2009/8/28 Gregory Kohs <thekoh...@gmail.com>: > Thomas Dalton asked: > > "Has tech money been spent on other things previously? That is news to me." > > For your edification, Thomas, since at least you seem willing to listen, as > opposed to some others here who simply "tut tut" at all the "trolling" and > the "time wasting" any critics might have to offer: > > http://philanthropy.com/giveandtake/article/858/wikipedias-fund-raising-success-questioned > > Please make sure to read my comment there, which references this document:
Your comment there (I didn't read all of it, I prefer to limit the time I spent reading people whine) seem to be mainly complaining about the salaries paid to WMF management. Compared to people doing similar jobs elsewhere, their compensation is decidedly modest. > Anthony's not exactly being fair, though, when he sort of suggests that the > shortfall in Technology spending went instead to the Executive Director. As > far as I can tell, it went into the bank, to be spent in the FOLLOWING YEARS > on the Executive Director's need to expand staff to unprecedented levels. I think most of the tech underspend was due to spending being deferred. That money will still be spent on tech. Are you objecting to WMF expansion? I think the fact that the WMF can sustain a larger staff is a good thing, it will allow them to do much more. > Pay attention, Thomas. I've discussed this issue in many places. On the > Wikimedia-controlled places, I'm often censored or blocked, but there are > plenty of other non-WMF venues where facts can be laid out for the curious > to learn the truth: > > http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia I think you mean "Truth", with a capital 'T'. I've never been interested in learning the Truth. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l