Mailing List Archive

Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available
I am pleased to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation's audited
financial statements for the years ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 are
available on the Foundation wiki at:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/cc/FINAL_09_10From_KPMG.pdf


In anticipation of any questions, we have also prepared a Question and
Answer sheet also posted on the Foundation wiki at:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2009-2010_Financial_Statements_Questions_and_Answers


I am happy to answer any questions you might have.

Veronique

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available [ In reply to ]
On 26 October 2010 16:40, Veronique Kessler <vkessler@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I am pleased to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation's audited
> financial statements for the years ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 are
> available on the Foundation wiki at:
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/cc/FINAL_09_10From_KPMG.pdf
>
>
> In anticipation of any questions, we have also prepared a Question and
> Answer sheet also posted on the Foundation wiki at:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2009-2010_Financial_Statements_Questions_and_Answers
>
>
> I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
>
> Veronique
>

470K on travel. Quite impressive for an web based organization. At
British airways prices that's still over 500 return journeys from new
york to london.

"Wikipedia contains more than 16 million articles contributed by a
global volunteer community of more than 100,000 people." You are
using some non standard definitions of community here.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:40 AM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
>..
> "Wikipedia contains more than 16 million articles contributed by a
> global volunteer  community of more than 100,000 people." You are
> using some non standard definitions of community here.

I'd like to see how that figure of 100,000 was arrived at.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:40 AM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 October 2010 16:40, Veronique Kessler <vkessler@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> I am pleased to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation's audited
>> financial statements for the years ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 are
>> available on the Foundation wiki at:
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/cc/FINAL_09_10From_KPMG.pdf
>>
>>
>> In anticipation of any questions, we have also prepared a Question and
>> Answer sheet also posted on the Foundation wiki at:
>>
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2009-2010_Financial_Statements_Questions_and_Answers
>>
>>
>> I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
>>
>> Veronique
>>
>
> 470K on travel. Quite impressive for an web based organization. At
> British airways prices that's still over 500 return journeys from new
> york to london.

Assuming our staff sleep on sidewalks and beg for food when they travel.

--
Andrew Garrett
http://werdn.us/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available [ In reply to ]
On 26 October 2010 23:54, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:40 AM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
>>..
>> "Wikipedia contains more than 16 million articles contributed by a
>> global volunteer  community of more than 100,000 people." You are
>> using some non standard definitions of community here.
>
> I'd like to see how that figure of 100,000 was arrived at.

I'm not sure of the exact working, but a quick sanity-check:

Per wikistats, the total "active registered editors" hovers around
85,000 for all Wikipedia "editions". This figure represents the sum of
number of active accounts on each project at any given moment; on the
one hand, it overcounts, because it doesn't account for duplicate
activity (someone who is "active" on both fr and de), but on the other
hand, it doesn't account for people who're less active than our
five-edits-per-month threshold.

It also doesn't clearly account for people who're active one month and
not the next - simply averaging the headline figures will treat twelve
people, each active in a different month, as the same as a single
person active in all twelve. Similarly, there is an open question as
to whether or not our count should be entirely in the present tense.
There are plenty of articles contributed by community members who've
not edited in the past year or two - they may not currently be part of
the community of contributors, but they certainly were then, they
certainly wrote that content, and they certainly are among the X
thousand people to have done so! It may be appropriate to factor these
people in as well to the headline figure; this is a bit more
debatable, since "community" implies an instantaneous count, but I
think you can make a decent case either way.

So our first estimate is 85k; polyglot users will drive the figure
down, whilst "less active" users will drive the total up, as will
accounting for past contributors. I don't have any estimates as to the
magnitudes of those effects, but a total of 100k seems well within the
realm of possibility.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
> On 26 October 2010 23:54, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:40 AM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>..
>>> "Wikipedia contains more than 16 million articles contributed by a
>>> global volunteer  community of more than 100,000 people." You are
>>> using some non standard definitions of community here.
>>
>> I'd like to see how that figure of 100,000 was arrived at.
>
> I'm not sure of the exact working, but a quick sanity-check:
>
> Per wikistats, the total "active registered editors" hovers around
> 85,000 for all Wikipedia "editions". This figure represents the sum of
> number of active accounts on each project at any given moment; on the
> one hand, it overcounts, because it doesn't account for duplicate
> activity (someone who is "active" on both fr and de), but on the other
> hand, it doesn't account for people who're less active than our
> five-edits-per-month threshold.
>
> It also doesn't clearly account for people who're active one month and
> not the next - simply averaging the headline figures will treat twelve
> people, each active in a different month, as the same as a single
> person active in all twelve. Similarly, there is an open question as
> to whether or not our count should be entirely in the present tense.
> There are plenty of articles contributed by community members who've
> not edited in the past year or two - they may not currently be part of
> the community of contributors, but they certainly were then, they
> certainly wrote that content, and they certainly are among the X
> thousand people to have done so! It may be appropriate to factor these
> people in as well to the headline figure; this is a bit more
> debatable, since "community" implies an instantaneous count, but I
> think you can make a decent case either way.
>
> So our first estimate is 85k.

I arrived at a similar figure earlier this month, when the WMF gave
"100,000" as an estimate of our _current_ community population.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061506.html

My guess is those stats include accounts which never edit content; on
English Wikipedia we have many accounts which only create a userpage,
and/or create content pages which are deleted immediately because they
are vandalism, attack pages, etc.

Also, those numbers include many vandals, many who intentionally make
more than five edits in order to be autoconfirmed, and socks.
I think I am on safe ground to estimate that English Wikipedia has had
over 10,000 confirmed sockpuppets.

> polyglot users will drive the figure
> down, whilst "less active" users will drive the total up, as will
> accounting for past contributors. I don't have any estimates as to the
> magnitudes of those effects, but a total of 100k seems well within the
> realm of possibility.

Including past contributors is a questionable approach, and needs to
be done carefully. We know our 'community' changes over time, with
people quitting and new people arriving. Many come back with a new
username (we even have ex-arbitrators who did this).

The community is being defined in terms of 'people', rather than
'users'. There are also people with more than one account; iirc, one
'crat on English Wikiquote had ~hundred accounts with more than five
edits (Kalki).

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:24 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
> The community is being defined in terms of 'people', rather than
> 'users'.  There are also people with more than one account; iirc, one
> 'crat on English Wikiquote had ~hundred accounts with more than five
> edits (Kalki).

There are also another ~75000 IP accounts generating at least 5 edits
per month. It would be even harder than the username case to figure
out how many unique people this represents. However, it would still
seem likely that there is a non-trivial fraction of the contributor
community who only edit anonymously.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:24 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The community is being defined in terms of 'people', rather than
>> 'users'.  There are also people with more than one account; iirc, one
>> 'crat on English Wikiquote had ~hundred accounts with more than five
>> edits (Kalki).
>
> There are also another ~75000 IP accounts generating at least 5 edits
> per month.  It would be even harder than the username case to figure
> out how many unique people this represents.

Sage Ross suggested in todays IRC office hours that it would be
interesting to look at anon members of our community , and I hadn't
thought about this cohort.

Are you sure these are not accounted for in stats.wm.org?

A consideration with these is how often do they become a named
account, and therefore would be counted twice if we simply add
accounts+anons.

> However, it would still
> seem likely that there is a non-trivial fraction of the contributor
> community who only edit anonymously.

Indeed.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:06 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Are you sure these are not accounted for in stats.wm.org?
>
<snip>

Yes. The current Wikimedia Stats (stats.wikimedia.org) do not count
anons towards any of the metrics that measure "Wikipedians" or "active
contributors".

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:24 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The community is being defined in terms of 'people', rather than
>>> 'users'.  There are also people with more than one account; iirc, one
>>> 'crat on English Wikiquote had ~hundred accounts with more than five
>>> edits (Kalki).
>>
>> There are also another ~75000 IP accounts generating at least 5 edits
>> per month.  It would be even harder than the username case to figure
>> out how many unique people this represents.
>
> Sage Ross suggested in todays IRC office hours that it would be
> interesting to look at anon members of our community , and I hadn't
> thought about this cohort.
>
> Are you sure these are not accounted for in stats.wm.org?
>
> A consideration with these is how often do they become a named
> account, and therefore would be counted twice if we simply add
> accounts+anons.
>
>> However, it would still
>> seem likely that there is a non-trivial fraction of the contributor
>> community who only edit anonymously.
>
> Indeed.

This is why we Wikimedians are awesome.

The Foundation's audited financial statements are posted, and our main
point of discussion is the accuracy of a tidbit of background
information in the introduction.

:-)

--
Andrew Garrett
http://werdn.us/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available [ In reply to ]
I thought the very same thing. Sometimes I think about Dirk Gently's couch
stuck in the stairwell. In a good way, that is. Any discussion that isn't
the big picture is great, because it means we see the picture, at least.
That doesn't happen a lot.

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Andrew Garrett <agarrett@wikimedia.org>wrote:
>
>
> This is why we Wikimedians are awesome.
>
> The Foundation's audited financial statements are posted, and our main
> point of discussion is the accuracy of a tidbit of background
> information in the introduction.
>
> :-)
>
> --
> Andrew Garrett
> http://werdn.us/
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available [ In reply to ]
This thread drifted off topic into a discussion about how me measure our
editor base.

[.Summary: editor stats will never be precise, but filtering duplicates
will be a good next step]

Some earlier comments noted how the count is inaccurate, or even skewed
systemically.
I agree with most comments. I have little hope that an accurate count
will ever be possible.
We can try to get to a more robust and realistic (and certainly lower)
approximation.

Let me first explain two reasons why we present a count of
+/- 85,000 active editors compared to 100,000 some months ago.

1st: In July a bug fix stopped double counting of editors on Commons
(for a while Commons wiki had been listed on two queues)
Since wikistats always regenerates counts for all months no trace of
this bug has been left. [1]

2nd: Starting August editors on Commons are no longer included at all
in overall editor total, on the assumption that most editors on Commons
also edit on one or more other projects. [2]

Of course this very rough way to get to a more conservative editor count
is less ideal to say the least, but pending better analysis of our user
tables,
this is a step closer to a count of unique registered human contributors.

What we really need to do is to ignore confirmed duplicates,

Only since Single User Login (where many users have formally merged
accounts from multiple wikis)
there is this possibility to check whether user John Doe on English
Wikipedia and
user John Doe on German Wikipedia are really the same person.
Once private SUL dumps are available (a long standing request) this will
be looked into asap.

Caveats: the user may have left before SUL was introduced,
or decided not to merge accounts for whatever reason.

[1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/reportcard/RC_2010_07_synopsis.html
[2] http://stats.wikimedia.org/reportcard/RC_2010_08_synopsis.html

---------------------------

As mentioned in an earlier post in this thread,
the total number of active editors that participated 5+ edits
at least in one month of the year will be higher than for any month alone,
as e.g. Mr X only qualifies on odd months and Mrs Y only on even months.

True but in the context of this thread statusses at end of consecutive
budget years matter most.

We do have a metric that counts total registered editors *for all time*,
albeit with a different threshold: editors need to have at least 10
edits, not necessarily in same month.
For English Wikipedia alone end June 2010 already 608,000 accounts
qualified.
This metric and the one discussed above (5+ edits in any given month)
are apples and oranges.

--------------------------

To which extent certain persons made multiple accounts on the same wiki
(so called sock puppets) is not known.
Yet another reason to work towards a conservative estimate.

-------------------------

Anonymous editors are no longer counted at all.
This would have resulted in millions of addresses
(nowhere near the 75,000 someone stated earlier in this thread).
Add to this the difficulties to match people and unique editors
- One ip address can serve a whole school of cafe
- Some providers send a new temporary ip address on every session
- Many users edit from different PC's over time (e.g. work , home)

We can however follow anonymous edits over time, rather than editors
See e.g. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryTop.htm

----------------------------
Bottom line:
Given all ambiguities in our data, and arbitrary thresholds, and
architectural changes,
we will never have an accurate count of number of active editors.

Personally I would rather publish a conservative estimate than an
inflated one.
We aren't there yet.

I think it is even more important that any definition stays simple,
and any methodology is consistent over time.
The latter in particular is needed to allow meaningful trend analysis.

Erik Zachte



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Erik Zachte <erikzachte@infodisiac.com> wrote:
<snip>

> Anonymous editors are no longer counted at all.
> This would have resulted in millions of addresses
> (nowhere near the 75,000  someone stated earlier in this thread).

<snip>

Millions of anons have edited. In any given month about a million
anon accounts do edit. However, the number of anon accounts with at
least 5 edits in any particular month is definitely not millions, it
is several tens of thousands.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available [ In reply to ]
On 10/30/2010 10:57 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Erik Zachte<erikzachte@infodisiac.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Anonymous editors are no longer counted at all.
>> This would have resulted in millions of addresses
>> (nowhere near the 75,000 someone stated earlier in this thread).
>
> <snip>
>
> Millions of anons have edited. In any given month about a million
> anon accounts do edit. However, the number of anon accounts with at
> least 5 edits in any particular month is definitely not millions, it
> is several tens of thousands.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Robert,

I misquoted you, should have checked back on your post.
Sorry about that.

Erik Zachte

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Wikimedia Audited Financial Statements for 2009-10 Fiscal Year Now Available [ In reply to ]
Veronique Kessler, 26/10/2010 17:40:
> I am pleased to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation's audited
> financial statements for the years ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 are
> available on the Foundation wiki

Thank you.
I see (p. 5, 11):
*Special event revenue, net: 11,995/0 (2009/2010)
*Special event expense: 0/70,407 (2009/2010)
*Temporarily restricted net assets, Restricted to scholarships for
Wikimania: 60,237/0 (2009/2010)
The "special event" is only Wikimania, isn't it?
How are costs and income shared between WMF and organizers?
(I don't understand how costs and income are split between years, but
this is not so important.)

«Contributions receivable represent gift amounts due from various
entities» (p. 8): does this include chapters? With regard to the WMF
share on donations to chapters under the fundraising agreement, is this
amount considered a donation even if chapters are more or less (it's
complicated) obliged to transfer it to the WMF? I guess that the
taxation would be different if e.g. you invoiced the chapters.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l