User talk:Guy Macon/Draft of Signpost Editorial

This is a good place to discuss proposed corrections / improvements to the draft editorial. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some free comments, on what I understand is a rough early draft.

You have a couple ideas mixed up that may or may not work together for an editorial. One is the analogy to cancer, which at least at first seems interesting. I and most readers probably have not heard of the "hallmarks of cancer" and if there is an analogy that works here, then maybe you have a good basis for an editorial. But then how exactly do the elements correspond, between cancer and Wikipedia. I saw mention of cell division, and i thought you were going to be addressing the splitting of articles. If you want to comment on growth of Wikipedia, maybe also look in terms of bytes of information or number of articles.
The checkerboard link explains about exponential growth, but note the article's point is that things can't grow exponentially. The financial information and graphic don't show exponential growth, I don't think. And what is the fear, that financial growth of Wikipedia will take over the economy? The problem with cancer is that it is growth of bad stuff, but I don't see what financial stuff is bad stuff that is growing here. It would be bad financially if assets did not grow, if all the growth was in expenses, say. But the financial growth looks balanced, offhand, to me.
I wonder if you have some elements for a political cartoon, instead of an editorial article?

Hope this helps or at least doesn't hurt. cheers, --do ncr am 04:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are exactly the sort of comments I was looking for. I will rewrite the bit about cell division so it is more clear.

I like the idea of comparing bytes of information and/or number of articles. Do you know of any page I can cite that have those numbers for 2005 and 2015?

I also can see that I need to clarify that cancer isn't the growth of bad stuff. It is the ever-increasing growth that makes cancer bad stuff. Take any tissue in the body, no matter how "good", and let it grow exponentially. If it doesn't stop growing It will kill you.

Again, thanks for the feedback. Try as I might, I just can't see problems in my own work, but when someone else points them out, my reaction is usually "yeah, that's right. I need to fix that." --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who was bold enough to ask you to write this? (You have been saying this for some time, but who in or outside the WMF had the courage to ask you to put this in a semi-official publication?) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After the discussion in the comments section at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-11-26/Op-ed, Peteforsyth (co-Editor-in-Chief of the Signpost), asked me via email if I was willing to write up an editorial. I responded here:[1] Our latest discussion is at User talk:Peteforsyth#Editorial?. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(The comment below was moved here from User talk:The Quixotic Potato --Guy Macon (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

[2] It may be possible to find a more elegant solution for the sentence about the chessboard problem. I prefer using parentheses inside a sentence (like this). (This looks weird.) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good idea to mention the discrepancy between the fundraising goal for December 2014 (20 million USD) and the amount that was actually raised (30.6 million USD). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions

I made a lot of copyedits near the beginning of the article (feel free to change or revert) and put some bullets below just reading through it closely with a critical eye. I think I would rework the article to focus on what spending WMF is doing that you feel is wasteful and putting forth specific constructive feedback on where to make cuts after digging into their annual report. The article comes off a bit like a guy on the sidwalk saying "the end is near." It's a daily occurrance around here for an editor to make overly-dramatic doomsday predictions on how the whole site is going to fall apart if the community/WMF does not adopt whatever their proposal is. Sometimes a more reasonable and toned down approach is actually more persuasive.

A few critiques while I was reading

Throughout the article you use terms like "we" and "our" budget as if you were a party to the spending. I would stick to singular over plural.
The paragraph starting with "Sounds a lot like cancer, doesn't it?" comes off as sarcastic and conclusory - I don't feel like the evidence necessarily made a direct connection with me.
I'm not sure so much is needed about inflation.
"Eventually, something is going to happen that causes the donations to decline instead of increasing." This seems like an odd statement. Isn't it possible this won't happen? Doesn't every organization have ups and downs? Couldn't they cut expenses if donations drop? Don't they have assets to buffer in this case? May be better to focus on the "possibility" and address whether they have enough cash reserves or enough flexibility to reduce expenses to address a potential catastrophe not covered by insurance.
"Based upon past performance" <- Elaborate. This sounds like a really crucial point to your argument. If a business has failed to respond to financial instability in the past - what can they do better for next time?
"One ray of hope" is a little overly dramatic
I don't see unresponsiveness as supporting the conclusion you seem to be reaching. "and thus must assume" yuck
"After we burn through our reserves" "we" and "our" again, but WMF is doing the burning and has the reserves
Cut back the certainties (no one can predict the future and it sounds like doomsday predictions)- it could be positioned more reasonably as risk management and avoiding unwanted potential outcomes.
One editor said this or that is not really persuasive. Lots of editors say lots of things that are not well-founded
The cancer analogy does not really grab me or follow well.

Hope this helps! Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 21:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love the edits you made. Thanks! I am pondering the comments above. Most of them seem spot on and I will try to fix the problems you identified, but I am not going to drop the cancer analogy. I think it is the heart of the opinion I am trying to convey in the editorial. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about the points made above, and have edited the editorial to address some of them (really good comments. A huge help.) I am sticking with the cancer analogy because that really is my editorial opinion -- that WMF spending is a lot like cancer. I am also retaining most of the "we" and "our" language, because I really do believe that Wikipedia and the WMF are in this together and that it really is our spending, not their spending. And I am 100% certain that I can predict the future of any and all real-world situations where there is exponential growth. The growth absolutely can not continue forever. If Wikipedia donations were to increase forever, after some period of time Wikipedia would have more dollars than there are atoms in the universe. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive to cancer sufferers?

I understand what hyperbole is, but I am concerned that you'll cause real offense with this article to cancer sufferers and those who've lost relatives to the disease.

I'd strongly recommend you find another metaphor - or none - or the important points you're trying to make will be drowned out by noise about what ought to be merely a mere frippery. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS Lmk if/when you make a change, and I'll continue reviewing, if I'm onwiki. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that's worth pointing out, but I don't see it as really being a problem. Having helped to deal with cancer with my father, father-in-law, various aunts and uncles and the cancer that ended up taking my mother, I personally found nothing offensive about this. I also haven't seen a lot of cancer survivors and their relatives getting offended about other uses of cancer as a metaphor.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

14:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't offend me either, but I've been on Wikipedia a helluva long time and in my experience, if there's a possible [no matter how tenuous] sideshow that'll deflect the discussion off a serious point, us Wikipedians have a fantastic track record in ensuring that's exactly what happens. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you hear that? That pervasive, overwhelming noise? That's the sound of nobody disagreeing with you. ;)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

15:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's still early in much of America. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too busy dealing with Trumpogeddon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. I forgot that this is wikipedia. There's always someone willing to disagree with anything.

It's a well substantiated metaphor. I don't think that watering it down is necessary. This is kind of like the plot of the book Fahrenheit 451, is my thought process at least. And it works well as an attention grabber for the essay. (albeit a bit lowbrow)Brettwardo (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:UNCENSORED applies. I doubt that a cancer alogy will cause as much offense as our images of Muhammad. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we already do this?

I thought we already did hit the point where we stopped increasing the budget, with excess in funds raised going to the endowment. Looking at the plans on Meta, the 2016-2017 plan looks 2 million dollars smaller than the 2015-2016 plan (65m > 63m, link). The WMF is able to get a lot of important work done with its current budget, and I would hope for the budget to stabilize around $50-60 million, which seems both effective and responsible. --Yair rand (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't put a lot of stock in any organization's plans, so I am only working with actual amounts raised, saved and spent. If someone cares to spend the time digging up the plans for the previous ten years compared to what actually happened, and those numbers show a track record of actual donations and spending being close to planned donations and spending, I would be inclined to pay a lot more attention to the current plan. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying actuals from the table in this oped, plans from meta:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan and WMF resolutions. 2007-08 plan: $4.6M, actual $3.5M; 2008-09 plan: $5.97M, actual $5.6M; 2009-10 plan: $9.4M, actual $10.2M; 2010-11 plan: $20.4M, actual: $17.9M; 2011-12 plan: $28.3M, actual: $29.2M; 2012-13 plan: $42.1M, actual: $35.7M; 2013-14 plan: $50.1M, actual $45.9M; 2014-15 plan: $58.5M, actual $52.5M; 2015-16 plan: $65M, actual ? projected $61.3M when the 16-17 plan was written; 16-17 plan $63M, actual we'll see in a year I guess. Can't find anything from earlier years. Looks like the plans usually overestimate by a bunch, especially in recent years. --Yair rand (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty persuasive. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So... FYI: If this year's annual plan schedule is the same as last year, there will be a community review of a draft of the 2017-2018 annual plan within about two months. I don't think it's that likely, but it is possible, that the WMF will decide to return to the direction of continual spending growth. Or maybe it'll turn out that they never left it, and the 2016-17 plan was inaccurate, and the actual spending will be $70M or something. In either case, we have a lot to lose if the events you've described in this opinion piece do come to be.

I recommend holding off on publishing this. If either the next annual plan or this year's actual spending (as we'll get a good hint of in the projections) indicate a dangerous direction, we really will need a community movement toward stopping it, and during a community consultation on the topic is the perfect time to do it. (I might suggest using somewhat, ah, less harsh wording in the article even if we do end up needing to get some pitchforks out.) --Yair rand (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to m:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan 2017-18, this year's community review of the draft plan will begin on April 7. --Yair rand (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about recent edit

I welcome anyone who edits the editorial, and so far it looks like every edit has been an improvement. Without wanting to discourage anyone, I have a question about this one:[3] Is it just me, or does the editorial now imply that the two books The Mythical Man-Month (1975) and Peopleware (1987) extensively document Wikipedia's poor handling of software development? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No answer, so I fixed it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty cheap for a top 100 website

I appreciate that my perspective as someone who spent two years working for one of the chapters is going to be somewhat skewed. But I've also worked in many other places including in and around IT. There are some very basic things that Wikipedia didn't have in the early days, a backup datacentre being just one of them. I'd be a little nervous if the money got so tight that we went back to a single datacentre. Of course it is valid to ask what the movement would do if income fell, and how much of the expenditure is on keeping the lights on as opposed to attempting to improve things. But just as the exponential growth argument doesn't apply to an organisation whose exponential growth period looks over; A criticism based on the costs of Wikipedia in 2004 is always going to be vulnerable to people saying Wikipedia and its sister sites are one of the world's ten busiest websites. How many of the top 100 websites have as small a budget? Another perspective is to do a comparison with other charities, financially the movement is bigger, maybe twice as big as The Donkey Sanctuary but it is less that half the size of The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, and those are just UK charities, the Wikimedia movement is global. I appreciate that bigger than the Donkey sanctuary sounds somewhat unthreatening, feel free to think through some alternative comparisons. But it is a good idea to make such comparisons if you are trying to convince people that financially the WMF and chapters have grown too big. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question. In my opinion, the only fair comparison would be with organizations that exist for the sole purpose of having a web site of some kind. For the purposes of my editorial, I have chosen Wikipedia as it existed ten years ago and Wikipedia as it existed two years ago as my basis for comparison. The latter is an especially interesting comparison; I would really like to see, on this talk page, some serious answers to the following question:

WMF's spending went up 47% in the last two years alone. For those readers who were around two years ago, did you notice at the time any unmet needs that would have caused you to conclude that the WMF needed to increase spending by seventeen million dollars in the next two years?

Getting back to the question of making comparisons with organizations that have a job to do other than maintaining a website, The Donkey Sanctuary has rescued 14,500 donkeys in the UK alone, provides donkey assisted therapy to children in the UK and overseas, has developed a National Schools Programme, runs training courses on donkey care and behaviour, and works at local, national and international levels to push for changes in laws for better protection and greater recognition of donkeys. All of that is expensive, and all of it is part of their core mission.

Instead, let's look a Craigslist. Like Wikipedia they have a core mission of running a website. Like Wikipedia, they don't pay people to create content. So, how many employees does Craigslist have? around 40.[4]

How does Craigslist's traffic compare? If you believe [5] and [6] we are six or seven times bigger, but if you want to use Craigslist's own numbers[7] they have more than 50 billion page views per month compared to the 16 billion monthly page views that the WMF claims, which makes them roughly three times larger. If you believe [8], they have 9 billion monthly page views.

So how much does Craigslist take in and how much does it spend? According to our badly out of date article, "The company does not formally disclose financial or ownership information. Analysts and commentators have reported varying figures for its annual revenue, ranging from $10 million in 2004, $20 million in 2005, and $25 million in 2006 to possibly $150 million in 2007" according to [9], "Craigslist will generate about $381 million in revenue and more than $300 million in profits during 2015" It looks like their revenue doubled in 2014 [10].

Off topic rant: take a look at this:[11]. It would be really useful if it contained a clue as to what years "this year" and "last year" signify. The HTML source implies 2009, but the same source has a 2017 copyright notice. Aaaargh!! Hulk Smash stupid website!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take your point re comparing with other websites, and I'd agree that's fairer re costs. Looking at Craigslist according to Wikipedia they claim 70 countries, I suspect they may not have taken on some of the internationalisation costs that WMF has. I'd also be inclined to take the first couple of years out of your chart as 2003-2005 were from an era when the movement and sites were much smaller. Income I'd conjecture is different, if the costs can be justified I'd point out that the existence of many much larger and older charities shows that donation funded charities can be bigger and very long lasting. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will grants save us?

At User talk:Jimbo Wales#What do you think about ads on Wikipedia? User:DHeyward wrote:

"I doubt Wikipedia will ever have conventional ads. In addition Poisson statistics argue against imminent collapse immediately after record fundraising. Wikipedia is fundamentally a service. Adverts are not required for monetization and WMF has already figured it out. The non-profit organizational answer to advertising is grants. WMF applies for and receives grants. I suspect if there was a funding crisis, the response would be to pursue grants more aggressively. It's not hard to imagine WMF hosting and integrating more content from organizations with symbiotic missions. The "search engine" kerfuffle was a bit of growing pains but illustrated how Wikipedia can generate revenue through grants."[12]

I don't see how this in any way nullifies the basic law of reality that nothing can grow exponentially forever. Eventually, you run out of organizations willing to give you grants, and if the exponential increases in spending continue, you end up in the same situation that you had without grants. When a fast-growing cancer starts using up all of the body's resources, feeding it more and more resources is just a temporary stop gap.

In addition, grants have their own problem, which is the strings that get attached to them. The WMF may very well start by only accepting no-strings grants, but when the revenues inevitably stop growing, the temptation to support the ever-growing spending by accepting a few strings then a lot of strings will be hard to resist.

As I wrote in my editorial, we should make spending transparent, publish a detailed account of what the money is being spent on and answer any reasonable questions asking for more details. We should freeze spending increases to no more than inflation plus a percent or two, build up our endowment, and restructure the endowment so that the WMF cannot dip into the principal when times get bad. Is there anyone here who actually disagrees with my proposed solution? Anyone who thinks we should not limit spending, make spending transparent, build up our endowment, or arrange things so that the WMF cannot dip into the principal when times get bad? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraising for an endowment is slightly different than for immediate costs, one way that works for some organisations is to ask donors to remember the organisation in their wills. It could possibly a cultural thing here in the UK, but the idea of a legacy leaving a permanent result by being part of an endowment while annual donations should actually be spent fairly quickly is a common thought. There is also the issue that there is a right level of free reserves, too small and you can't ride out a squall, too high and grant givers may avoid you. I'm a trustee of a charity that gives out grants albeit in a very different field than Wikimedia, and we have declined applications because people have excess free reserves. Once you do have that endowment though you have some options, one would be to aim to grow the endowment until such time as A it was needed and B it could fund a minimal keeping the lights on program. But two bigger points re grants, firstly you are making the assumption that the current fundraising model can't grow much, and that the WMF is still in rapid growth phase. I'd suggest that the opposite is true. There are many much much bigger charities as measured by annual donations received, and I'm not convinced that the Maher era WMF is as growth focussed as the Gardner era WMF. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to current draft

Guy Macon, thanks for your continued efforts on this. It's in much better shape than the earlier version I read, and much closer to publication-ready. A couple points:

We typically try to avoid the need for footnotes in the Signpost. It's not a firm rule, and in this case some are clearly needed and valuable. But if you could identify some that could be removed without weakening the piece (or incorporated as external links instead of footnotes), that would be worthwhile.
Any argument is stronger when fully considering possible objections. One statement in particular stands out to me: "the WMF has never shown any interest in correcting their errors" It might be accurate that you have not been convinced that the interest level has changed, but surely some people believe otherwise. At minimum, this should be rephrased to more clearly indicate it's your interpretation; at best, you should add a little bit to acknowledge and address the strongest available evidence that WMF is moving in a better direction. In the latter case, I'm not saying you need to modify your opinion, but rather, that you should make a good faith effort to voice and address the opinions of those who disagree with you. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(and I think this one connects to what Yair rand was saying above) -- the graphic does not include the 2015-16 data, which I would expect is now available (though I haven't had the time to seek it out). We should include that if available. And also, to the extent there is reason to think spending might be leveling off (per what Yair said, per the data, or per other reasons) that should be mentioned as well. Informing the community's reaction to the Annual Plan, and stimulating responses, (as well as the Strategic Planning effort) would be a worthwhile outcome -- so as I see it, any publication between now and April 7 would make sense; but I don't see reason to hold off too long, I do think it's close to ready. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports has financial statements for July 1st 2015 - June 30th 2016. You might want to integrate it in the table and graph: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/43/Wikimedia_Foundation_Audit_Report_-_FY15-16.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashar (talk • contribs) 09:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above suggestions are now done done except the graphic. I will need some help with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the graphic...boy, was that a hassle! (I ended up using LibreOffice, since Google Sheets won't export SVG.) Some slight format changes, but I think it's "good enough" unless somebody knows how to do it better. Guy Macon, thanks for your efforts, I skimmed through it and it looks good. I'll probably restore some of the former footnotes as external links -- didn't mean to exclude useful info. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original graphic updated. See history at [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_financial_development_multilanguage.svg ].

Did you really mean to nuke the table and shrink the graphic? They were fine at the size and location I chose. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the original table and graphic, graphic and table are now both updated to contain 2015-2016 data. I really don't think these should be tiny or on the right. They are the main point of the editorial. Everything else is my opinion. The graphic and table are objective facts that speak for themselves even if you reject all of my editorial opinions. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, I wasn't entirely satisfied with how I left it either, I was playing with ideas. But I'm surprised to learn you're attached to having both in there, and both at large sizes. This graphic (in earlier incarnations) has been published all over the place -- wiki pages, Quora answers, and (I believe, but am not certain) multiple Signpost and mainstream media articles. The graphic and chart don't communicate anything new to those who have been paying attention to these issues. Your analysis and perspective is the thing that's new, interesting, and fresh; so overshadowing it with huge graphics and charts seems like it does a disservice to readers.

A side point- Tony1 has pointed out that the color scheme is not good for those with red-green colorblindness. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. How about half the size, still inline and on the left, and colored Lime, Red, and Blue (See Web colors#HTML color names)? I believe that those with red-green colorblindness can distinguish red from lime by intensity alone. Can we even make the table half size and still be readable?

If we could figure out what "Added new data directly in source code" means at [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Wikimedia_Foundation_financial_development ] it may turn out to be easy to change the colors of the graphic.

This is the sort of thing that may very well go viral and show up in many places where the reader has not seen the graphic or the table before. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds fine. I can work on the graphic, I may have to use a PNG instead of an SVG, but I don't think that's a problem. (I used a simplified version of the graphic, which I think is easier for readers to absorb, in an op-ed I wrote last year. Since you do explicitly state that your focus is on spending rather than fund-raising, maybe a graphic showing only the spending, accompanied by the chart with all three categories, would offer a better balance of simplicity and thoroughness?) If we do keep the composite graphic, I'm fine with changing the colors as you suggest, which does have the advantage of staying similar to the version some readers have seen before. Good idea. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I suggest for the graphic. (It's pretty low resolution, which I don't know how to easily change -- I output this from Google Docs, I could try doing it from LibreOffice which gives more options but is trickier. However, I think for our purposes it's probably good enough.) I think this is the best way to balance the concerns -- we can still include the chart with the detailed info, but this will clearly present the data you're most focused on. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we could figure out what "Added new data directly in source code" means at [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Wikimedia_Foundation_financial_development ] it should be easy to make another chart showing only the spending. I think it would benefit us both to figure out what application they are using to create that chart. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got my answer at [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Wikimedia_Foundation_financial_development ].

All you have to do is open the .svg file (not one of the .png files) in a text editor (I used VIM but I tested it and Windows Notepad works fine), and it shows you...

 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
 <svg version="1.1" id="Ebene_1" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" x="0px" y="0px"
 	 width="600px" height="842.553px" viewBox="12 -785.504 581 842.553" enable-background="new 12 -785.504 581 842.553"
 	 xml:space="preserve">
 	<title>Wikimedia Foundation financial development</title>

...and so forth.

Clearly the above can be edited and saved as a new .svg file. Simple! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Thanks for..uh..clarifying. I think the PNG will work just fine for our purposes...can always improve it if somebody takes care of the SVG code. I'm about to go back in and restore some links, finally getting ready for publication -- I think this is my last significant task before we go. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exponential function or Sigmoid function?

I was looking at the graphic[13] and noticed something.

Imagine that we were having this discussion when the the latest data we had was 2013-2014 for revenue and 2014-2015 for spending. Sort of looks like it may be flattening out into something like a Sigmoid function, doesn't it?

Alas, the latest data shows spending once again closely resembling an Exponential function.

I am having trouble remembering the name of the "boom and bust" curve that starts out exponential, levels out, then crashes. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The percentage growth rates of recent years don't look exponential to me. More to the point, the endowment/reserves are now at a level where the organisation could survive a seriously bad couple of years. I would say that the best analogy for the WMF is of a fairly large UK wide charity. One with plenty of reserves, and a loyal donor base who seem happy to give money to it. As long as it retains its niche I don't see their being a crash. Of course if someone comes up with a product that renders Wikipedia obsolete then things might change. But the project is not going to collapse because of current levels of WMF spending. There are other tensions within the community and between the community and the WMF that could scupper the project, but the money comes largely from the readers, tensions within the community and between the community and the WMF tend not to involve a significant proportion of our readers. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is The Signpost a RS?

Also note that not every discussion about what the op-ed should contain is on this page. I also had some conversation with the signpost editors by email. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]