Today we are very pleased to announce a great gift from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.  For the second time since 2008, the Sloan Foundation is providing us with a $3 million, unrestricted grant to support the Wikimedia Foundation in pursuit of its main goals as outlined in our recently published strategic plan.

As described by our Executive Director Sue Gardner in today’s press release:

“Three years ago, at a time when cultural elites were ambivalent about Wikipedia, the Sloan Foundation took a risk by supporting us. I will always be grateful to Sloan for its courage in doing that,” said Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. “Today the academic community in particular has begun to appreciate Wikipedia, and is starting to work closely with us to make it even better. I’m grateful to Sloan for sending an important signal that helped make that happen, and I’m thrilled at this renewed expression of confidence in our work.”

The grant comes to us as part of the Sloan Foundation’s Access to Knowledge component of its Digital Information Technology program. Sloan Vice President Doron Weber reflected on their perspective on Wikipedia:

“Wikipedia embodies the ideal values of the world wide web and we are proud to be part of this bold endeavor to use the wisdom and the altruism of the crowd to create the biggest, most up-to-date and most open global encyclopedia in human history.”

This is great news for Wikimedia Foundation as we push into our strategic planning priorities: increasing Wikipedia’s quality, increasing the number and demographic diversity of its editors, and reaching more readers, particularly in the global south.

Our thanks to the Sloan Foundation for their continued support!

Jay Walsh, Communications

The gender imbalance among Wikipedia contributors has been a simmering topic in our community for years, but a story from the New York Times yesterday is bringing a surge of new interest. “Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List“, by Noam Cohen, brings wider attention to the stark statistic from a 2008 survey of Wikipedia users: Fewer than 15% of Wikipedia contributors are women. Cohen covers perspectives on the gender gap from Wikimedia’s Executive Director Sue Gardner, trustee Kat Walsh, and Wikipedia scholar Joseph Reagle, as well as leading thinkers on gender gaps in technology and the public sphere. As Gardner chronicles on her blog, the story prompted a flurry of additional coverage.

Kat Walsh goes into more detail in an essay she posted yesterday, “Women on Wikipedia“. The editing community has developed a culture that is attractive to a relatively narrow range of people, she argues, and it’s necessary–but very difficult–to become more inclusive. “How do you become more inclusive,” she asks, “without breaking the qualities that make the project happen to begin with?”

Sue shares more of her own thoughts about the gender gap in her first post to a new mailing list on the subject, which kicked off yesterday as a forum for all the intelligent voices that have chimed in lately. She says the reasons for Wikipedia’s gender gap are the same ones contributing to those in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Gardner explains the reason for the list:

I think that all forms of diversity–geographic, political, ideological, cultural, sexual, age-related, etc.–are important. But having said that, I do think our gender skew is particularly bad, so even though I feel uncomfortable paying special attention to it, I believe it’s probably defensible. My hope for this list is that it’ll become a space where Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians can share research and information and tactics for making Wikipedia more attractive to women editors.

A report yesterday from The Signpost hints at some of the likely measurable effects of Wikipedia’s gender gap. Researchers recently created the Science Hall of Fame, a list of how famous thousands of scientists are, based on how many times their names are mentioned in books. Wikipedian Headbomb takes that list and compares fame with Wikipedia’s quality ratings. He finds that Wikipedia articles on the most famous women on the Science Hall of Fame list are less developed than you would predict based on their fame. In fact, his preliminary analysis suggests that traditionally male-dominated fields, such as philosophy and the physical sciences, may have better biographical coverage than fields with smaller gender gaps. A fuller analysis will be needed before we can draw any firm conclusions. But there’s no doubt that Wikipedia would benefit from a wider and more diverse community of contributors.

Want to be part of the effort? Join the Wikimedia gender gap discussion list.

Sage Ross
Online Facilitator

Today we’ve seen a wide range of media outlets around the world cover the news about Wikipedia’s 10th anniversary.  Some stories recount the history of the project from its humble beginnings, and others collect the viewpoints of big thinkers on the topic of web and technology.  The Foundation’s Executive Director also published an op-ed piece in the Guardian that looks into the project and its pioneer beginnings. It’s wonderful to see so many media outlets, blogs, and great institutions probe deeply into the stories of Wikipedia, and start to ask big questions about Wikipedia’s considerable impact on society and the internet.

Wikipedia 10 celebrators around the world are documenting the coverage on ten.wikipedia.org, a wiki specially created for the occasion. Some of the highlights of the day:

The Times of India out of Bangalore discusses Wikipedia’s push for more local language content.

The Atlantic from New York prepared a wide-ranging package of content about the anniversary, including insights from Wikimedia advisory board members Craig Newmark, Jay Rosen, Clay Shirky, and Ethan Zuckerman.

Read Write Web asks readers what Wikipedia will look like in ten years.

The Washington Post featured a lengthy piece on the history and future of Wikipedia, including an interview with Jimmy Wales.

Italy’s La Repubblica covered the occasion, and made a visit to the Foundation’s San Francisco offices earlier this week.

Wired UK and the US Wired are in the midst of ‘Wikipedia week‘ and have included some great Wikipedia lists.

The Guardian‘s feature op-ed by Wikimedia ED Sue Gardner ran earlier today.

We’ll update the media coverage page over the next week as more global coverage emerges, and as we cross the threshold of the big anniversary.

Jay Walsh
Communications

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.

Wikimedia’s contribution campaign for 2010 is a serious endeavor. As Philippe told you yesterday, in a relatively short time period we need to raise the funds that keep Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects available for free to everyone.

Millions of people use Wikipedia every day. It’s clear that more than a few of our readers have noticed yesterday’s launch. Nearly all of the responses we find are constructive for thinking about how to keep Wikipedia free. Some of them are simply hilarious. Too hilarious not to share, in fact.

Here’s our list of the best, or rather the most amusing, tidbits about this year’s fundraiser. We’re glad we’re not the only folks with a healthy sense of humor. We consider this post to be in the tradition of Wikipedia humor, of which a favorite example is Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.

• Thanks to a link from O’Reilly Radar, Information is Beautiful created a rather stunning infographic about our appeals. Not to be outdone, Flowing Data has their own take.
• The Huffington Post also has a smart rundown on our banner testing strategy, and includes a poll where you can choose which of two banners you prefer.
• Time.com’s Techland blog declared Jimmy’s expression “Don Draper-esque.” We’re unofficially declaring that a win for Wikipedia’s cool factor.
• A blogger from Indiana wrote a satire which expresses another strong but nevertheless funny reaction to the banners.
• New York Magazine’s Daily Intel blog has a short but sweet post that reminds readers of the somewhat surprising list of Wikipedia’s most popular articles.
• The community at social news site Reddit has several hysterical threads about the campaign, including Photoshop jokes and unfortunate coincidences. The same Reddit posts often have practical advice for how to help us improve the donation system.

Of course, Twitter is awash with 140 character analysis of the campaign so far. There’s really too much to link to, but choice examples include:

• Jeff Atwood of stackoverflow.com fame feeling a tad uncomfortable
• Insight into Chuck Norris-related vandalism
• Commentary on the reliability of Wikipedia
• And a gentleman who apparently feels a little guilty about the size of his donation. Hopefully he knows that our average gift isn’t over $30 USD, as you can see at our public donation statistics page.

If you’d like to keep up on similar unofficial news from our contribution campaign, please follow the #keepitfree hashtag on Twitter. For a more official take, follow @Wikipedia and @Wikimedia. Visit donate.wikimedia.org to do your part to sustain the free encyclopedia anyone can edit.

Steven Walling,
on behalf of Wikimedia’s Community Department

Late last week Fox News ran a news story about Wikimedia projects, focusing on Jimmy Wales, which included quite a bit of false information. We would like to clarify some of those details

Jimmy is the founder of Wikipedia and of the Wikimedia Foundation. He plays a key editorial role in our projects, by virtue of his special status as our founder, and due to his continued active engagement in the projects. Jimmy is not the President of the Wikimedia Foundation nor is he President of Wikipedia: there are no such roles. The chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is Michael Snow, and the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation is Sue Gardner. They have both been in those positions for several years. Jimmy is Chair Emeritus of the Board of Trustees, as he has been for several years now.

Last weekend Jimmy voluntarily relinquished some technical user-account privileges he has historically held, but that in no way affects his official status with Wikimedia, nor his editorial position. It was false to claim that Jimmy ever held final editorial control on our projects — his decision to change the technical details of his user account should not be interpreted as changes to his status in general.  Jimmy is actively engaged in discussions with other Wikimedia editors about sexually-explicit materials on Wikimedia Commons: discussions like that are part of his normal role, and are part of the normal work of being an active volunteer. He is a thought leader in the Wikimedia projects, and although the discussions over the past week have been unusually intense, we don’t consider them problematic. Discussion is how Wikimedians work through policy development and policy interpretation: active argument and debate are normal for us — they are how we do our work. The Wikimedia Foundation is grateful for Jimmy’s involvement, and we’re glad he continues to be an important part of the Wikimedia movement.

Jay Walsh, Communications

Over the last few weeks Huffington Post readers have been asked to select a variety of ‘game changers of the year’ in categories ranging from entertainment, philanthropy, eco, and media.  We were very pleased to see our own Executive Director Sue Gardner nominated as one of the Post’s ‘game changers’ of the year – and as of today we’ve learned that Sue came out on top – she is the chosen game changer of the year in media!  Way to go, Sue!

How Sue is changing the game, according to the Huffington Post:

Taking the people’s online encyclopedia to the next level. Drawing on the Wikimedia Foundation’s mission of bringing free knowledge to everybody, executive director Gardner is overseeing a strategic plan to broaden access to Wikipedia’s vast storehouse of information. Her battle plan: making Wikipedia easier to use and available to more people worldwide. Expansion takes money, but it helps to be one of the Web’s five most-trafficked sites. In the depths of the recession, the foundation raised $3 million in ten days, completely covering its 2009 operating budget.

We couldn’t agree more! Thanks to the poll voters and Huffington Post readers for putting our Foundation’s leader at the top of the game. And voters, take your love for Wikipedia and make a donation to Wikipedia and the Foundation during our annual campaign!

Jay Walsh, Communications

We’re excited to learn today that the Webby Awards have chosen Wikipedia as one of the ten most influential “Internet moments of the decade.” The timing is excellent as we’re now well-underway with our 6th annual fundraising drive.  It’s a great time to think about the extraordinary efforts of thousands of volunteers to make Wikipedia and its sister projects, and to make a donation to help ensure Wikipedia forever.

Alongside the other major hallmarks of a decade of the web, including protests in Iran, the 2008 presidential election, the expansion of craigslist, and the debut of the iPhone, Wikipedia is profiled – highlighting early beginnings in 2001 with 20,000 articles and 18 languages to its status today as a top-five web property used by hundreds of millions of people around the world.

Thanks to the Webby’s for such esteemed recognition, and congrats to the other big projects and story-makers of the year. Here’s to another big decade of influencing the web and promoting free knowledge!

Jay Walsh, Head of communications

Today the USA Network announced that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has been chosen for their debut recognition award, Character Approved.  Jimmy is one of seven recipients – all of which are recognized figures in the arts, philanthropy, food, architecture, and technology.  The USA Network (a US-based cable TV operation) will run the spots featuring Jimmy and the other recipients over the next few weeks.  Jimmy’s videos can also be found on the award’s web portal.

And even more excellent, the recognition comes with a $10,000USD gift for a charity of the recipients choice.  Jimmy has chosen to share this gift with the non-profit project that started it all.  A big thanks to Jimmy.

Jay Walsh, Communications<

Earlier today the Foundation announced in a press release that Roger McNamee, Managing Director and Co-Founder of Elevation Partners (and a professional musician!) has joined the Wikimedia Advisory Board.  Roger’s been working with the Foundation since before our move to the bay area, both as an active supporter of Wikipedia and the Foundation’s project, and helping to introduce us to many new stakeholders and like-minded organizations.

Welcome, Roger!

Jay Walsh, Communications<

We’re extremely pleased to be sharing the news that the 5th annual Wikimedia on-line fundraising campaign in support of Wikipedia and our sister projects has burst past its $6million USD goal.  Today we issued a press release, and later today we should have some further correspondence to share.

We will aslo be rotating the site banners on Wikipedia and the other projects later today to point to a new thank you note from Jimmy Wales.

This is a great day for Wikipedia, and for the more than 125,000 supports of the project.  You’ve helped us raise over $6.2million – and we’re still seeing donations come in.  Thank you for showing extraordinary support, and for helping to sustain and grow Wikipedia.

Happy New Year!  What a great way to kick it off.

Jay Walsh, Communications<