User talk:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has CancerArchive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Guy Macon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What Curve?

It was evident to me about 7 years ago that the WMF was becoming bloated. This was interesting to read. Thanks for putting it together. Killiondude (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You are so right ! I don't see any new development that I really enjoy. For instance the way images or other resources are displayed drives me crazy. Used to be that you could see the image and below the properties. Now you find yourself in that viewer that makes it difficult to switch quickly. Typical thing that looks good and works bad. Or why do I have to click "Edit now" all the time. What does the thing think why I clicked "Edit" in the 1st place ? Every single time now instead of just opening the edit window it asks this - and no option to disable that nonsense. In my opinion WP was highjacked a decade ago and since then it got worse. You are absolutely right about the future. I also believe that we'll loose WP as it is. Nothing anyone can do about it except maybe some really good lawyer ;-) ... JB. --92.195.95.204 (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The lede draws attention to logarithmic growth, so the chart should have a logarithmic y axis. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. For most readers, a logarithmic y axis hides ~~logarithmic~~ exponential growth. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I find the essay compelling, but when it comes to talking about exponential growth, you are losing credibility, The growth is not logarithmic/exponential. The first three years, yes. Third through ninth, a different exponent can be fit reasonably. Later years require at least a third transition to a smaller exponent. The ratios are not constant. It is not exponential. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Go to https://mycurvefit.com/

Enter the following data:

 X-Axis  Y-Axis
    1     0.024      
    2     0.17       
    3     0.78       
    4     2.07       
    5     3.54       
    6     5.61       
    7     10.2        
    8     17.9        
    9     29.3        
    10    35.7        
    11    45.9        
    12    52.6        
    13    65.9

Select Nonlinear --> Exponential --> Proportional rate growth or decrease

(Or simply go to https://mycurvefit.com/index.html?action=openshare&id=dfb2752c-7896-461a-afad-b343ca6708d4 and see my results)

Look at the resulting exponential curve and see how well it fits the data. --17:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Consider the following:

This graph compares doubling times and half lives of exponential growths (bold lines) and decay (faint lines), and their 70/t and 72/t approximations. In the SVG version, hover over a graph to highlight it and its complement.

As you can clearly see from the above graph, there are multiple exponential growth curves. Pick the wrong one and you will come to the false conclusion that an exponential growth curve is not exponential. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon,

I can't make sense of that graph above. Anyway, thanks for the update. I have graphed the updated data. 2004-2008, the spending was growing very very fast, but it was not exponential. Since then, it has diminished to be a slower growth that better fits a single exponential, growing at ~20% per year. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

When I first wrote this, an exponential curve was a good a good fit. Now, with a few more years of data, it looks like the rate of increase in dollars per year is ever-increasing, but the rate of increase in percent is about the same from year to year, so I have removed all mention of "exponential".

That being said, a growth rate of 20% every year still means that the growth each year is bigger than it was last year, simply because it is 20% of a bigger number. And that curve is still impossible to sustain forever, because it will still end up with more dollars of spending that there are atoms in the universe if you wait long enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That’s right. 20% per annum growth is exponential growth, a booming economy right now, and unsustainable. Every year, for every five people, hire one more for next year. Any job need doing? Hire someone to do it. Business units need to make it a core objective to expand their business, or to be lost between other growing units. At this rate, expenditure will exceed $1B around 2027. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

At no point has growth been exponential. Check the ratio between each set of successive numbers. Exponential growth would mean those stay the same. People often say "exponential growth" when they mean "growth that makes me uncomfortable", but they are not the same.

Plot the data in a log-log scale and it looks more like straight lines, meaning it's polynomial growth. From some quick calculations, revenue grows according to t^2.64, while expenses grows according to t^2.98, meaning they're both somewhere between square and cubic growth. Still unsustainable, but not exponential. According to this model, expenses will exceed revenue somewhere in 2038, which is also the year where both pass the billion dollar mark.

(This was written in july 2020, when only the numbers up to 2018-2019 were available. To check this prediction, (Revenue, Expenses) would be (141M, 110M) in 2019-2020 and (164M, 130M) in 2020-2021. Except the pandemic will likely throw off any prediction about 2020. ) 31.21.110.226 (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This was fixed nearly a year ago with the edit comment "When I first wrote this, an exponential curve was a good fit. Now, with a few more years of data, it looks like the rate of increase in dollars is getting bigger, but the rate of increase in percent is about the same from year to year."[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The word "exponential" was present in the nutshell that was added a few months ago, maybe that's what the IP was talking about. I've reworded. Also, wouldn't a constant percentage increase be exponential growth? Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 22:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyediting

Great analysis (as far as I've looked into it). Has some repetitive wording about well known in X span, e.g. "... well known for many years. The answer to the WMF's problems with software development has been well known for decades" back to back and not long after a similar statement. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 11:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC) PS:, re "Wikipedia Signpost February 2017 Opinion/Editorial (a version of this page as edited by the Signpost editors. This page is the original version, and the one that I keep updated.)" – It's not 100% clear which page the second sentence refers to. I think it means "The page you are reading now is ...". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 11:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixed it: [2] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Links

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/

Benjamin (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Already cited, in the paragraph that starts "Although this essay focuses on spending, not fundraising..." --Guy Macon (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Anyway, thanks for writing this. Benjamin (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Need help updating image for Wikimedia financials

At WP:CANCER the table has been updated for 2017-2018 but the image only goes to 2016-2017. Could someone with SVG editing skills please update the image? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The page could use a graph template instead, perhaps. It would make it easier to update. Example:

--Yair rand (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

That was a great idea. Done. Thanks! -Guy Macon (talk)

It's a symptom of how the World at large is changing

The WMF is growing fast relative to the World economy, but this is also the case for many other entities that live on cyberspace or are based on new electronic technologies. E.g. G5 technology is also growing extremely rapidly. This just points out to a takeover of old systems by new systems. The bigger longer term picture is that the World is transitioning toward a machine civilization over the course of the next few centuries. Count Iblis (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:CANCER on Hacker news

See [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21699011 ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see...

Guy Macon ...the latest KPMG audit/report in the essay, the one from from 2018/19. I ran across it somewhere here on WP and downloaded a personal copy but don't know how to search for it on Wikimedia & give you the link. (I am but a 'umble editor sir and know not of such things.) I did try just changing the year dates in the 2017-2018 URL to 18-19 but that didn't work.... Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I am a bit swamped by a big project I am working on, but I should be able to up the financials and update the page within a week or so. It's not as if anyone at the WMF is going to follow or even seriously discuss my recommendations any time soon. :( Appreciate the heads up. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

For those who think the page is too long to read, here are those recommendations:

If we want to avoid disaster, we need to start shrinking the cancer now, before it is too late. 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 limit spending increases to no more than inflation plus some percentage (adjusted for any increases in page views), build up our endowment, and structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the principal when times get bad.

If we do these things now, in a few short years we could be in a position to do everything we are doing now, while living off of the endowment interest, and would have no need for further fundraising. Or we could keep fundraising, using the donations to do many new and useful things, knowing that whatever we do there is a guaranteed income stream from the endowment that will keep the servers running indefinitely.

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)