Special report: "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
Opinion: The Wikimedia Endowment – a lack of transparency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#W...
The actual fundraiser will come at the end of the year, when the banners will follow everyone visiting Wikipedia around for over a month (29th of November – 31st of December).
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising#Current_fundrais...
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment/Updates/...
Note I made the same argument in Wikipedia's community newspaper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
Read the comments from Wikipedians underneath. No one claimed it was a dishonest argument to make.
While we're on the subject, I'm a fan of Nitter[0] as a JS-free Twitter UI. Can anyone recommend any other JS-free frontends to popular apps?
[0] nitter.net, and it's mirrored on many other URLS: https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/wiki/Instances
For what it's worth, Charity Navigator gives them 4 out of 4 stars with a 98.33/100 rating: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703
Meanwhile eg the American Cancer Society gets 73/100 and spends more on fundraising than WMF's entire budget, so oncologists can snort blow off hookers in Vegas, but nobody cares.
Here is a more exhaustive list: https://github.com/libredirect/libredirect
Edit: here’s a link to a thread about what I mean:
https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579776106034757633?s=46&...
Your donors often feel generous as the giving or holiday season approaches. Many will also be looking to make year-end donations for tax relief." [0]
What is not said here, but I think it was started this article there was a break-down on Twitter [2] recently where someone broke down the grants Wikimedia Foundation gives to other charities, A lot of Wikimedia has become advocacy for social issues not the spread of free information. Some of those Social issues many of the donors to Wikimedia may not agree with, and it being redistributed to some pretty controversial organizations. People donating to Wikimedia thinking they are advancing Wikipedia but in reality the bulk of the foundation spending is issuing grants to other charities.
>>Meanwhile eg the American Cancer Society gets 73/100 and spends more on fundraising than WMF's entire budget
I am reminded of this TED talk[1] from several years ago that talks about fundraising and charity
[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou...
[2] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1579778161889652736.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial...
What's it for? Tell donors what they are funding.
And somehow the priorities are wrong. The Wikimedia Foundation has annual 8-figure surpluses, but volunteers are writing open letters to complain that the Foundation fails to update and maintain critical aspects of the software:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Think_big_-_open_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Coo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
What the WMF does produce, however, is reams and reams of words about "strategy", "leadership", "codes of conduct" etc.
And millions of dollars are given away to progressive organisations that have nothing to do with Wikipedia:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list...
From the authors Wikpedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski
"Writing for The Daily Telegraph in May 2021, Orlowski said that the Wikimedia Foundation was "flush with cash" and passing money to the Tides Network, which he described as "a left-leaning dark money group"; he referred to Wikipedia as "Wokepedia" in an allusion to the term "woke".[24] In another article for The Daily Telegraph, in December 2021, Orlowski said the Wikimedia Foundation's urgent fundraising banners on Wikipedia were "preposterous" given that it held assets of $240 million and had a $100 million endowment, and the Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director had said in 2013 that the Foundation could be sustainable on "$10M+ a year".[25] In August 2022, Orlowski claimed that Wikipedia had "become a tool of the Left in the battle to control the truth", referencing the recent controversy over Wikipedia's definition of a recession.[26]"
2021 2011
Current Assets 208,678,345 20,784,992
Donations 153,096,642 23,020,127
Salaries 67,857,676 7,312,120
Internet Hosting 2,384,439 1,799,943
I'm one who is seeing these Wikipedia donation links currently (apparently not everyone is yet) so I'm glad this article raised the issue. The WMF probably has enough assets to run itself on a shoestring budget in perpetuity.
[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikim...
[2]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/ac/FINAL...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579779097278181378?s=46&...
https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Landi...
We ask you, humbly, to help.
We'll get straight to the point: Today we ask you to defend Wikipedia's independence.
We're a non-profit that depends on donations to stay online and thriving, but 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way. If everyone who reads Wikipedia gave just a little, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come. The price of a cup of coffee is all we ask.
...
We know that most people will ignore this message. But if Wikipedia is useful to you, please consider making a donation of or whatever you can to protect and sustain Wikipedia.
They have over 500 employees[2]. Not sure why they need so many, considering average salary is $100k/yr.
[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikim...
[2]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/#prod...
Also, last year, the then-Wikimedia CEO Katherine Maher was on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah. (The wife of the WMF’s PR consultant, the Clinton Foundation’s Craig Minassian, works on the show as a producer.)
In the interview, Noah put it to Maher that the downside of being a non-profit is that “you often struggle to have enough money to keep Wikipedia up and running. So, two parts. One, is that true and how does it affect you, and then, two, why would you make this thing if it’s not going to make you money?”
Maher’s cheerful answer made no reference to the WMF’s vast money reserves, but emphasised that Wikipedia’s lack of ads was responsible for the site being so trusted today.
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...
If you are in the US, you can view the interview clip here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKdn1s9Sjfo&t=270s
If you're in the UK or Europe, use a VPN (Opera e.g. has got one built in).
Wikipedians wouldn't work for free for a subscription service. The whole project would fork to a new host. The Wikimedia Foundation's own mission statement says, "The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the internet free of charge, in perpetuity."
...then attacks SERCH claiming they've done nothing but release 'youtube videos with 50 views', attacks them for not having produced any within the last year (maybe their grant ended?) when if one google "SERCH foundation" they'd quickly see "Our signature program is Vanguard: Conversations with Women of Color in STEM, an online platform and monthly web series focused on women of color in STEM." and further:
> WHAT WE DO
> Produce a live web-series with timely and relevant content
> Celebrate women of color with weekly #WCWinSTEM features
> Publish original content written by and for women of color in STEM
> Foster support and networking via our online platform
> Convene as a community virtually and at in-person events
> Advocate for ourselves + our STEM interests
....and then the big bad boogeymonster really blows its dog whistle when the author associates a foundation distributing grants to journalists who are people of color with "bankrolling the inescapable American culture war." You hear that sound? That's the sound of my eyes rolling, hard. Grants to people of color who work in journalism is furthering a "American culture war." Gosh, those pesky people of color, spreading their "culture war."
The author of the thread then mentions Guy Macon, who, from a quick google, appears to be a transphobic bigot and a troll who made a point of purposefully misgendering a trans wikipedian just to get a rise out of them, and then made a huge scene when he wasn't allowed to erase history and pretend the whole thing didn't happen, and demanded that the person unblock him. Good lord, what a fucking child. https://www.reddit.com/r/RealWikiInAction/comments/rv9x94/gu...
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=292896
....and then it ends somehow vaguely tying wikipedia to an experiment involving octopii hatchlings getting killed, or something.
It's a gish-gallop mess, and what a giant surprise it was to find that the author has a long, rambling thread about police killings in the UK that seems to say "that, really, if those black people just stopped committing crimes, they wouldn't get arrested and shot and stuff": https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1574101120347168770.html
...and their response to "uh, who exactly is this person" is to troll people by giving them the name of an anime: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeKtlilX0AAqnKA?format=png&name=...
https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/
According to the Form 990, there were 320 US employees and a small number of non-US employees in 2020:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikim...
Note the explanation of what's included in the salary costs here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRS_tax_related_information/...
So I reckoned the average salary cost is more like $200k per person:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list...
Top earners are here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikim...
The Red Cross has also been mired in controversy (eg [2]). Eventually such organizations just seem to collapse under the weight of their bloat and have very little effective spending on the things they fund raise off.
I'm also reminded of Yes, Prime Minister [3].
[1]: https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html
[2]: https://www.propublica.org/article/disturbing-things-about-t...
From a Twitter thread on a scientific research project funded through Wikimedia:
> In deciding who to fund, the key criteria was use of the Intersectional Scientific method. Everything else - a scientific background, data - was optional. What could possibly go wrong?
> One of the projects was into spatial learning in the California Two-Spot Octopus, for which the researcher got 12 hatchling octopuses.
> Unfortunately, the lab experiment went horribly wrong, killing the poor creatures before the research could be concluded.
And here's an alternative way to browse Wikipedia and WikiData: https://conze.pt/
These sites are possible because the Wikimedia Foundation puts a lot of effort into making it easy for others to retrieve the data and reuse them.
> "It's the Khmer Rouge in diapers," observes one regular Register reader, which seems as good a description as any to us.
https://www.theregister.com/2004/09/07/khmer_rouge_in_daiper...
> "You think the BBC is biased? Check out Wokepedia"
https://archive.ph/20210527073503/https://www.telegraph.co.u...
In a rhetorical line consistent with the "Khmer Rouge in diapers" and "Wokepedia" snipes, the writing in this second piece is strikingly petty and polemical:
> If Karl Marx was alive today, perhaps he wouldn’t be touring Manchester slums with Engels, but peering in astonishment at the upstairs-downstairs world of Wikipedia. Instead of Das Kapital, he’d be writing Das Wiki.
It's revealing that Orlowski chooses to single out Wikipedia as a remarkable examplar of extreme wealth inequality, when many of the outlets he mentions in his very first sentence are headed by far wealthier individuals than Jimmy Wales:
> Who would you name as the most influential media company in the world? Some might offer Fox, Disney or the BBC. Or AT&T and Comcast, the largest media giants by revenue. In fact, the real answer may be hidden in plain view: Wikipedia.
Evidently, Orlowski is simply a right-wing journalist who dislikes the public having access to information with an ideological bent which is even sometimes different than he would like to see online, and therefore takes potshots at Wikipedia using standards he doesn't apply to other outlets.
Personally, when I want information on a topic that's received widespread attention, I almost always find Wikipedia an extraordinarily informative source, usually much more neutral in tone and much more fact-loaded than anything else found online. Even when the writing suggests a viewpoint I don't agree with. And yes, sometimes the viewpoint is to the political left of my personal viewpoint.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not a little "Khmer Rouge diaper baby" who is helplessly swayed to the evil communists by the slightest bias in Wikipedia's tone. I'm an adult who finds it to be one helpful source as I draw my own conclusions.
If such a viewpoint is unpalatable to Andrew Orlowski, perhaps he belongs on Conservapedia, the onetime self-styled "trustworthy" encyclopedia.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski
[note: minor edits for clarity + expanded analysis]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Grant_...
This said, I agree with the premise that the Wikimedia Foundation is partisan. Its General Counsel came from the Tides Foundation, which is as partisan as any of its equivalents on the right, and its Chief Advancement Officer, responsible for fundraising and strategic partnerships, had a long career in political philanthropy before joining Wikimedia:
https://sfgov.org/civilservice/sites/default/files/Documents...
https://www.sfweekly.com/news/greening-the-left/
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/COMMUNITY-Growing-ch...
By "full-time" you mean paid?
Researchers can't contribute to Wikipedia at all, unless the "research" consists of a literature review.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
And if there were full-time paid editors, I'd stop editing immediately, and instead contribute my efforts to the fork that would inevitably result.
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/10/05/a-victory-for-free-kno...
As an example, if we are to trust this site (https://jcmit.net/diskprice.htm), a 2TB HDD was sold for about 160 dollars in 2012. You can purchase 8TB for 130 dollars now.
From this wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics) we can see the amount of English articles has about doubled since then. Chances are that storage costs have not only not gone up, they have gone down.
> While I am a very low income Senior [ live in Gov't. H.U.D. Apt.], I do still try to contribute to certain causes. Wikipedia is 1 such Group. I believe that I have given Wikipedia small donations for about 3 years now. While I do not have much to give, It is important that You know we appreciate the great work you undertake.
> I do, respectfully, need to point out 1 "process" that Wikipedia implements that "disturbs/upsets" me. I just, accidentally, got rolled over to Wikipedia on a matter I am researcing. The Wikipedia "overlay" writing asking for Donations said this was 4th time You have asked me.
> THAT "NOTICE" MADE ME FEEL VERY "GUILTY/BAD"....... Right now, I have $18.00 in my bank account ! That's It !
> Soon, I will get my only source of Income [ a monthly Social Security Check] & will try to make a donation at that time.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2...>
Previously: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32713978>
Why he's so consistently angry with Wikipedia is still a bit of a mystery to me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski#Criticism_of...
I have no idea about the other stuff, but I knew the name from The Insult File: https://micans.org/stijn/haphazard/flame.txt
I think he's since removed it from his personal site, but there's plenty of copies, floating around.
The reason the story is coming up now is that the Wikimedia Foundation is currently "testing" the fundraising banners, in time for the big annual fundraising campaign in December. So at present, a certain percentage of Wikipedia readers in major English-speaking countries are shown the fundraising banners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#W...
- the removal of features in the name of smaller surface area (while at the same time adding telemetry and analytics[1])
- other lame fixtures of soulless corporations like cringy/dishonest PR babble
There's also stuff like breaking incoming links to content on mozilla.org; making it steadily harder to contribute; keeping things closed source (whereas before everything was licensed under MPL or some other FOSS license); being willing to cut deals with partners that come with strings attached and NDAs; wasting probably a billion dollars on obviously doomed things like Firefox OS and calling it a "moonshot"; etc.
"Wikimedia Foundation gets $100 million + dollars per year and only needs a single-digit million to keep Wikipedia up. All those ads begging you to donate to “protect their independence” actually give them a huge surplus, some of which gets redirected to leftie culture warrior causes. For example, they gave $250,000 to a group promoting an “intersectional scientific method” that argues that objectivity is “colonialist”, and another $250,000 to a group promoting police abolition. Is this claim true? The very small amount of research I’ve done suggests that it’s true that Wikimedia spends a lot of its budget on things other than hosting (estimates of how much maintaining their websites costs range from 8% to 43%, I haven’t looked deep enough to know who’s right), that some of the remainder goes to grants (this isn’t a specific line on their budget, but seems to be some part of the 32% going to “direct support to [Wikipedia-related] communities”), and that some of these grants do go to “racial justice” type charities, including the two above. Wikimedia says this is about increasing minority representation in Wikipedia/academia/knowledge/whatever, but the charities do also fund controversial work like opposing scientific objectivity or trying to defund the police. I don’t know if any Wikimedia money ends up at those causes. How would people be thinking about this if it went to right-wing culture war causes instead?"
2020/2021 revenue goal: $108M, increased to $125M, total at end of year: $154M
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikim...
2021/2022 revenue target: $150M, already exceeded by end of quarter 3, weeks before the start of the fundraiser in India, South Africa and South America:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AF%26A...
for the US, it refers to income above $156K, here's an explainer
https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finan...
Even if you agree with the spirit of these grants, I'm sure this is not what people thought they were funding when they donated to Wikipedia:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Grant_...
Edit: consider spending on the above vs. hiring more people to translate some of the 6.5 million English articles to other languages that typically number only ~1.5 million or so.
What the WMF does do at times is fund community "organizers" trying to get unpaid volunteer editors to work on its content. See e.g.:
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/09/22/join-the-organizer-lab...
Direct editing paid for by the Foundation was tried once, with bad results:
https://thewikipedian.net/2014/04/02/bats-in-the-belfer-a-be...
How is this misleading? They provide an incredibly large amount of information.
And more information can be found here:
"As of 21 September 2022, the size of the current version of all articles compressed is about 21.23 GB without media."
(Note that's gzipped, so the actual size is much higher in-use.)
Media is, of course, vastly larger. Sadly, the last number given was from 2014, so I'd expect it to have increased massively since then:
"The size of the media files in Wikimedia Commons, which includes the images, videos and other media used across all the language-specific Wikipedias was described as well over 23 TB near the end of 2014"
I expect this would qualify.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund
which also links to:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2020/06/03/we-stand-for...
Most people would probably place a lot of this firmly in the "woke" category.
Yes, users can go elsewhere to find the information. The records are on file in the metaphorical filing cabinet downstairs. But if the messaging you're putting front and center contradicts said records, their existence doesn't counter criticism of the messaging
From a Washington Post article a while back:
Justin Anthony Knapp doesn’t necessarily mind that: With nearly 1.5 million contributions, the 33-year-old Wikipedian is more active on the site than literally anyone else — including members of the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation’s paid staff.
Every day, Knapp drives his 15-year-old car from Indianapolis’ poorest neighborhood, where he lives, over to a restaurant on the city’s West Side; he delivers pizzas to pay his bills, in between piecemeal work at a grocery store and a crisis hotline.
Every night, Knapp logs onto Wikipedia ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/07...
And the Wikimedia Foundation is undertaking great efforts to get people in developing countries to edit for free, in part so that Google, Amazon and Apple have Wikipedia articles for Siri, Alexa and Google Assistant to read out and make money in those countries ... same with Google's and Bing's knowledge panels, which are largely based on Wikipedia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12...
At the time they had reported net assets in excess of $77 million. Even by mid-2020, that had increased to $180 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial...
The Wikimedia Foundation had an 8-figure surplus in 9 of the last 10 years. The only exception was 2013/2014, where the surplus was "only" $8.3M. That was their "worst year" in the last ten years. The Wikimedia Foundation has beaten its own annual revenue record every year of its existence.
See Lysenkoism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Marx's ideas were refined by Antonio Gramsci who offered social Hegemony as a means to achieve the utopia. To the extent that science is a sense-making part of society it must be taken over by pro-marxist/communist forces. It's the only way to assure the success of marxism.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.93001...
A couple of years ago a Wikimedia Foundation fundraising report explained why that "Don't scroll away" phrase was added:
------------
“Don’t Scroll Away”
A simple, yet effective phrase that we were surprised to see resonate with readers worldwide was simply asking readers not to “scroll away” from or “scroll past” the fundraising message in the banner. We believe that addressing the context in which people donate helps improve the donation rate.
------------
Quoted from this report: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/2019-20_Report
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikim...
"Technical Infrastructure" includes "all the engineering and technology" though. I'm not sure if a breakdown which includes server costs is available? I remember it being a pretty small piece of previous budgets.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Wikimedi...
Just because there's no truly neutral version doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for neutrality. There are clearly anti-neutral approaches which we should always try to eliminate.
> Who chooses which facts show up, or how do we know if certain critical facts are missing?
Wikipedia already has a pretty good policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...
What's interesting is that you somehow know that the author is someone who hates wikipedia, yet you refuse to read his article(s). How did you arrive at the conclusion that the author is someone who is heavily biased against Wikimedia and shouldn't be trusted? Are you just memetically repeating something others have said on the internet about the author, or did you read other articles/claims from this author and independently arrive at your conclusion?
If the latter, how could you have not researched Wikimedia finances even a little to validate claims the author makes? In which case, you would have something substantive to communicate to others on the internet to be aware of about the claims of the author, instead of the anti-intellectual ad hominem approach you took here.
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
"The Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund is a new US$4.5 million fund created by the Wikimedia Foundation in 2020, to provide grants to external organizations that support knowledge equity by addressing the racial inequities preventing access and participation in free knowledge."
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikim...
Annual revenue was $163 million. Of course hosting costs alone don't cover the entire outlay, but Wikimedia's budget and money demands have absolutely exploded in recent years.
Money generates money. To fund something in perpetuity you need enough that the returns from investing it (taking into account tax, costs, inflation, etc) exceed the annual payment needed. This is not an infinite amount.
I haven't checked the figures but the article claims the foundation has $400 million cash and Wikipedia costs under $2 million per annum. There's no easy way of calculating the maximum annual sum that can be taken out in perpetuity from a well managed endowment but it's certainly a lot more than 0.5%.
> Is the problem there the word "many"?
Yup, the right is "few". Few countries recognize it. From 195, 16. But again, to create a new reality to support an agenda, is wrong.
You probably should read it a bit better then. The existance of the term gernder identity and the existance of gender identities are not the same thing. The word "sex" came slightly later than the first time humans reproduced.
> "Non-binary" didn't exist until recently.
no gender identity existed until recently, but thats because identity is a late 18th century concept. Historically people didn't think of themselves as individuals so they did not separate into identities.
The existance of people who did not "belong" to their prescribed sex, has a long history though. From the non binary page on wikipedia you can see someoone called "not a man or a woman" in the us in the 1700s.
> Yup, the right is "few". Few countries recognize it. From 195, 16.
Thats not what the quote said, the quote said many societes recognise a third gender. It doesn't say current existing nations. if you followed the citation you would have found the book the quote came from where it lists examples:
>> The existence of a third sex or gender enables us to understand how Byzantine palace eunuchs and Indian hijras met the criteria of special social roles that necessitated practices such as self-castration, and how intimate and forbidden desires were expressed among the Dutch Sodomites in the early modern period, the Sapphists of eighteenth-century England, or the so-called hermaphrodite-homosexuals of nineteenth-century Europe and America.
The book I am assuming cites even more historical examples in different ancient and modern societies of non conforming binary roles in society. Enough examples that the author feels warranted to claim there are "many" in the wikipedia summary of the book.
You are claiming wikipedia is biased because they used the word "many" in a concept you feel there isn't enough examples to warrant it. Is that what it boils down to? Your feelings about quantitative adjectives? Thats a loose definition of "agenda pushing" dont you think?