User talk:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:14, 18 December 2019

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks! Fixed it: [1] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add this chart?

File:Wikimedia Foundation's expenses evolution by rubrics in US Dollars.svg

What do you think? Worth adding?

Also see Wikipedia:Help desk#Could it be that the cancer is in remission?. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links

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

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

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

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

Strategy

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Frequently_asked_questions#Why_will_it_require_up_to_US$2.5_million_to_develop_a_movement_strategy?

"Why will it require up to US$2.5 million to develop a movement strategy?"

Benjamin (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am speechless. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:CANCER on Hacker news

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

So sorry

My bad, edited on your page, so sorry for that (did not see that this was not an open, official page).--LH7605 (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just put your edit back. There was no need to undo it. There is an HTML comment at the top of the page that says:

 <!-- Please note that [[WP:ESSAYS]] states that "The author of a personal essay located in his or her user space has the right to revert any changes made to it by any other user". Everyone is free to make changes to this page, but I reserve the right to have the final say. -Guy Macon -->

So your changes were not only allowed, but actually encouraged. I really appreciate corrections to this essay. Again, thanks. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, was in panic and did not read it correctly. I am glad that my changes were helpful. Greetings, --LH7605 (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latest fundraising banner

"To all our readers in the U.S., It's a little awkward, so we'll get straight to the point: This Friday we humbly ask you to defend Wikipedia's independence. 98% of our readers don’t give; they simply look the other way. We depend on donations averaging $16.36 from the exceptional readers who give. If you donate just $2.75, the price of a coffee, Wikipedia could keep thriving. Most people donate for a simple reason—because Wikipedia is useful. If Wikipedia gave you $2.75 worth of knowledge this year, take a minute to donate. Show the volunteers that bring you access to reliable, neutral information that their work is the biggest act of generosity still alive on the Internet. Thank you."

The above is what you see if you simply read wikipedia without being a logged-in editor. It is, of course, on a black background, and on my monitor fills roughly 90% of the page.

Hence why I turned off that banner in preferences. "Show the volunteers that" donations come from suckers who stupidly hand money to SanFran. Why don't we apportion part of Main Page to counterprogram? We could put a banner linking to our many assessments of WMF's finances. We could run DYK's about how much WMF pays for furniture and private travel. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Growth and Modification of old software

Excellent essay!

Having said that, the statistics might better portray costs on a “per view” basis, which has risen, or a per viewer, or per editor. Gross expenditures have risen with an increase in readership and numbers of pages to be read. We need more editors. The latter needs have seemed bent to allow poorer editing/ knowledge of standards. Judging “ per article” than trying for a standard appearance or content.

As the software gets older, it becomes harder to modify.

We need continuing changes to compete, a challenge with old software and culture about appearance.

There are too many articles for the editors to maintain. Quality may be dropping. Easier editing vi new updates may be necessary.

There are too few notable politicians (! No, seriously), too many notable bands who barely make a living, much less, write notable music, too many mediocre sports figures, too many artists, too many articles about non-notable events or people. No longer do we see ^{[citation needed]} after questionable statements and too few of these same statements rm after a reasonable period of time.

We’ve bitten off more than we can chew. I’ve read through large histories that seem true but contain few, if any, citations.

So the essay is probably correct. We once thought that Vandals would destroy Wikipedia. It seems more like our own growth (“cancer”) will do the trick easily enough. Student7 (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per page view instead of per page sounds like a good change. Do we have reliable statistics on pageviews going back as far as I will need?

Whether Wikipedia (not the WMF) has too many pages is an interesting thought, but has zero to do with this essay, which is about whether the WMF (not Wikipedia) is spending too much money. You might want to consider turning the above into an essay titled "Too many Pages" with some statistics about how the ratio of editors vs. pages has changed over time. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative title: Money is the Root of All Incompetence

I suspect that your essay may explain the latest misguided acts by the Foundation: the attempt by T&S to enforce their version of a Code of Conduct. What we have in the Foundation are a surplus of people with no real purpose to their jobs, so they are constantly attempting to justify being employed, which leads to stuff like WP:FRAMGATE. And their endless process with creating their Plan 2030: they are dragging it out, either intentionally or unintentionally, because once its complete people will need to either find a new project or a new job. As far as I can see, whatever this visioning thing they are creating will never effect my editing stats one way or the other. (More likely factors include the amount of spare time I have, family demands, & amount of material I can find with a reasonable effort to write articles with.) Or anyone else's.

However, I can come up with useful ways they could use resources to enhance -- & yes, funding to editors for research is one, but there are many more. What about research into UX, & sharing it online so we volunteers could use it? What about training in matters such as copyright & plagiarism? One project that would solve an issue plaguing en.wikipedia at the moment would be research into the effectiveness of cross-article ties? Right now I know of five ways to link articles to each other: hyperlinks, categories, navboxes, outlines, & portals. If someone were to analyze which of these produce the most traffic -- & why -- we could develop guidelines to make use of them. (And maybe determine objectively whether to keep portals as a general thing.) I bet such an analysis of Wikipedia data would take a month & at most $15,000 to accomplish, & might just head off a dispute from being handled by ArbCom.

I'll close with this thought: I bet if the Foundation were to lay off 20% or more of their staff, at worse no one would notice; at best, I bet those who were left would focus more on supporting the needs of the communities rather than chase after aspirational but abstract & unobtainable goals such as supporting diversity. (Last time I checked, regardless of our editor base no one seriously advocates an exclusively white cis-male hetrosexual computer-oriented Euro-American viewpoint for Wikipedia. Our membership is far more open & tolerant than we are given credit for.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 168: / Line 168: @@
 :Whether '''Wikipedia''' (not the WMF) has ''too many pages'' is an interesting thought, but has zero to do with this essay, which is about whether '''the WMF''' (not Wikipedia) is spending ''too much money''. You might want to consider turning the above into an essay titled "Too many Pages" with some statistics about how the ratio of editors vs. pages has changed over time. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
+== Alternative title: Money is the Root of All Incompetence ==
+I suspect that your essay may explain the latest misguided acts by the Foundation: the attempt by T&S to enforce their version of a Code of Conduct. What we have in the Foundation are a surplus of people with no real purpose to their jobs, so they are constantly attempting to justify being employed, which leads to stuff like [[WP:FRAMGATE]]. And their endless process with creating their Plan 2030: they are dragging it out, either intentionally or unintentionally, because once its complete people will need to either find a new project or a new job. As far as I can see, whatever this visioning thing they are creating will never effect my editing stats one way or the other. (More likely factors include the amount of spare time I have, family demands, & amount of material I can find with a reasonable effort to write articles with.) Or anyone else's.{{pb}}However, I can come up with useful ways they could use resources to enhance -- & yes, funding to editors for research is one, but there are many more. What about research into UX, & sharing it online so we volunteers could use it? What about training in matters such as copyright & plagiarism? One project that would solve an issue plaguing en.wikipedia at the moment would be research into the effectiveness of cross-article ties? Right now I know of five ways to link articles to each other: hyperlinks, categories, navboxes, outlines, & portals. If someone were to analyze which of these produce the most traffic -- & why -- we could develop guidelines to make use of them. (And maybe determine objectively whether to keep portals as a general thing.) I bet such an analysis of Wikipedia data would take a month & at most $15,000 to accomplish, & might just head off a dispute from being handled by ArbCom.{{pb}}I'll close with this thought: I bet if the Foundation were to lay off 20% or more of their staff, at worse no one would notice; at best, I bet those who were left would focus more on supporting the needs of the communities rather than chase after aspirational but abstract & unobtainable goals such as supporting diversity. (Last time I checked, regardless of our editor base no one seriously advocates an exclusively white cis-male hetrosexual computer-oriented Euro-American viewpoint for Wikipedia. Our membership is far more open & tolerant than we are given credit for.) -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 23:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)