User talk:Jimbo Wales

WMF 20% increase in salaries/wages and 250% increase in awards and grants in 1 year ?

Salaries and wages in 2016 were $31,713,961, up from 26,049,224 in 2015 and Awards and grants in 2016 were $11,354,612 up from 4,522,689 in 2015

Jimbo, I finally got around to looking at Guy Macon's links stemming from the discussions here which linked to this, below which was this, which refers to Guy's extremely well reasoned, imo, essay,which links to our WMF 2016 financial statement.

So, I have three questions, if you would be so kind,

1~Guy Macon makes a suggestion in his essay I would ask you to weigh in on, i.e.: "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." Jimbo, do you think that is a good idea?

2~Do you feel the annual increase in spending on salaries, wages, awards and grants was reasonable and well spent?

3~I would like to see a breakdown of the individual salaries, wages, awards and grants, where and/or is that info available? Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jimbo:, Hi, I just wanted to be sure you had noticed the topic directly above.Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim

I disagree substantially with parts of Guy's essay, while at the same time thinking that it is a valuable discussion to have.

First, let's just jump to one of his core conclusions, which is that our "runaway spending" will cause us to "burn through our reserves" leading to bankruptcy. But if you look at the actual numbers, what you see is a steady and strong increase in the building up of reserves, not a "burning through" at all. Yes, of course, if we face a decline in revenue in the future, and if - contrary to all evidence - we don't take corrective action - then of course we would eventually burn through reserves. But there is no reason at all to think that would be even remotely likely - the Foundation has always run in a very very fiscally conservative way, as directly evidenced by the data in his table.

Second, I am well in favor of increased transparency and accountability in whatever ways are possible. I'd be interested in some concrete suggestions of what further could be done. One of the original questions, above, was about the increase in grants - well the process for that is incredibly public and I encourage interested community members to get involved.

I'm asked if I agree with this: "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." Yes, of course I do, and I think we already see the WMF doing a better job of that than virtually any other organization I know of. I also welcome suggestions of exactly how they might improve further.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no doubts that it is your intent and the intent of the rest of the WMF to take corrective action if we face a decline in revenue in the future. Alas, my essay is based only on past performance -- what the WMF has done in the past -- and not on good intentions. You are on the board. Can you at least propose that the WMF limit spending to no more than a ten percent increase (10% over inflation and adjusted for any increases in page views, of course). 20%? 30%? Are you willing to propose ANY limit on spending increases, no matter how generous? Come on. Jimbo. You are our founder. You built this thing. It was your vision, and your vision was the right one. You are the only board member who can safely propose any limit on spending increases. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The past performance of the WMF - as evidenced in your chart - shows a clear track record of consistently spending less than revenue and steadily building reserves. There is no evidence in your chart of any proclivity to spend beyond our means. So, looking at the past, you have to draw the conclusion that this is a financially conservative and cautious organization of precisely the type that is well positioned culturally and otherwise to weather a storm.

I do not support WMF spending limits based on the passage of time or the rate of inflation, as such an approach would be anathema to opportunities for growth and innovation. You might view Wikimedia as a "completed vision" which now should shift into longterm maintenance mode - I do not. We have a huge amount of work to do in the developing world, and we have huge potential challenges from changes in technology. I do very much propose strong spending limits based on our financial resources (income and reserves). That is to say, I think the WMF should continue a policy of increasing spending based on a thoughtful look at projects and opportunities - within the constraints of our budgets.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the refreshingly clear answers to the actual questions asked. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo, Awards and grants were $2 million 4 years ago and increased to $11 million last year. I think the annual increase should be limited to a specified maximum economic barometer like the EU inflation rate for example. Where can I make that suggestion?Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope that suggestion is made nowhere. Assuming that increases in any particular line item ought to be limited to some metrics such as inflation is warranted only if a number of assumptions are true most of which are unlikely to be true. Let's just address one — it presupposes that the starting level is completely warranted. Can you provide a detailed analysis that shows that the total of $2 million in grants four years ago was exactly the right level?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jimbo:, oops, I almost forgot. I'd like to see a list of all individual WMF employees' total remuneration, including per diems, on an annual basis going back 5 years, preferably by name, but if that is not ok, at least by an employee number so we can see how much money they make individually and their annual increases.Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim

He's probably booked some A/L (grabbing those cunning extra days due to the falling of Easter this year!) But on a more serious note, I'd imagine that some if not most of the information requested above is commercially confidential...? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't buy any "commercially confidential" arguments. The WMF can reveal most of that if they choose to do so, holding back only that which infringes on employee privacy. Wikipedia doesn't have competitors who are only prevented from opening up their own online encyclopedia because of some sort of secrets we are not revealing. In fact, we allow and encourage anyone and everyone to open their own online encyclopedia, and we give away our software and the content of all of our articles to help them do it. (Finding 122,676 active editors and 861 administrators who are willing to create 60,547,635 pages of all kinds and 6,818,094 articles all for free is their problem.)

BTW, I am still waiting for some substantive answers from the WMF to the questions asked at m:Talk:Wikimedia Endowment#How should we select members of the Wikimedia Endowment Advisory board?...

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like Lisa Gruwell gave you clear and substantive answers but you kept on badgering her in a manner that I think failed to assume good faith. I'm not surprised if she just decided it was like talking to a wall. Nonetheless, I will attempt to answer some of your questions (again) as best I can.

"could some future CEO or some future board drain the endowment to support continued spending? Could they be forced to do so if the WMF loses a major lawsuit and has to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars?"

The WMF Endowment is being designed with precisely these kinds of questions in mind, and with reasonable safeguards in place. The whole point of setting up a separate governing body is to introduce a separate level of oversight for the endowment - checks and balances are important. If we merely set up a big bank account and called it "an endowment" then the protections for the long run would be much less.

Under no circumstances can any CEO ever unilaterally spend any money at all - there is a budgeting process and approval of the budget by the board. Spending without board approval is not allowed. But with the endowment, there is an added level in which not only does the CEO have to make the case to the WMF board for the spending, the case also must be put to the endowment board. Because any such decisions on that sort of thing are years away (we are just starting to collect money) now is the time to be thinking about and formulating what the longterm policy should be about that.

In terms of being forced to do so - again, part of the point of the endowment board is to provide an additional layer of safety. While one can never guarantee anything legally, and I am not a lawyer, it is important to note that assets of the endowment are not assets of the Foundation - so they should be, if things are done correctly (as they will be) safeguarded.

I have been involved in discussions with potential donors and think that, with staff, board and endowment board support, we will be able to bring in tens of millions of dollars over the next several years. (As usual, I'm more optimistic than that, but that's the basic plan - $100 million in 10 years.) Part of what the new class of donors we are targetting here are interested in is precisely that their (large) gifts be used appropriately. There may be specific gift-instruments that impose regulations on how we spend the money, and these will be decided in accordance with our usual principles and procedures.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a note to say there is currently an election for the WMF Board coming right up, and questions for candidates are being accepted here. Might be worth asking a question along these lines there as well. I'd certainly be interested to answer it. :) The Land (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. See m:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees/Questions/Submitted/1#Uncontrolled spending increases. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, @Guy Macon:, I think you should please run for the WMF Board...today or tomorrow is the last day to get your nomination in, see here Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps next year. As a board member, I would not be allowed to make the sort of proposals that I am free to make as an ordinary user. Right now, I would ask anyone who thinks I would be a good choice for the board to vote for Doc James. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

As a board member, you would in no way be restricted from making exactly the same kinds of proposals that you can make as an ordinary user.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The self-nomination deadline for the Board of Trustees is indeed coming up quickly (about 34 hours from the date of this comment). It would take some significant time to prepare the nomination. There are only 6 candidates declared. We need more. While the Board has traditionally been very diverse, I do think we need more diverse candidates from the community. e.g.

• There is only 1 woman running (and 5 men)
• Geographically it's all global north
• 4 from Europe
• 1 from North America
• 1 from Jordan

We can do better than that. It's time for people to step up to the plate. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That "awards and grants were $2 million 4 years ago and increased to $11 million last year." was one of the best things to happen at WP in years. What this represents is providing support for WPedians individually and and in small groups to engage in projects of their own initiative that are directly based on actually recognized needs and capabilities. This is in contrast to prior growth in increasing the amount spent centrally not all of which in the past has in fact been used in a way many of us --including I think Guy -- thought of essential value, or even of positive value at all. Given Guy's view of the movement as I understand it, this sort of increased spending is what he should be applauding, not doubting. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

DGG makes a good point. It may very well be that this particular spending increase was well worth doing. Transparency -- telling us exactly what the money was spent on -- would allow each of us to decide that question for ourselves. That being said, I do not believe that every spending increase was worth doing.

Look at the total spending trend:

• 2012: $29,260,652 US Dollars.
• 2013: $35,704,796 US Dollars.
• 2014: $45,900,745 US Dollars.
• 2015: $52,596,782 US Dollars.
• 2016: $65,947,465 US Dollars.

Is there really no part of the WMF that can "scrape by" with the amount we spent last year or the year before that? Not a single place where we can make even a small spending cut? Really? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course there are places that we have made spending cuts in the past, and places where we will make spending cuts in the future. Adjusting spending in response to changing conditions and things learned is a normal and healthy part of how a good organization functions over time. It is of course true that some spending, made with the best information available at the time, and with the best of intentions, doesn't work out. I'd be very worried about an organization that never had any pilot programs that didn't work out - if you aren't sometimes failing, then you aren't likely to be trying hard enough to do interesting things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jimbo:, you may have overlooked this request: I'd like to see a list of all individual WMF employees' total remuneration, including per diems, on an annual basis going back 5 years, preferably by name, but if that is not ok, at least by an employee number so we can see how much money they make individually and their annual increases. Please advise if you are willing to advance this request and if not, your reasoning. Thanks.Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a terrible idea and I would never support it. It is an approach apparently rooted in a bizarre and excessive lack of trust grounded in no evidence whatsoever. I would gladly support increasing the transparency around salary ranges and hiring practices, so long as suggestions in that direction are not disrespectful to individual privacy and so long as reasons that aren't paranoid are given for it. A better and more respectful approach to genuine concerns in this area would be to have a compensation review conducted by a competent expert. But I'm not really aware of any really genuine concerns in this area. The WMF pays fair but modest salaries. Unlike other employers in the world of the Internet there can be no stock options. It is my view that employees should not be asked to take huge paycuts to come to the Foundation to work. I think our salaries are set in a sensible fashion. I have met with hundreds of donors large and small and have never heard any desire by them for this kind of detailed invasive data.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Jimbo, a couple of points:

1: I'm coming from the old adage "an oz. of prevention is worth a pound of cure" because I think that by going overboard on transparency any foundation or non-profit can only help itself and its donors and employees. For example, our website says there are about 280 staff and contractors and our financial statement says we spend 33 million on salaries, so that gives the impression that our average employee makes $120,000. per year which may or may not be accurate but if reported like that ijn a news article, it could, imo, turn off a lot of donors. Whether you or I think that's a lot of money doesn't matter when average Americans or Europeans compare that number with their own salary, so, I think it would be better to just list everybody who makes over $100,000. per year, which will certainly be a lot less than half of the 280, and use some silicon valley comparables to put our salaries in perspective. This approach is being used right now in the Gov. of Ontario by publishing annually what they call the Sunshine List of employees earning over $100,000. per year. This approach has completely stopped the "revelations" that local newspapers used to come up with about certain individual salaries.

2:Guy lists in his essay several articles which are critical of our fundraising approach and theIBT article has one of our fundraising banners from 2015, and the wording could, imo, absolutely be seen as exaggeration or worse, imo, I'll have a go at it:°

We'll get right to it: This week we ask you to help Wikipedia. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We're sustained by donations averaging about £10. Only a tiny portion of our readers give. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave £2, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. That's right, the price of a cup of coffee is all we need. If Wikipedia is useful to you, please take one minute to keep it online and growing. We're a small non-profit with costs of a top site: servers, staff and programs. We serve millions of readers, but run on a fraction of what other top sites spend. We believe knowledge is a foundation. A foundation for human potential, for freedom, for opportunity. We believe everyone should have access to knowledge for free, without restriction, without limitation. Please help us end the fundraiser and improve Wikipedia. Thank you.

1:"protect" seems to alarming to me....."continue" would be better 2: "tiny" should be "small"...3."keep it online" is really bad and should be removed....4:"small" should be removed...

So, its not a big deal at this point in time, but it requires your attention, I think. Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim

Re: the so-called "sunshine list". The article you link to notes a substantial problem—the $100,000 threshold was set in 1996, when a hundred grand (even in Canadian dollars) was a very hefty salary. I'm not saying it isn't still a decent income, but the purpose of the list – to identify potential abuses of government money, and to 'name-and-shame' beneficiaries of government largesse – seems to have been diluted because the list's threshold hasn't been indexed to inflation or otherwise allowed to keep pace with the economy. A generation of inflation would have brought the cutoff to somewhere around $150K, except the line hasn't been moved for the usual political reasons.

I'm not sure that taking a name-and-shame approach to the Wikimedia Foundation's employees – particularly the rank and file, at such a low threshold – is helpful or beneficial. $100K is reasonable middle- to upper-middle-management money in tech, with more money on the table for particularly desirable skills or in particularly costly markets. (Source: My wife has a senior role at a software company with about $1 billion US in revenue.) Deciding to 'out' mid-level employees by name because they happen to make reasonable money would not be a good look for us, and would probably hurt our recruitment and retention.

If you really must explore such an approach, set the threshold to a level that actually represents a genuinely high income in 2017. Draw a line at $175K or $200K, where someone earning that kind of money should reasonably expect to be more than an anonymous cog in the Wikimedia machine, and it's reasonable for us to ask if they're earning that coin. If absolutely necessary, break down the rest of the salaries into bands (0-50K, 50-100K, etc.) and show the aggregate number without names. The purpose of a "sunshine list" is to allow the public to detect abuses, not to shame employees who happen be getting paid a reasonable wage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

We could start by doubling Jimbo's salary (That's a joke folks! He does not get a salary!) for having to politely respond to the nonsense on this page. Regarding the question of whether details of salaries should be published, the answer is no. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in free speech or anarchy. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent and profound unintentional thought provoke, from an unlikely source, that free speech and anarchists are strangely and rapidly becoming mortal enemies. These are the wonderful epiphanies which appear out of nowhere on Wikipedia talk pages, that I don't run into anywhere else. Thanks. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Now that I've been able to "sleep on it", this free reign of so called "anarchists" is something I'm old enough to have witnessed before. i.e. the global "establishment" aka Liberal international economic order's organic ability to absorb, hence neuter, the "anti-establishment" organisations like it did in the 3 decades post 60s with the anti-war, anti-materialism and feminism movements....so now its absorbing the small, but perhaps growing, anarchists subset. Wikipedia , imo, by its extremely open and popular (non-corporate or government) control structure, may also be in the process of being targeted and/or absorbed by "the establishment", through the paid editing, COI, channels of intrusion...I'm not saying its any kind of conspiracy or even planned attack by "the establishment"...I am saying its a natural organic tendency of the corporate and governmental forces to eliminate, diminish and/or absorb their competition, in this case, an encyclopedia full of free and unbiased information.Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim In addition, and back to this topic more directly, what Carrite says below is a reasonable prognosis and cause for concern.Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim

• Here's the problem. WMF has become very, very good at raising money. At the same time, there are absolutely no competitive constraints forcing WMF to function in an economically rational manner. They have more money than they have matches with which to burn it. Thus we have spending more than doubling from 2012 to 2016, an unhealthy rate of growth. Now they have a $65M "nut" to raise every year. Next year it will be higher still. One of these years, probably sooner rather than later, the glorious fundraising targets will not be met. And that will open the door for advertising, as the bureaucracy attempts to defend itself from potential (gasp! shock! horror!) cutbacks. Carrite (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is really quite obviously wrong. If you were evaluating a business and saw the numbers for revenue and expenses, you would say "This is a very well run business, and how can I invest"? Spending has more than doubled, yes. So has revenue. This is what successful planning and financial management looks like. This is what functioning in an economically rational manner looks like.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please share with us the structural pressures pushing the bureaucracy towards economization. I contend that there are none, that WMF is an unchecked fiefdom that is spending out just like every bureaucracy has done anywhere as the end of its periodic budget cycle concludes. Or is the policy simply to up spending automatically in proportion to revenue as it increases? In no way is this what economic rationality looks like — it is what a bureaucracy with too much money and scant external supervision looks like. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The primary structural pressure is an independent board that has consistently insisted on solid financial performance. Look at the excellent track record and stop insulting good people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Track record of what?!?! Do you really think value has been delivered as WMF's cumulative total spending edges towards the quarter-billion-dollars mark? Why does the default WP screen still look like it's 2002??? Why doesn't WYSIWYG editing work worth a tinker's damn? Carrite (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• While not meeting a fundraising target is a realistic scenario, the introduction of advertising is not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that decision rests with a 10 person board, one of whom is Jimmy Wales, and three of whom don't even necessarily have a WP account. What's to stop the 10 people who have greenlighted the spendout from doing whatever it takes to keep the revenue rolling in when the bureaucratic pressure to avoid cutbacks ramps up? Do you expect WMF to fall on the sword or rather to get creative with "sponsorship opportunities"? Which strikes you as more likely? What is "unrealistic" about the tail that has been wagging the dog for more than 5 years doing whatever it takes to avoid cutting back what has taken so long to build? Carrite (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have consistently and will continue to consistently oppose the introduction of advertising in Wikipedia. This is a matter that, in the entire history of the board, there has been virtual unanimity about. Indeed, the idea is so far fetched that it isn't even something that the board discusses. What you appear to be missing is that the entire point of the board structure (with unpaid board members, with a majority from the community) is precisely to safeguard Wikipedia from such things. You can be absolutely and totally dishonest and pretend it is otherwise, but this is just scare mongering and insulting to good people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

My community only has 3 seats on the 10-person board (I am not eligible to vote for any of the other 7 seats). Even if you consider the 2 affiliated organisation seats to be "community seats", that's only half, not a majority. And since Wikidata's CC0 1.0 license, which doesn't require attribution, auto-magically transforms Wikipedia's CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed content that does require attribution, then Google has all it wants, so there will never be any need to run ads on Wikipedia. As long as Google needs Wikipedia, it will keep funding the Foundation. Financial support from the proletariat is nice to have, but as long as Google and other profit-making businesses need Wikipedia to help them generate advertising-based revenue streams, it won't be necessary. wbm1058 (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I consider 6 seats to be community seats. As an unpaid volunteer who doesn't work at the Foundation, I consider myself a member of the community. Your concerns about Google funding Wikipedia seem a bit... let's just say... lacking in factual basis. I don't know why you use insulting terms like "proletariat". Basically, you're just making things up that don't make any sense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think that word is insulting, it's just a synonym for workers. Who am I insulting? I suppose from some points-of-view, the usage of "community" in this context might be insulting. A better term might be "appointed board members" – there are only five "elected" board members, so there is no majority of elected board members. I put "elected" in quotes because, by my understanding, even these members are appointed. By "appointed", I mean elected by the board itself. The "elections" are just for the purposes of recommending nominees for appointment. Maybe some appointed board members would feel insulted to learn that they were not members of the community. wbm1058 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Cutting back outreach programs and expenses not directly related to the day-to-day running of Wikipedia seems far more likely to me. Given that Jimbo has been fielding this same concern for at least the past ten years with the same response, in line with Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Advertising, the assertion that fundraising targets will not be met probably sooner rather than later hence advertising seems without merit. Do you want to wager that we'll have advertising on the website within the next five years? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Cutting back won't be as hard as Carrite thinks. It would be easy to drop funding for the Signpost and let their publication schedule lapse from fortnightly to fortmonthly. Yes I know, the Signpost doesn't have anything to do with advertising, so my statement makes no sense. lol wbm1058 (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, this assertion is silly. The only space that doesn't allow advertising is Wikipedia itself, but as fewer and fewer readers read content directly from Wikipedia itself and more and more read Wikipedia from Wikidata-enabled third party sites (of which Google is foremost), the idea that Wikipedia does not support advertising becomes more and more of a joke. I view advertising as a major raison d'être for Wikidata. And the raison d'être for the ongoing Wikimedia movement strategy discussion is finding new ways to spend that money. I don't hold out big hopes that much will be spent on quality-control and filling in gaps in the core encyclopedic content, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. More likely the money will be spent on finding more ways for automation and Global South editors to dump more work into the laps of the already overworked core volunteers. wbm1058 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• "I view advertising as a major raison d'être for Wikidata." This makes no sense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

From Wikidata: There is concern that the project is being influenced by lobbying companies, PR professionals and search engine optimizers. As of December 2015, according to Wikimedia statistics, half of the information in Wikidata is unsourced. Another 30% is labeled as having come from Wikipedia, but with no indication as to which article. In short, Wikidata is an unreliable source, whose main value is in use by third-party sites for advertising and promotional purposes – web pages using Wikidata such as Google's Knowledge Graph also display ads. wbm1058 (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Which means zero in regard to introducing advertising on Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

wbm1058, thank you. Very interesting and all new info for me.Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim

wbm1058, after reading the Register article and the Wikipedian Max Klein interview linked to by the Register, I am wondering if human editing/Wikipedia will be replaced entirely by AI in the hands of search engines pretty soon. Is that a realistic possibility?Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim

Who knows, we're getting to the "hockey stick" end of the exponential curve in the growth of computing power. Before the bots take on any higher-end tasks, I'd hope that they would just start making spelling corrections and fixing other routine syntax errors and get smarter at detecting & reverting vandalism. As the WMF relies on humans for most useful bot-development (why should they be motivated to develop solutions, when there's a volunteer army working for free?) I'd expect most big innovations to come from elsewhere. It's possible the time could come when Google didn't need Wikipedia anymore, but that's still on the long-term horizon at best, I think. wbm1058 (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Could not the bots use the same reliable sources filter we use and have a small staff to update? As far as spelling, syntax and vandalism, I know little about the level of difficulty for the bots to deal with those 3 matters, but I'd guess they could get on top of those things pretty quickly. In terms of the volunteer army working for free, we must be getting something out of it or else we wouldn't be doing it. The "reward" likely varies somewhat, but intellectual stimulation and expansion of my own knowledge are the 2 primary "rewards" for me; also, "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another." Also, there is some feeling of contributing to humanity via this encyclopedia, but maybe the AI can do just as good a job, I don't know. Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim

I just remembered, the best kind of life experience for anybody, with Wikipedia editing or anything else, is to have fun doing what they have fun doing and feel like doing, and leave the results, long or short term, to God, or history, or the forces of nature, or whatever else somebody might believe in, if anything; which fits well with no crystal ball.Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Imagine a day in the future when there isn't enough money coming in to cover spending. Jimbo says that the WMF will immediately react and reduce spending. This is a hard thing to do. The WMF will have to fire good people who are doing useful work. They will have to miss opportunities, and cancel programs that are showing excellent results. Jimbo is going to have to look good friends in the eye and say "we can't afford you anymore". But Jimbo says that is what will happen. My prediction is a bit different. I predict that the WMF will figure that this is a temporary setback, that the good times will surely return soon, and will wait until next year to make those cuts. And then wait another year. As always in the predicting-the-future business, you cannot tell which prediction is right, and in fact both may be wrong. With that, I am going to withdraw from this conversation. Anyone who is going to agree with me has already done so. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand there may be issues with revealing salaries of individual WMF employees. But I'd really like to see a histogram of the salaries. The reason for this is simple: salaries don't really average. What people expect throughout every institution in today's stratified society is that maybe four Brahmins will be making all the money, and then there will be all the nameless legions of underlings who technically do the work. (Note they are not in any meaningful way responsible for an institution's success, as they can and should feel instantly and casually replaceable for any small reason; it is the Brahmins whose vague and contradictory pontifications, backed by the power to give and withhold their endless wealth, who are solely responsible for anything an institution does, except of course any errors) Now it is possible that Wikipedia is the one lone exception to this iron rule of how society should be organized, in which case the histogram would prove an interesting sociological artifact; otherwise, at least it would go to demonstrate the universality of economic law, confirming the general faith in capitalism that has taken over the role of the certainty once given by the public to their traditional deities. Wnt (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wnt, the histogram for the top 5 or so earners is a great idea. About 8 years ago the Toronto Star dug up the salary of the head of the Ontario Heart and Stroke Foundation...it was about $300,000 if I remember correctly..published it on their front page and there was a huge public outcry. Besides, its the right thing to do when an entity is seeking money from the public, imo, to have something like a histogram just for transparency purposes. Thirdly, I think that the culture of keeping salaries private is self serving for the top dogs (WNT's "Brahmins"), old fashioned, out dated, and much more in vogue in the USA than anywhere else, I believe...just check it out in the UK Jimbo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Except that we do not have a culture of keeping the top salaries private and indeed publish them as a part of our regular financial reporting. See for example Form 990, pages 7 and 8. Is there a plausible case for publishing more information about salaries? I suppose there could be, but please let's start with a basis of facts and trust and think about the question reasonably.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This is perfect...I did not know about this publicly available listing. Yes, you are correct, Jimbo. There is no need for any more salary info to be published. This is a perfect amount of transparency, imo. Thank you very much.Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim

This is indeed a very satisfactory response! But I don't know accounting, so I realize there are bits I still don't really know. For example, I am surprised to see that Jimmy Wales, chair Jan-Bart de Vreede, vice-chair Patricio Lorente, and trustees Stu West, Maria Sefadari, Guy Kawasaki, Alice Wiegand, Samuel Klein, Phoebe Ayers, And Frieda Brioschi are all working for literally nothing, not from WMF and not from related organizations either. They deserve a big round of applause for that, but it also means I don't know if they're counted among the 192 WMF "employees" on the form or with the 80,000 "volunteers", which actually affects the average. The high paid employees are just over $300K - Lila Tretikov and Sue Gardner - and Geoff Brigham at $228K, secretary and general counsel. The rest are all $150K to $180K, which is still a lot of money but not too surprising I suppose. All told, nine people account for $1,849,754 of salary, ten are unpaid, and 173 (183?) others get $19,979,908 (I think) minus $1,849,754 = $18,130,154 for an average of $104,798.60 apiece. But in fact only 69 employees make over $100,000 according to page 8, so that means 104 employees share, at most, $10,400,000 and 69 get at least $7,730,154 for an average of $112,031.20 apiece, or at most 69 x $152,202 (the fifth highest salary) = $10,501,938. Anyway, I still wonder why can't WMF find a way to do completely without an executive director, but I have to admit that the stratification seems less than I expected. The hundred thousand dollar salaries make a person wince but I'm not sure I want WMF to move to New Delhi either. I feel like Wikimedia should do more to get the volunteer contribution model to extend into computer programming, but admittedly this is a hard thing to do. Mostly you need to do more for make sure we know what you've already told us. But I still wouldn't mind a more detailed histogram with bins of 5 employees or less so we really have a decent picture. Wnt (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"You need $119,570 a year to live comfortably in San Francisco--at least $30,000 more than in any other American city." from Inc. Using the official CPI numbers, this site, puts San Francisco as number 2 most expensive after San Diego. Of course you have to also understand that programmers make more on average than most other people. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• I would suggest that people who are so inclined sit down and draft an alternate financial plan, an alternate budget and alternate fundraising and revenue goals. Personally I can think of better ways to waste my spare time. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That would require knowing where the money is going now in detail. Personally I would fire half the employees/contractors working ineptly on technical projects and retask the remainder on resolving bugs and the fulfilling the community wish list. There would probably be enough money to Put some generous bonuses in for completing on time and under budget. Less time wasted on in-house vanity and internal politics driven projects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Only in death: That's a fair point. However, surely you must have some idea, based upon the public record and the disclosures, as to where the money is going and where it should go. I'm not asking in a "put up or shut up" fashion but am genuinely trying to understand if there are better uses for the rather large Foundation budget. For example, can some of it be devoted to databases, such as Lexis/Nexis or ProQuest? Such resources would enormously improve the project. That's just one idea. Of course, one would have to know how much they would cost. Coretheapple (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, I have 'some' idea. The problem with 'some' idea is that it is not detailed enough to make a real plan from. Wages for example. Without knowing what level of employee gets what, broken down by project, its practically impossible to determine if there is value for money in the expenditure. A lesser-paid but more productive team is worth keeping on compared to a higher paid but ultimately unproductive team. Given the various dead-end projects the WMF has been running in recent years, there is certainly a lot of scope for re-organising how it runs its technical teams, how they are managed, the oversight, targets etc. Its entirely possible the entire technical staff are highly skilled and productive workers who have suffered from a case of bad senior management and lack of board-level oversight. I doubt it though. Either way, to get an accurate picture of the whole, costs need to be broken down to a per-project level, including salaries. This does not mean individual salaries, but it certainly needs more detail than is available now. The issue with grants is entirely different. It will almost always be a good thing to give away more grants from its available funds - as long as the recipients are a clear benefit. This will always be subjective to a point, but there are certainly some grants that appear to not be value for money on the face of it, that could have been better used elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Given that between 50% and 80% of all IT projects fail, it's not in the least obvious that it's easy to improve on WIkimedia's project management. Pointing at individual project failures is certainly not enough. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Coretheapple re your Lexis/Nexis or ProQuest suggestion, you might want to check out what the WMF is already doing at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Publishers or sign up for one here. Of course that isn't an alternative/better use for the Foundation budget, it is one of the things that has been added on in the last few years of growth. ϢereSpielChequers 22:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Oh yes, I have fully availed myself of the databases noted there, Some fine ones there, and also there are good ones available online for alumni at certain universities and even humble New York Public Library cardholders. But imagine the kind of great sourcing we'd have with ProQuest and/or Lexis and Factiva. Coretheapple (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikitribune

See plan: www.wikitribune.com. Wikid77 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo. Saw this about Wikitribune. Sounds interesting, and here's to success. So is this going to be related to Wikipedia in any? Functional or organizational, or even cross-pollination of any sort? Also wondering what this might mean for WikiNews. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Note how a major weakness of Wikipedia has been the restriction against "investigative journalism" as against going to the scene and interviewing the participants. While WP has the benefit of being "encyclopedic" (all-encompassing), beyond the shallow limit of focus on simply what's new, the WP editors are not allowed to interview participants to get answers to the big gaps in coverage of a recent topic. Hopefully, Wikitribune could quickly answer those questions by interviewing key people or analysing primary sources to give quotable conclusions as answers to fill gaps in WP's coverage of a topic. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a feature, not a bug. Resolute 13:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Of this encyclopedia, not a feature of news gathering in general. Now news gathering has lots of bugs of its own, but let's not pretend that the same model works everywhere. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course. But I was clearly responding to the complaint about how unfair it is that we don't allow original research on Wikipedia. Resolute 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I ran into it here. I'll wish you luck as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And the BBC linked to https://www.wikitribune.com/

This does remind me of a suggestion I gave to you several months ago - that news media should have a delayed CC-BY-SA license, say delayed by a week or a month. There would obviously be a benefit to Wikipedia, but I think it would have a benefit to the Wikitribune as well. Knowing that more info can very easily be imported from the WTrib after a short period, WPedia editors will likely quote WTrib and cite it as one of their first choices of sources, so (after a period to see if it establishes itself as a reliable source) there will be lots of cites and links to the WTrib in WPedia. I hope that fits in with your business plan. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I like the concept of a delayed CC-BY-SA license. The delay is a detail, albeit important - I'd lean toward a month.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiTribune is CC-BY licensed prose,[1] compatible with Wikinews's CC-BY v2.5 license,[2] which means that WikiTribune-prose-content is *already* compatible for direct import into enWiki as I understand it.... Scroll down to the adapter's chart;[3] enWiki is CC-BY-SA v3 or v4 (plus a bit of GFDL sometimes and some fair use imagefiles and quotations and such). So there is no need for WikiTribune content to be proprietary-and-then-CC-BY-SA-after-a-delay, because it is already libre-licensed CC-BY from the beginning — provide attribution via a hyperlink to www.wikitribune.com, and properly note you are copying therefrom in your edit-summary, and you can put the WikiTribune bodyprose directly into an enWiki article (WP:COMPLIC). The more 'interesting' question is whether, like CC-0 Wikidata, there will be an attempt to pull Wikipedia.org-based prose into WikiTribune news-pieces, since I don't think the licenses permit such actions? But then, I also don't think the licenses permit Wikidata to pull what they do from Wikipedia :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know how Wikitribune differs from WikiNews, which I think most people would accept has been a failure. Prioryman (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The primary difference seems to be that they're actually employing people to write articles. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where to report this, but at the bottom of the "wikitribune.com" page, it says "[email protected]", which is improperly spelled. Master of Time (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that will be fixed momentarily.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I'll post more later - still pretty swamped and I was up late last night for the launch. To answer some quick questions - Wikitribune will be licensed CC-BY so that it is compatible with Wikinews, and so I hope that will be helpful for them. It will involve a staff of paid journalists working side-by-side with community members in a way that, as is the nature of these things, will have to worked out socially over time. Some of the news reports have made it seem like journalists would write and community members can suggest edits, but obviously I'm more radical than that. I think the best translation of how I see the 'controls' mechanism into MediaWiki language is 'flagged revisions' - i.e. anyone can edit, but trusted community members (who might or might not be staff, it doesn't matter) approve. Wikitribune is completely independent of everything else - a new thing I'm starting. As such, in general in the future, questions about it will be best suited for somewhere there. (Just as I hardly ever answer questions about Wikia here.) But obviously it's good to talk about it here as well for now. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

One science writer wrote the following: "Any effort to fight fake news is noble and should be applauded. But, if Mr. Wales believes his new venture will be the solution to fake news, it will fall short for at least four reasons." (italics in original)

• Wikitribune: Can Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales Stop Fake News?—report by Alex Berezow for American Council on Science and Health (April 24, 2017)

—Wavelength (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC) and 15:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

WOW !!!'Very cool, Jimbo. All the best wishes. Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim

Why .com and not .org? (I realize it doesn't intrinsically make much of a difference, but the perception of the site would be somewhat different.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This is very interesting, and seems like it has a lot of potential. I know there are many specifics that haven't yet been worked out, but I look forward to learning more and potentially getting involved. A few questions jump immediately to mind. Starting with the easiest one:

1. I'm assuming the presentation of the site will not be via wiki. Will it be edited as a wiki before being published?
2. Over time, tensions can emerge in volunteer communities when a small group of people do similar work to everyone else but are paid for it. It sounds like, in this case, it's not the same as paying someone to edit Wikipedia alongside volunteers, but rather paying someone to do the bulk of the work, so it may not be an issue. Nonetheless, there will almost certainly be journalists, writers, other professionals, and amateurs who dedicate extensive time to this project without pay, and tensions will almost certainly emerge. Have these dynamics between paid and unpaid contributors been the subject of much discussion yet, or will they be worked out between the journalists and volunteers themselves without structural/central intervention?
3. The site is supported by donors, like Wikipedia, but with Wikitribune people who donate have some power. According to The Guardian, "Those who donate will become supporters, who in turn will have a say in which subjects and story threads the site focuses on." The selection of what to cover is an awfully big part of the journalistic process. What is to prevent an interest group from donating many small amounts from multiple accounts in order to influence news coverage/selection? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Rhododendrites I think Jimbo addresses one of your questions here ..."paid journalists working side-by-side with community members in a way that, as is the nature of these things, will have to worked out socially over time". Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim

Another error - near the top of the page it says "Supporting Wikitribune means ensuring that that journalists only write articles based on facts that they can verify." That's one "that" too many. 51.140.123.26 (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• 'Oh, and that you can see [the journalists'] sources'- really?! I can't see Woodward and Bernstein signing up to that one? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Fantastic!!! Its about fuckin' time that the public gets to see and judge for themselves the credibility of the actual sources of the most important information and news that comes our way. Many of the "so called" journalists who work for establishment media have been able to throw out any kind of bullshit and pro- or anti- personal, corporate, or governmental spin/propaganda and justify it with "our sources tell us" or "my sources tell me" or "off the record sources confirm" or "sources suggest" or "my military sources say its likely" or even "anonymous sources reveal" and an entire book of other similar "hide the source" phraseology when they publish their biased bullshit. As far as Woodward and Bernstein go, who gives a flyin' fuck what they think...they had one good story 45 years ago and have not done a fuckin' thing since except blatantly puff up or degrade various politicians with their personal opinions and write a bunch of biographies, imo.Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim

@Nocturnalnow:. Well, quite; thanks for that. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat along the lines of what Rhododendrites asked. How are you going to stop the Banc De Binarys and Burger Kings of the world from inserting their whoppers and putting in hidden advertisements? It looks like the journalists would in many cases have the final say on publishing so it should be easier in WTrib than in WPedia. But it's best to get these things straight at the beginning. How are you going to stop hidden ads? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Like others here, I also saw the Guardian article, and showed it to my husband, who is a journalist. His response was, "... but, how will that work? Like, if I was writing for them, would random people be able to edit my article? Change the facts? Rearrange the presentation? I wouldn't like that and I don't think any professional journalist would." ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That's cool, take note of Jimbo's use of the word "radical" above.. status quo and radical are maybe mutually exclusive. Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim

My own take on this, is that the Watergate scandal and others would never have been exposed today because news papers can no no longer afford investigative reporters. Good investigative reporter got a good salary and generous expenses in order to for them to have resources and time to dig up the truth. In this modern age of the internet, much news is free thus starving newspapers of the revenue required for this work. Result, news publishing has to resort to printing much faux news to in order to sell copy ( after all the have to make a living). Next: How does good journalist go about digging up the truth? They in essence ask John and Jane Doe. Wikitribune provides a route whereby that J & J's of this World (the people who know) can provide information about malfeasance directly; which as a spin off, provides the Checks & Balances to keep our society on on an even keel. Of course in theory this idea will never work but it might in practice. Aspro (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Aspro, great critical thinking comment and reasoning, but I think this idea is an absolute slam dunk winner in theory as well as in practice. The people are literally starving for a source of news and information that they can trust and trace back to its origin, just like we can now trace back where a Tuna was caught from a number on the can. I think the millennials especially will have Jimbo's new creation as their "go to app" for news. This is the best news(pun) for humanity I've seen since I can't remember when. Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim

Thankyou for those kind words Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim. Am sure also, that many will see a mountain of issues preventing this project sailing forth. Yet to quote Linus Torvalds: "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow” Aspro (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

My impression was that Wikinews wasn't killed from the bottom, but from the top, by having stories rejected until the contributors lost interest. So Wikitribune might or might not go the same way, depending - deletionists will kill Wiki-anything if given the chance.

I think a great opportunity for Wikitribune would be if they would actually let Wikipedia or other volunteers do proofreading and more advanced fact checking, at least where it comes to scientific issues. I think we have to go with volunteers--my distinct impression is that the very last professional proofreader and/or factchecker in the entire mainstream media probably took early retirement in the 90s... Wnt (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Help?

Hello Jimbo. Read the Guardian story – very interesting venture. Would be glad to help (retired print journalist with 30-odd years' experience; active on WP since '04). Sca (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Great - can you send me an email? I'd love to talk. Actually, I'll try to send you an email now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliability

Hi Jimbo. Would you say a goal of Wikitribune is to have a reliability level such that we could source Wikipedia articles from Wikitribune? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, for sure. I mean, we accept all manner of - in my view - questionable tabloid newspapers as sources, at least in limited ways. If we can't meet at least that kind of minimal level of credibility, the whole exercise is a bit pointless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Good question. Even WP is not regarded as a RS for citations in other WP articles. But if Wikitribune comes to be read, analyzed and quoted by other sources, then I think we may be permitted to quote from those independent source – In line with existing WP guidelines. We can not allow a positive feed-back system, like when a microphone picks up its own audio from a speaker and produces a howl. Aspro (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Interview on Wikinews

Jimmy, when this is close to launch, would you be interested in talking about it at Wikinews? Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, totally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

'Community members'

Jimbo I'm curious to know what you mean by "community members," whether that has been hashed out or determined. Who selects them. Who they are. Chiefly whether they will be anonymous. Anonymity is great for Wikipedia but it spawns all kinds of abuses, and if you don't watch out you'll become a conduit for fake news, corporate spin, and all kinds of garbage. Also I am not quite clear as to how this differs from conventional journalism, which utilizes laypeople as sources and tipsters. It is, however, the function of journalists to write and report the news. How will this differ? Are you opening up the process to laypeople? How will you do that? If I were a journalist, why would I want to participate in a process in which amateurs are an integral part of the process? What would I gain? Wouldn't it impede my work to have to cope with meddling by untrained, potentially biased people? Just idly curious. Coretheapple (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot of questions! Let me try to say a few words to answer a few of them, and I apologize if I overlook something.

As this is a ground up new venture there are a lot of open questions, and as is my usual style, I'll be open to dialogue about it. However, my instinct is that anonymity is not consistent with quality journalism. Anonymous sources can be legitimate - with a lot of caution and caveats. But for the actual journalists (whether staff or volunteer) to be completely anonymous strikes me as problematic.

I do envision opening up the process to "laypeople" yes. If you are a journalist, why would you want to participate? Well, the flood of job applications I got today (my assistant is bewildered as to how we are going to respectfully process them all) suggests that lots of journalists are not officious jerks who would refuse to work well with thoughtful community members. :) Seriously, the view that community members are primarily best described by words like "meddling", "untrained", "biased" seems contrary to my long experience. Yeah, some are like that, but the great ones aren't. What I would expect is that a lot of people who do not want to pursue journalism as a career (perhaps sadly because the payscale is much lower than it should be) would like to help out with it, to lend expertise in the process, etc. Maybe I'm wrong but I think great people will want to be community members, and great people will want to have jobs assisting and working with them. Time will tell.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Think that the World Wide Web has turned out to be destructive technology to the existing news publishers. It has wipped the carpet from under their feet, leaving us with mostly faux news and churnalism. JW's proposal looks as if we can move into the 21st Century technological age and bring back factual news reporting of yester year at the same time. Aspro (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo this is an interesting venture, I'm not trying to be a sourpuss, but I wonder how this system is going to work with hot-button issues. I've found that "hot button issues" on Wikipedia can include pretty much anything. But right now I would put my finger on all the ones that you see in arbcom. Israe/Palestine is an example. One person's bias in that area is another person's truth. There are narratives, there are various ways of viewing any given subject. But yes, in that or any given field you will get plenty of applications. What you want to consider (to paraphrase Groucho Marx) is "would I want to hire people who would want to join this club?" Coretheapple (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Сonflict of interest (Wikinews vs. Wikitribune)

I see a very serious conflict of interests. This harms Wikimedia projects and our community. In my opinion, you must leave any positions associated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Thank you. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see this at all. Imagine you thought that Commons admins were much too strict in their interpretation of copyright law and decided to form a new website NPCommons where people could upload freely licensed photos that would not be allowed on Commons. Would founding this website, which could be considered to be competing with Commons disqualify you from doing anything on Commons, Wikipedia, or WMF? I don't think that most people would answer "yes". I certainly don't see any rules about the matter.

I would imagine that Jimbo has already talked to the ED and Board about this to see if they have any objections. My guess (and all of this is just guessing) is that they said "no, of course not." The free culture movement is all about freedom and does not require an exclusive oath of fealty to a single project that you work on. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see a possible conflict or perhaps the appearance of one if this news project is structured as a nonprofit, and if there is a conflict related to fundraising for that project vs. fundraising for this one. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The interesting question is whether the Wikimedia Foundation has developed enough talent to not need Jimbo. I don't think it has, besides, we have nothing to gain and lots to lose by losing Jimbo. As far as fundraising goes, for whatever reason, we are on an amazing uptrend which shows no signs of stopping anytime soon...plus I think WikiTribune will pick up a lot of donations from totally different demographics. Everything is beautiful:) Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim

• Come to think of it I do see a potentially serious conflict, but only if succeeds. If it does, it could bleed off experienced and valued volunteers from the "mother ship," Wikipedia. But again, only if it succeeds and only if it provides volunteers with the same experience, such as it is, as editing Wikipedia. The same.... I dunno. Why do I edit Wikipedia? It's a question I've been asking myself a lot lately. Coretheapple (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Most likely Wikitribune creates synergy at wikilinks: Imagine all the details published (or snippets quoted) back into Wikipedia from reports written by Wikitribune. Meanwhile, if Wikitribune provides a missing-facts investigation for Wikipedia, then many Wikipedians would be eager to format and proofread Wikitribune reports which answer those missing facts, then cite results back into WP pages while updating for the new information. Imagine getting answers for age-old mysteries or events where the specific details have been unclear for too long. As a result, many related wikilink pages will get updated in a positive synergy between Wikitribune and WP. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• The OP is total nonsense without even an attempted justification. Bluster rarely works at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Objective interviews by Wikitribune

The fake news could be refuted by interviews conducted by Wikitribune reporters. For example, perhaps an interview with former Secretary Hillary Clinton could refute the email controversy by explaining how emails were actually handled, as one reader concluded there was no way the U.S. State Department was run by private server with only 2,100 sensitive emails, so ask, "How many coworkers handled classified emails on behalf of the Secretary because 2,100 emails is nothing over a 4-year term?". Likewise, other in-depth interviews by Wikitribune journalists could refute other fake-news stories during the last few years. The goal of an interview would be to explain key questions, rather than pile-on the faked hype. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:51/22:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Original research by request

Beyond fake news, I think a major benefit could be provided as missing-fact requests from Wikipedia editors, such as re-check coroner's records to report time-of-death, or timespan, or likely 2nd cause of death in high-profile cases, such as Kurt Cobain and explain heroin levels in forensic toxicology. Another example might be distance between crime scenes in 1888 with Jack the Ripper or re-check records for familial DNA or relevant blood types at the time. Other requests might be to report simple facts, such as height or line size of the Uffington White Horse or similar, if such facts are not already in reliable sources. There could easily be 1,000 requests about a thousand major topics, not just ho-hum political squabbles but rather facts about major mysteries or events spanning hundreds of years, perhaps part-time tasks for archaeologists. We've never had the chance to ask, "How deep does the nilometer reach on Elephantine Island at Aswan, Egypt(?)" and get documented results by journalists (with contacts who can swim underwater and check). Wikid77 (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps allow quarterly support

In the U.S. some large property taxes are paid quarterly (4 times per year), such as 4×$700, to spread the cost but not so tedious as 12 monthly payments. Meanwhile, many overspend at Xmas into January, and so 4 support payments as Feb/May/Aug/Nov could be ideal to total $200 to $1,000 annually for enthusiastic members (and level the income stream), during the first years of Wikitribune. Set aside extra monies to handle unexpected problems during the "maiden voyage" of the new project. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail chimes in

Here is what the DM has to say about Wikitribune today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm definitely happy about that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw the article, in particular the part "He made 18 changes, cutting references to 'Bomis Babes' and replacing the word 'pornography' with softer terms such as 'glamour photography'", while over in the sidebar on the Mail's website, I can see "Millie Mackintosh shows off her toned abs in a crop top and scarlet trouser suit as she enjoys date night with beau Hugo Taylor"[4], "Slimline Vicky Pattison flaunts her fantastic figure and toned stomach in a bright pink bikini"[5] and "Explicit drama Versailles continues to shock as Anna Brewster strips off for a bath... and takes part in a sadomasochistic sex scene"[6]. Jeez, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. And then of course there's "Enemies of the People" and "Crush the saboteurs"..... (for the avoidance of doubt, I did not participate in the Mail ban and do not especially agree with it) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Nonprofit status and libel insurance

I'm not seeing any indication as to whether this would be nonprofit. Did I miss something? Is Jimbo setting up a 501C3 in the US? This is based in London, according to the Wikipedia article, which raises another issue: libel laws. Will this venture have libel insurance? Libel laws are strict in the UK. I'm assuming that this Wikitribune will be a "publisher" (unlike Wikipedia).

Frankly I can't quite fathom why someone would contribute to a venture without a clear understanding as to whether contributions are deductible. Like I said, maybe I missed that. If so, it should be reflected in the Wikipedia article, which is silent on the subject except for a "see also" to the article on nonprofit journalism. And if it's a for-profit venture, why should I contribute to someone else's business?

I'm also puzzled as to why this is based in London at all, considering the libel law situation over there. Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I live in London, so we're based in London. I'm setting up a US subsidiary and of course in the future we'll want to look at the details of the best location for legal status.

On the second question, I want to present this to you in another way because I think you're making a very common conceptual error. Suppose a news site was subscription only. To get access, you have to pay. That's obviously perfectly normal and I think you'd see that as normal. Suppose then as well, the newspaper said, oh right, well, look - if you choose not to pay, that's ok, we'll let you have access for free. But we won't be able to hire as many journalists that way, but I hope you can pay. Many people will pay anyway, because they want to fund good journalism and because they want that journalism to be widely read (that is to say, a paywall is a negative thing even for people who are paying). The way you were looking at it, dropping the paywall suddenly means "contributing to someone else's business" in a weird way, rather than "paying for a company to do something I want them to do, which is write good stuff and share it with the world."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect I don't think I'm making a conceptual error. All nonprofit sites (such as ProPublica) have the very business model you articulate. The difference is that ProPublica is clearly nonprofit, whereas your status is hazy. (I believe that under IRS rules, present contributors' contributions would not be deductible unless you have already filed a 501C3 application). Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think anything is hazy. This is a normal limited company, publicly disclosed in the normal way. And it isn't even a US organization at all (yet), so this has nothing to do with the IRS.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

In other words, what you seem to be offering is the same as ProPublica except without much initial capitalization, and with it not necessarily nonprofit, meaning that contributions are not deductible at the present time, and in fact this may be a for-profit business going forward. Coretheapple (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

.... jut to clarify: I don't mean what you are offering is editorially the same. You have readers playing a much higher visibility role, though I'm not clear on how those readers are selected or self-selected. Coretheapple (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Lyrebird (voice imitation algorithm)

"A Montreal-based AI startup called Lyrebird has taken the wraps off a voice imitation algorithm that the team says can not only mimic the speech of a real person but shift its emotional cadence — and do all this with just a tiny snippet of real world audio."

• Lyrebird is a voice mimic for the fake news era—report by Natasha Lomas for TechCrunch (April 25, 2017)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Super interesting, although not necessarily for the "fake news" reason the story indicates. I actually don't know a lot about the state of the art in text-to-voice, except that if it can plausibly shift its emotional cadence, it ought to be pretty good at reading Wikipedia. I recently tried a "wikipedia to voice" app and the results were disappointing as the robot voice was pretty bad. Since Wikipedia typically doesn't have a HUGE amount of emotional text (or shouldn't anyway) then it ought to be along the easier places to add a bit of it to make things sound more natural.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Wikipedia Audio, whose discussion is archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 217#Wikipedia Audio (February 2017).

—Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't WikiSpeech an active project now? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Since the inventors are PhD students at the University of Montreal, somebody should invite them to give a speech at Wikimania. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be useful if it marks the beginning of reading that is reliably correct. For example, it would be good to have a correct phonetic reading of the entire Daode Jing in Mandarin to help those interested learn the appropriate pronunciation for the language using an interesting source text. (That would actually be worth getting human volunteers lined up for ... and this is not good enough! But imagine having that for many source texts in many languages...) Wnt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)