declining cost of solar (and wind)
energy, and the extent to which renewable energy is becoming fungible
-- see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&oldid=640703658#Using_the_night-time_electricity_system_as_a_means_of_dealing_with_excess_electricity_generation_due_to_renewables.
-- is likely to have a profoundly positive economic effect in both the
developed and developing world, especially over the next ten years;
and that the rate at which the most populous areas of the world are
growing in terms of income per capita will combine to support a simple
extrapolation of the Foundation's fundraising success. The very rapid
per capita income growth in Asia and Africa should last for 15 to 20
years at least.

And I don't see any downward pressure on the ability of the Foundation
to raise money; especially if transitioning to maintaining existing
content is successful. That is why I think this is so important:

>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Revision_scoring_as_a_service
>
>> That is equivalent to a general computer-aided instruction
>> system, with the side effects of both improving the encyclopedia
>> and making counter-vandalism bots more accurate. As an
>> anonymous crowdsourced review system based on consensus
>> voting instead of editorial judgement, it leaves the Foundation
>> immunized with their safe harbor provisions regarding content
>> control intact.
>
>  It's also not worth 3 billion dollars (no offence, Aaron!) as
> evidenced by the fact that it can be established with <20k.

I agree it can be set up with very little money, and I am completely
thrilled beyond words that work is proceeding on it.

However, once it is established, it's impossible to say whether
volunteers can sustain it at useful levels. I think it's almost
impossible that volunteers will keep it up with even half of major
edits. However, again, paying people to score revisions (including
trial null revisions against existing content, for example, that
editors could flag as being out of date, for example) would be like
paying them to enrich their own education and improve the encyclopedia
and anti-vandalism bots all at the same time. That is a fantastic
opportunity for research and development.

>... This is not a discussion for research-l

On the contrary, please see e.g.
http://www.wikisym.org/os2014-files/proceedings/p609.pdf
this Foundation-sponsored IEG effort can serve as a confirmatory
replication of that prior work.

>... time is better spent doing research with the resources
> we have now....

I wish someone would please replicate my measurement of the variance
in the distribution of fundraising results using the editor-submitted
banners from 2008-9, and explain to the fundraising team that
distribution implies they can do a whole lot better than sticking with
the spiel which degrades Foundation employees by implying they
typically spend $3 or £3 on coffee. (Although I wouldn't discount the
possibility that some donors feel good about sending Foundation
employers to boutique coffee shops.)

We know donor message- and banner-fatigue exists as a strong effect
which limits the useful life of fundraising approaches in some cases,
so they have to keep trying to keep up. When are they going to test
the remainder of the editors' submissions?

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

Oliver Keyes-4


On 2 January 2015 at 18:14, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>... This is not a discussion for research-l

On the contrary, please see e.g.
http://www.wikisym.org/os2014-files/proceedings/p609.pdf
this Foundation-sponsored IEG effort can serve as a confirmatory
replication of that prior work.

Let me rephrase, because I evidently wasn't clear: fanciful and unrealistic discussions of what we'd do with a pot of money that wouldn't be available for a decade and only exists in the first place if you assume exponential growth....are not for research-l


>... time is better spent doing research with the resources
> we have now....

I wish someone would please replicate my measurement of the variance
in the distribution of fundraising results using the editor-submitted
banners from 2008-9, and explain to the fundraising team that
distribution implies they can do a whole lot better than sticking with
the spiel which degrades Foundation employees by implying they
typically spend $3 or £3 on coffee. (Although I wouldn't discount the
possibility that some donors feel good about sending Foundation
employers to boutique coffee shops.)

We know donor message- and banner-fatigue exists as a strong effect
which limits the useful life of fundraising approaches in some cases,
so they have to keep trying to keep up. When are they going to test
the remainder of the editors' submissions?

Given that you've been asking for that analysis for four years, and it's never been done, and you've been repeatedly told that it's not going to happen, could you....take those hints? And by hints, I mean explicit statements.
 I appreciate that you're operating in good faith, but there comes a point when http://wondermark.com/1k62/ starts proving that life imitates art. Repeatedly having this same conversation is a colossal, ever-draining waste of everyone's time. Please stop bringing it up.


--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

James Salsman-2
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
>> I wish someone would please replicate my measurement of
>> the variance in the distribution of fundraising results using
>> the editor-submitted banners from 2008-9, and explain to the
>> fundraising team that distribution implies they can do a whole
>> lot better.... When are they going to test the remainder of the
>> editors' submissions?
>
> Given that you've been asking for that analysis for four years,
> and it's never been done, and you've been repeatedly told that
> it's not going to happen, could you....take those hints? And by
> hints, I mean explicit statements....

Which statements? I've been told on at least two occasions that the
remainder of the volunteer submissions *will* be tested, with
multivariate analysis as I've suggested (instead of much more lengthy
rounds of A/B testing, which still seem to be the norm for some
reason) and have never once been told that it's not going to happen,
as far as I know. Who ruled it out and why? Is there any evidence that
my measurement of the distribution's kurtosis is flawed?

I'll raise the issue as to whether and how much the Foundation should
pay to crowdsource revision scoring to help transition from building
new content to updating existing articles when the appropriate
infrastructure to measure the extent of volunteer effort devoted to it
is in place. If there is any reason for refraining from discussion of
the fact that revision scoring can be equivalent to computer-aided
instruction and the ways that it can be implemented to maximize its
usefulness as such, then please bring it to my attention.

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

Han-Teng Liao (OII)-2
Hello everyone, 

   I am jumping in this conversation with the aim to put any estimation and/or forecasting in relative terms. I personally think it is slightly more fruitful and productive to ask the proportion and/or share of Wikimedia foundation in Internet economy as a non-profit. 

   With this in mind, it might be useful to consider other forecasting data points about the size of Internet economy:




   For research, to measure the equivalent economic activities of Wikimedia foundation as x% share of the Internet economy entails longer time frame at macro levels. The time frame of this question is longer than A/B testing for fund-raising interfaces/mechanisms in a few days. They are two different questions, and both have their merits for study. However, the five-year or ten-year forecasting research seems to be more relevant to the bigger question of the share and role of Wikimedia foundation in the whole of Internet economy. 

   Put in relative terms, I hope that the Wikimedia foundation budget grows in proportion with the number of Internet users, and the average donations remains the same (inflation-adjusted). I have this hope because I have the assumption that Wikimedia foundation provides public goods or public utility to serve the public. Internet economy can go bust and boom, which can have real impacts on fundraising performance. I do not want the quality and price for public utility fluctuates. On the other hand, I hope that the impact of Wikimedia foundation remains a substantial proportion of the whole Internet economy. Limited budget, but multiplier effects of public knowledge.
   From the above slightly normative assumptions, I hope to see two indicators produced and/or constructed: (1) Wikimedia foundation's annual income divided by global Internet users (2) The equivalent Internet economic values Wikimedia created as proportion to the whole economy every year.  It is reasonable to expected that the global Internet users will eventually plateau and that the global Internet economy size will grow much faster.  

Best,
han-teng liao

2015-01-03 2:41 GMT+02:00 James Salsman <[hidden email]>:
>> I wish someone would please replicate my measurement of
>> the variance in the distribution of fundraising results using
>> the editor-submitted banners from 2008-9, and explain to the
>> fundraising team that distribution implies they can do a whole
>> lot better.... When are they going to test the remainder of the
>> editors' submissions?
>
> Given that you've been asking for that analysis for four years,
> and it's never been done, and you've been repeatedly told that
> it's not going to happen, could you....take those hints? And by
> hints, I mean explicit statements....

Which statements? I've been told on at least two occasions that the
remainder of the volunteer submissions *will* be tested, with
multivariate analysis as I've suggested (instead of much more lengthy
rounds of A/B testing, which still seem to be the norm for some
reason) and have never once been told that it's not going to happen,
as far as I know. Who ruled it out and why? Is there any evidence that
my measurement of the distribution's kurtosis is flawed?

I'll raise the issue as to whether and how much the Foundation should
pay to crowdsource revision scoring to help transition from building
new content to updating existing articles when the appropriate
infrastructure to measure the extent of volunteer effort devoted to it
is in place. If there is any reason for refraining from discussion of
the fact that revision scoring can be equivalent to computer-aided
instruction and the ways that it can be implemented to maximize its
usefulness as such, then please bring it to my attention.

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

James Salsman-2
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
Han-Teng Liao wrote:
>...
> I hope that the Wikimedia foundation budget grows in proportion
> with the number of Internet users, and the average donations
> remains the same (inflation-adjusted).

Do you think donations will grow in proportion to the median income of
internet users? That measure is likely to continue to grow for 15
years or more after the total number of users' growth substantially
slows.

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: $55 million raised in 2014

Han-Teng Liao (OII)-2
Don't know whether the donations will "grow in proportion to the median income of internet users". Need first to see whether any data set is available (ideally for all countries in the world). Not sure if there is a good one for "the median income of internet users".

This, however, raises the issues of the normative concerns and values of researchers and/or forecasters. I have taken the view that Wikimedia Foundation provides public utility. Ideally, the per capita cost should remain the same. Thus, I still prefer the Foundation's income only grows in proportion to that of Internet users. It is a normative (not forecasting) statement with a value assumption that places more premium on membership. 

Here we enter a classic political economy question: Do we consider equality (or distribution of funds) more than growth, or the other way around? No matter which ideological position one has, we need to revisit Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement to ask the values of equality and growth. What happens when there is a conflict between pro-equality and pro-growth strategy? My interpretation of Wikimedia's mission statement will be thus: pro-growth in human knowledge and readership, pro-equality in fund raising and distribution. 

Thus, I agree with Oliver that contextless images or graphs may not be helpful. It is better for infographic designers to be aware of and then explain the underpinning theoretical assumptions (and thus concerns) of visualization. It does not mean my potential research agenda above is more valid than yours. It does suggest however different "ways of seeing" raise different concerns on metrics that are value-laden on topics such as development. It is always worthwhile to revisit the Foundation's value/mission statement when we measure the economic cost and values of Wikimedia Foundation.

As "[]a] statistical model is a set of assumptions concerning the generation of the observed data"(enWP), it is better to be explicit on the underlying assumptions (not just math, but also social science) for the model/theory to be examined and tested. There are many socio-economic indicators related to Internet will grow exponentially, will grow linearly, will hit an upper bound, or decrease. The selection of other variables is thus important to put things in meaningful contexts, in relative terms, and in relation to the environment where Wikimedia Foundation is in. 

I hope the message above is a plead for more and better research on meaningful forecasting. There are other innate research problems doing forecasting (such as overfitting, etc.)  Here I just raise one of the basic issues on the institutional values needed to construct a set of sensible metrics that fit well with institution's core values.



2015-01-04 5:44 GMT+02:00 James Salsman <[hidden email]>:
Han-Teng Liao wrote:
>...
> I hope that the Wikimedia foundation budget grows in proportion
> with the number of Internet users, and the average donations
> remains the same (inflation-adjusted).

Do you think donations will grow in proportion to the median income of
internet users? That measure is likely to continue to grow for 15
years or more after the total number of users' growth substantially
slows.

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l