Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

(from village pump archive, regarding donations)

Perhaps I've missed it, but there's nothing about donating to Wikipedia on the front page, or anywhere in the FAQ. The site does often seem slow, and so the question arises naturally. Of course, donations may be impossible because of the corporate origins of Wikipedia, etc, or they might be possible in the future. Could the answer be added to the FAQ?

Pde 08:42 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

Great question! I am not a developer but I do read and contribute to the developer's mailing list. First, outside of the occasional Slashdotting or other media exposure, the slowness is not the result of our server not able to handle the load or our bandwidth pipe not being large enough. The slowness is from table locking in My-SQL and other programming inefficiencies (which are being worked-on and improved all the time - albeit slowly). So even if we were to buy a new server that is four times faster there would probably be little if any noticeable improvement in performance. What we really need is somebody with a great deal of experience optimizing databases for heavy loads. Our developers are doing a great job but they are largely learning how to do this type of optimizing as they go.

Right now Jimbo Wales is our sole benefactor. He pays for our bandwidth and for the Wikipedia domain names (which are all cheap for him since he owns an ISP) and last year he bought us a new $US 3,000 server. There are serious plans, however, about forming a non-profit organization to manage Wikipedia's and Wiktionary's finances. Such an organization would be able to accept donations but Jimbo has stated that he doesn't need any help right now supporting Wikipedia. He has also stated that he would continue to at least provide bandwidth for Wikipedia and Wiktionary even after the non-profit is set-up. So financially we are doing just fine - we just need a developer who is an expert in database optimization. --mav

Sequential searches are ineffecient at searching vast text databases. They should not be used as a primary. File Includes are a much better way to go.

I've got meetings next week with people who I might persuade to fund qualified experts ( proof is in the pudding! ) for this open source programming initiative. Rate determining steps to are unknown at this point: I don't know how long it may take to secure funding. But I have started so there will be funds made available either through an existing NGO, Canadain Government Bodies, or Venture Communists. I don't care to get an e-mail or a phone so any message should be placed on my talk page. User:Two16

Humor

Ah great, a foundation dedicated to creating an enyclopedia - how many years to go until Wikipedians dominate the galaxy? ;) 145.254.36.235—Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 20 June 2003

---

As the inventor of the name for this thing, I expect of course to receive fat royalty payments. ;) --Sheldon Rampton 03:41 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Of a non-profit organization? See the 12/26/99 Sluggy Freelance comic - don't get your hopes high of fat royalties of zero profit. --Geoffrey 03:25 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I expect when Wikimedia becomes a US$500b organization we will all become fabulously wealthy. --Delirium 07:51 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

We will one day rule the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And beyond ;)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yo, today (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

---

No. it is wheat that has been nursing us for the past two million years as its slaves and is ruling the world through us. Don't you watch any BBC documetaries? or at least Woody Allen's Love and Death to the end? We are just slaves of wheat and the wikipedia and a few others. Assimov did the wikipedia with a much greater budget, and yet all he came up with was fiction, albeit the best of its kind. We will definitely rule the world if we can convince wheat to care about the human knowledge encompassed in our new enslaver.

---

And here is another trrifying thought: If Harry Seldon was wrong and math does not rule, then the wikipedia, which unlike the encyclopedia galactica collects knowldge thruogh statistical summation of human knowledge from many many little writing ant slaves which are us, then the wikipedia will become as chaotic as Genesis chap 1 vs 1, so let us hope Harry Seldon was right!

---

When I was 16 I couldn't possibly have dreamt the I will one day in thirty years join the expidition to the Fantastic Planet of Terminus.

--Ohadaloni 21:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Governance

Removed:

The pror means of Wikipedia Governance, which had revolved around the Wikipedia mailing list and Wales' own decisions, are to be replaced by a new method negotiated probably among more frequent contributors.

"Are to be replaced"? I must have missed something here while reading the mailing list posts. This topic has not been raised yet there (which, now at least, is the only place any policy is decided). --mav—Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 10 July 2003

You didn't miss anything. Re-reading the announcement, the only commitment is to a board. That does imply however some shift to governance, that should start to be discussed. Mention of board and board procedures is enough, as those make mention of many governance concerns, for those interested. However, it may be valuable to elaborate on the history of m:Wikipedia Governance and the disputes thereon, since, this is what the new Wikimedia now takes over.

Also, this is not an issue, but, given that the fact removed happened to be about yourself, don't you think someone else, not yourself, should be the one to decide if it matters to every reader? We are all prone to a lack of objectivity regarding the importance of facts about ourselves, and certainly, you have removed facts or quotes you considered irrelevant, and would like that judgement to not be challenged by those quoted, creating endless edit war. I leave that to your judgement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.102.237 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 July 2003 (UTC)

Imply yes, but nothing has been decided yet. And if I hadn't reserved the domain name then a squatter would have taken it (I didn't reserve the .com counterpart and that domain name was taken by a squatter). That alone would have rendered any choice in the name "wikimedia" to have much less value (and may have resulted in us dropping the idea of naming the Foundation "Wikimedia"). So the name was Seldon's idea but I followed through to make sure his name choice was possible (any foundation would need a web presence). All that is relevant to any discussion about the name. --mav—Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 10 July 2003

Public Domain Enhancement Act

Yes, this sounds like advocacy, but I wonder if Wikimedia has a position on the Public Domain Enhancement Act. The act would require copyright holders of works over 50 years old to register their interest in a work with a $1 payment to the PTO every 10 years. Works for which the copyright holder doesn't register interest would fall into the public domain.

Is it/are we supporting the act? Would a position on the act be appropriate for the front page? -- ESP 14:56 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I support it and I'm sure many other Wikipedians would too if they knew about it but the Wikimedia Foundation only really exists in name and on paper right now so it cannot really have such a postion. But in the future I do foresee Wikimedia becoming a very important leader in the free/open content cause (similar to role that the Free Software Foundation plays for free/open source software). Baby steps until then, though. --mav

Hmm. I wonder if it would help or hurt to write up a draft of Wikipedia:Public Domain Enhancement Act (as opposed to Public Domain Enhancement Act) talking about what the effects of the act would be on Wikipedia. I realize that this is a politically charged issue, but if it seems like the free use of public domain sources (up to 1942! WOOHOO!) would be really helpful for the project. -- ESP 17:20 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Seems premature to create an article about an Act that is only proposed. I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the Wikipedia namespace proposal since we try to steer clear of political issues (esp. in the encyclopedias). But discussing this on meta seems to be a good idea. --mav

Also, if Wikimedia wants 501(c)(3) tax exempt status there are limitations on lobbying activities, though just supporting proposed legislation is not usually considered lobbying. Alex756 20:36, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Perhaps I have missed something, but what are "wikimedia peices"? Is this some kind of terminology that has been thought up that I am not aware of. It sounds kind of strange. — Alex756 19:51, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fixed: piece -> project - Patrick 22:50, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

They are really not projects, they are realities ;) . The pieces are :

1. Wikipedia: encyclopedia
2. Wiktionary: dictionary
3. Wikibooks: free source books
4. Wikiquote
5. Nupedia

One thing is the wikimedia (foundation) and another thing is a wikimedia (piece) . Mac 10:36, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

They are projects. The main page says "Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate free content encyclopedia...." etc. Pieces makes no sense. Angela. 01:12, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

---

Why is In Memoriam not listed here as a Wikimedia project ? Kpjas 09:28, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

As I have visited various wiki's, including the Wikimedia peices, it occured to me that all the WikiMedia Foundation wiki's need to have the WikiMedia logo as part of the page layout. This is expecially important when other Wiki's are using the WikiMedia Wiki software. I have visited a few wiki's that use WikiMedia software, but that are not associated with WikiMedia. I can recognize the WikiMedia software, so the assumption is that it is associated. --Jim 22:44, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See the new skin at http://test.wikipedia.org/ . Perhaps the Wikimedia logo could be the background image. The phrase "A Wikimedia project." can and, IMO, should also be right under the logo of each Wikimedia project's logo in their sidebars. --mav 03:43, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I propose to remove the donation information (i.e. accepting paypal, etc.) from the article, because that looks not much relevant for this encyclopedia entry. It smacks of self-promotion, too. Any objection? Tomos 19:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree it looked a bit too promotional having a whole section on donations. I've removed that and added the donation link to the paragraph about funding, which hopefully doesn't look as bad. Angela. 00:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

why can we edit them?

why the heck do you make it so people can just edit somthing. i mean they could delete stuff, say bad stuff and link to bad sites and stuff. why?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.88.143 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 20 August 2004 (UTC)

They do that. They're also responsible for the entire content of the encyclopedia. It's very easy to fix such actions - it's called reverting a page and it's done by using the page history. The point of a wiki is that although it can be vandalized, it can be fixed even easier, and thus vandalism doesn't stay long. On average, vandalism on wikipedia lasts only 5 minutes. Yelyos 02:03, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Why do you allow discussion pages to be edited? What use is it to change what someone said bar Vandalism? Also, why can't you do a request for a word article on Wiktionary? -Occono

Mainly because there is no way in this technology to allow people to add new comments without also allowing them to alter existing text. A discussion page no one could write to wouldn't be worth much.

That said, there are some good reasons to allow editing even within existing portions of a discussion page:

• Allows people to intersperse a remark to reply directly to a particular point.
• Allows people to correct their own misspellings, add a citation near a particular comment etc.
• Allows someone to use strikethrough to retract a remark.
• Allows reorganization of material inserted in wrong places. (Newbies keep adding stuff at the top.)
• Allows removal of copyvios.
• Allows archiving or refactoring of old discussion.
• Etc.

Imaginably, we might be better off with more of a bulletin board system for discussion rather than a wiki, but it would not blend so well into the rest of the site. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. But what about Word requests? -Occono

I know you can add words to the Wikisaurus (part of Wiktionary) but you can't do that from Wikipedia; you have to go over to Wiktionary to do it. Here are the instructions I found: Creating a Wikisaurus entry. Mamawrites 15:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.--Occono 13:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wikitravel

So wikitravel isn't part of Wikimedia then? It should be snapped up by Wikimedia because it has the potential to be really good. Someone should make a similar page to Wikitravel. Call it Wikitravller or Wikiwandering or Wikiplanet. Any better names? To be honest though, there could be so so many wiki projects. Wikispecies was a crap idea. I reckon Wikiwork, an online essay-editing club would be cool. Or Wikibot, where somehow users make a kinda robot. Or Wikicook, an online cookbook. Wikinews, where people tell us about random news that has happened near them. Wikijokes, so everyone can share dirty jokes. And Wikiwiki where people can post ideas about future Wiki services— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewayforward (talk • contribs) 13:58, 22 September 2004 (UTC)

The people at Wikitravel are well-aware of the fact that the people who run Wikimedia are big fans and would love to host them. So far the Wikitravelers are perfectly comfortable being on their own. Oh, and something like WikiJoke would never fly as a Wikimedia project due to a lack of educational merit. I do agree that Wikispecies was a stupid idea. I fought against it’s creation but obviously lost. Wikinews already exists and is doing very well though. --mav 17:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia owns Nupedia?

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is the parent organization of [...] Nupedia.

Can someone provide a cite for this? anthony (see warning) 14:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In Jimbo's announcement of the founding of Wikimedia, he transferred the domain names of Nupedia to the Foundation. Does that cover it? Angela. 06:23, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I suppose so. anthony 警告 22:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikimedia as a Blog engine

I see wikimedia have the potential to be used as a Blog engine. I've tried it myself in my computer and connect as localhost. I think it's better than any other blog in existence. Is there any group who would make such an idea a reality? Roscoe x 14:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of MediaWiki, the software, not Wikimedia, the organisation. And the best place to discuss this would probably be the mediawiki-l or wikitech-l mailing lists. - IMSoP 17:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is the page at this name?

Is there a reason, other than nobody having thought of it, that this page isn't at Wikimedia Foundation? That seems to be the official name of the organisation, so having the redirect go from there to here seems somewhat odd (not to mention unnecessarily adding to the Wikipedia/Wikimedia/MediaWiki confusion)... - IMSoP 17:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Wikimedia" is the more common name, but "Wikimedia Foundation" is the real name, so it could be at either really. There are a lot of links to both forms. Angela. 04:12, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

On the name of the Project

Why have the projects a so strange name, like Wikisomething?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.176.46 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Most of us rather like strange names. See Wiki for the explanation of this one. JamesMLane 06:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Paid employees

My understanding is that the Foundation operated for some time with no paid staff, but that now a few people are paid to tend to the servers and/or do development work. Whatever the facts are, could someone who knows them add them (date first employee hired, size and duties of paid staff as of July 2005)? In Jimbo's talk at Harvard on April 25, he mentioned the small size of the paid staff compared with 180 employees at USAToday.com, which gets fewer pageviews than we do. I think that point would be of interest to many readers. (Well, without the snarky comparison, of course.) JamesMLane 06:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

We still don't have any employees. Just two people on contract. Brion Vibber helps keep the servers humming from a software management standpoint (he lives in California) and Chad Perrin helps Jimmy Wales set the physical servers up in Tampa. Both started paid work in February 2005. --mav 17:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I have added a section about employees, sourced from Jimmy Wales's appearance on Charlie Rose and the official employee page. Robert K S 16:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

hi i'm new to wikipedia so i hope this comment is in the right place but anyway about the employees - surely there are more staff required to actually maitain the servers. while this work may be subcontracted these people are doing essential work for wikipedia and surely should be recognised. with about a hundred servers at several sites around the world the number of maintenance staff must be much more than just two staff in Tampa? Richy-rik 11:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Mailboxes Etc.

The links to google maps for an overhead view of the foundation were actually to a Mailboxes Etc. (presumably where the foundation has an account). See http://www.thecityoftampa.com/mailbox/

Criticism

Please add this in the article: Wikimedia has been criticised by some Wikipedia users: "The Wikimedia Foundation is undemocratic. Its bylaws were determined by one man. Its statement of principles is arbitrary, and does not agree with my own. Elections just give the appearance of democracy, the board will remain stacked regardless of the outcome. This is fake democracy, it is democracy executed without commitment to democratic principles. I don't believe this is a problem which can be fixed in small steps." - User:Tim Starling (MediaWiki developer). I now nominated this article for POV-check because it needs more balance, and a Criticism section. My edit which added Tim Starling's criticism was removed. Wikinerd 03:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The most important and notable thing about the Wikimedia Foundation is that it is a self perpetuating autocracy. Any input from the "Community" is purely advisory. see:http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#Section_3._Selection. So I will mention this near the top of the article unless someone gives reasons not to. Fourtildas 04:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Poll and survey

I believe Wikimedia needs attention in order to bring more balance in it, and especially a Criticism section which in my opinion should contain comments made by MediaWiki developer user:Tim Starling: "The Wikimedia Foundation is undemocratic. Its bylaws were determined by one man. Its statement of principles is arbitrary, and does not agree with my own. Elections just give the appearance of democracy, the board will remain stacked regardless of the outcome. This is fake democracy, it is democracy executed without commitment to democratic principles. I don't believe this is a problem which can be fixed in small steps." - Please note that user:UninvitedCompany used his sysop revert power to remove my edit. Please vote below. Wikinerd 03:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Is the Wikimedia article currently biased, written from an insider's point of view, delibarately not mentioning negative opinions and facts?

• Yes Wikinerd 03:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Probably not, but if it is, the appropriate thing is to add a {{npov}}, not create a straw poll like thi.s Radiant_>|< 08:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. Do you think any of us can be neutral about an organization we created ourselves? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• The likelihood that the article is biased (hardly any Wikipedia article has actually eliminated all traces of bias) does not dictate whether a particular critical statement is appropriate to quote in the article. --Michael Snow 16:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Not particularly. Everything's a work in progress, though. anthony 01:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

2. Does the Wikimedia article need a Criticism section?

• Yes, because readers will assume that the article isn't NPOV because it was written by wikipedia users. Adding a Criticism section would prove that Wikipedia is truly NPOV. Wikinerd 03:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Your argumentation is wrong. Adding a criticism section doesn't prove anything, and from where do you infer that readers will assume the article is POV? Radiant_>|< 08:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps, but the one you provided was mere sour grapes and unhelpful in achieving NPOV. The Uninvited Co., Inc.
• I generally dislike the practice of segregating criticisms in their own ghetto-section, rather than weaving them appropriately into the overall fabric of the article. And again, the question doesn't resolve the issue of whether this specific attempt has any value. --Michael Snow 16:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• No, there shouldn't be such a section in any article. I agree with Michael. A criticisms section is more appropriate for a term paper than an encyclopedia article. If there was significant news coverage about criticisms maybe this would be an exception, but even then it'd be better to separate sections by topics other than Pro/Con. anthony 01:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

3. Should MediaWiki developer user:Tim Starling comments be included in the Criticism section or elsewhere in the Wikimedia article?

• Yes, it's criticism made by a prominent MediaWiki developer and published on his user page. Wikinerd 03:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• No, because he prefers not to, see below. Radiant_>|< 08:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• No, because it is based upon the the fact between Tim's original goals in contributing to Wikipedia are not furthered by Wikimedia. The fact that Wikimedia does not meet Tim's goals or vision does little to provide balance to the article. The Uninvited Co., Inc.
• No. Tim's statement makes sense primarily as an internal comment, intended for an internal audience that will recognize the issues he is talking about, whether or not it agrees with his views. In an encyclopedia article with general readership, the intended significance is barely comprehensible when wrenched from its original context. This may be why Tim himself objects to including it. Any criticisms to be included in this article would preferably have been published externally (like Larry Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia), but the Wikimedia Foundation's profile isn't high enough to have generated much in the way of public critique yet. --Michael Snow 16:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you have a strong and reasonable argument about the internal audience. Since Tim Starling doesn't like his criticism in the article, I agree not to put it there again, but since his userpage is GFDL nothing would stop me or anyone else to quote Tim Starling on sites not hosted by Wikimedia, if I/they really wanted to do that, right? Wikinerd 07:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• The whole quote is a bit much for such a short article, and borders on Wikipedia:Original research. Put it in Wikiquote, which is or should be linked from this article. anthony 01:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

4. Was User:UninvitedCompany right to revert my edit using his sysop powers? (Please note that in the past I filled a RFC on him, and another sysop has also filled an RFC on me which involved alleged personal attacks against UninvitedCompany, this is not a personal attack and I don't accuse him of anything, but you need to know that this sysop seems to delibarately watch my edits).

• No because my edit was encyclopedic, in my opinion. Wikinerd 03:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, UC is well within his rights here, and the way you're raising this issue is entirely inappropriate. Additionally, contribution logs are public record, so you cannot blame him for reading yours. Radiant_>|< 08:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, Since your edits are frequently questionable I do watch them closely and revert those that do not further the goals of the project. Wikipedia has a wide range of discussion venues for those dissatisfied with the operation of the site. Wikimedia is not one of them. The Uninvited Co., Inc.
• Yes on the revert, and I agree that the questionability of Wikinerd's edits warrants continuing scrutiny. If the use of rollback on this particular edit is subject to challenge, I think it may be excused given the need to monitor and expeditiously remove dubious contributions. --Michael Snow 16:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Who cares? anthony 01:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Puerile trolling. You can put it in the article over my dead body. -- Tim Starling 04:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

who's trolling? I'm not a troll. If you don't agree with your own criticism then why you have it on your own user page? Wikinerd 04:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, you do not have to be a sysop in order to revert an article. While admins have the rollback feature to make reverting easier, anyone can revert an article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. I think in this ocassion UninvitedCompany used the quick revert feature, however. Wikinerd 04:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Rollback is the quick revert feature, but I know of some non-admins who type the same thing when they revert (reverted edits by Foo to the last version by Bar). Also, I thank you for switching to the user name you are using now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I used the rollback feature as I often do when reverting the work of a contributor whose edits have proven troublesome in the past. I have never believed the argument that rollback is appropriate only for "pure vandalism," something that is widely heard but is not, in actual fact, policy. The Uninvited Co., Inc.

Yahoo?

Why no reference to when Yahoo helped pay for the Wikimedia servers or something similar? Please, could someone add this? --Gary King 04:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation building

Can you include a picture of the Wikimedia Foundation building ?

Small HQ

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against economising where possible, but how do all the servers fit in the trunk of a car? See this Google Maps map  ;-) -- user:zanimum (where is the actual HQ on the map, BTW?)

wikimedia foundation = wikimedia board? section needed in article

i tend to get confused when there are statements about an action or decision of Wikimedia Foundation, e.g. on Wikipedia:Tools/1-Click_Answers or when people say something like the Wikimedia Foundation's policy is....

Is the Wikimedia Foundation:

1. Jimbo? or
2. the Board? or
3. the members (e.g. people with a minimum number of edits etc, eligible to vote for board members)?

If the board makes a decision, does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation makes the decision?

Or if His Majesty Jimbo Wales makes a decision, does that make it a decision of the Wikimedia Foundation? - e.g. 4. Final policy decisions are up to me, as always.

Or does the Wikimedia Foundation constitute all of its members, i.e. people who have made a minimum threshold number of edits, i.e. were authorised to vote for board members?

If all people who were eligible to vote for the board (or would be eligible now) constitute part of the Wikimedia Foundation, then shouldn't controversial proposals like this one be rather more widely announced (like the board election itself - with a small warning at the top of each wikipedia page)? If wide community participation in a proposal is not invited, and if afterwards a statement is made that Wikimedia Foundation decided this or that, then it seems to me inconsistent to claim that the Wikimedia Foundation includes all of its members.

In any case, IMHO there should be some clear statement of this on the article page here. Boud 13:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia as parent of Nupedia

Nupedia ceased to exist long before Wikimedia existed, but Wikimedia was listed as its parent organization. This seems perfectly ridiculous to me, so I've changed the article. -- Jeronim 17:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Abuse of position on .es

I would like to bring to the foundation's attention a situation which has developed on the Spanish version of WP. Dodo & Ecemaml have been abusing their position as admins, and have blocked the whole of Gibraltar from editing .es

Many people have been using the Gibraltar article as a "Gib bashing" excersize, and it has become a page of anti-Gibraltar propaganda. It is very POV, some of it outright lies, and much of it written by trolls with the express purpose of causing discord. Much of it is offensive to the Gibraltarian Community. As I am sure you will agree WP is not the place for this activity. There has been no attempt at consensus, merely a conspiracy to prevent NPOV, glorify the spanish arguments, and ridicule or trivialise any other position.

Dodo & Ecemaml have become self-appointed dictators of .es and have blocked ALL participation from Gibtelecom (Gibraltar's main ISP). It is not the role of an admin to censor a page, much less to block all editing which does not conform to the "Gospel according to Dodo". Their attitude and behaviour is not only a gross violation of WP principles, but of basic common decency.

I request that someone intervene urgently, and puts a stop to this abuse of position, and unblocks Gibraltar's participation. Dodo & Ecemaml should be removed as Admins forthwith. I thank you in anticipation. --Gibraltarian 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Article title

Any objection to moving this back to Wikimedia Foundation? Looks like more link to it that way. --Pmsyyz 18:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No objection here. --mav 03:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Positions

The article says

"Later, other official positions were developed: Tim Starling was appointed Developer Liaison to help improve the organisation of the development of the MediaWiki software, and Daniel Mayer was appointed Chief Financial Officer to help keep a budget and coordinate fund drives. Erik Möller had been the Chief Research Officer, but resigned in August 2005 due to differences with the board. [2] James Forrester was subsequently appointed to the position."

Firstly, Tim resigned about a year ago. Secondly, it seems a strange bias to mention only some of the people with "official positions" and not others. Also, these were just titles Jimbo gave out to people, not legally recognised officers of the Foundation. If anyone should be mentioned, it would make more sense to mention Brion Vibber, CTO, and Wikimedia's first employee. Does anyone think this section needs to be kept? The article is quite poor in general (no mention of local chapters, wikinews missing from the project list, inaccurate stuff about Wikia) but I'm probably too biased to be editing it myself. Angela. 09:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In Memoriam 9/11

Whats that?

From In Memoriam: September 11, 2001, part of the September 11, 2001 wiki.

"This is the home page for the memorial part of this wiki. It was started in 2001 in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The aim was to allow a more detailed report of the event than was allowed in Wikipedia that could include personal opinions. Part of the content here was originally uploaded to Wikipedia, a project of the Wikimedia Foundation." Thryduulf 15:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not linked from the article's lead or template like all the others, is there a reason why? Шизомби 07:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Add it in - someone can revert you if there is a reason that we don't know about. Thryduulf 09:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

picture

Sorry, but I feel like boldly removing the picture. Go figure why. It may be partly due to the many emails on the board AT wikimedia.org that starts with Dear Jimbo and Angela. One has her pride. Anthere 01:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Meta-Wiki & Simple English Wikipedia

The above mentioned sites (there are probably a few more) aren't listed in this article; aren't these sites also under the Wikimedia Foundation? Also, has anyone considered maybe making something like a WikiBlog? There also needs to be some kind of group effort to organize and gather all the Wikimedia policies, sub-sites, guidelines, tutorials, groups, tags, lists, projects, etc., etc.; because it seems like every time I search Wikipedia; there is something new dealing with Wikipedia itself (just a minute ago, I found out that there was a support group for those who wish to have their problems solved; or this counter-vandalism unit program; along with a few other "projects" I stumbled upon) -- there really needs to be a grouping of all of these things (I really have no word to call them; maybe sub-site or "wikiProject"? I mean, people are creating new projects like hotcakes; attempting to help improve Wikipedia and expand it; but there is no way to really "advertise" or let others know these programs or projects even exist. EDIT: Just a minute ago, I found out there was a September 11th Wiki. A wiki devoted to 9/11. I then decided to wiki September 11 attacks here at Wikipedia; and found out that the article was completely unaware that a September 11 Wiki even existed! An article about 9/11 didn't know that there was a Wiki devoted to 9/11? This is how "disconnected" wikipedia is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.209.137 (talk) 04:11, May 3, 2006 (UTC)

The community portal organizes all these sorts of things. Also, people can "advertise" their new projects through Wikipedia Signpost, a newsletter for the community.

Simple English is listed, as it's a "language" project of Wikipedia, is is no more special than any other language. Meta-Wiki is irrelevant to any regular reader wanting to know about Wikimedia, and our articles are written for readers, not contributors.

The Reader handbook is supposed to be of some use for readers, but of course its origin on Meta is irrelevant. "Simple" is a bad idea as far as I'm concerned. -- Omniplex 07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Sept. 11 Wiki was created as a way to make sure Wikipedia wasn't flooded with biographies of people whose sole notability was dying in the World Trade Centres, the Pentagon, or the planes. The plan is to archive it offsite, and officially de-list it as a Wikimedia project. -- Zanimum 19:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

5 paid employees

What are the salaries of these employees? If anyone knows, it would be nice to include in the article. --Dan Asad 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice, but do any of the other articles on corporations mention their employees salaries? -- Zanimum 19:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The salaries need not be listed. But I think the number "5" is out-of-date. I see six paid Staff and I expect that Jimmy does not work for free. That would make it now seven. -- 75.24.213.215 20:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy is not paid for his work on Wikimedia. Wikimedia:Current staff currently lists five people, not 6, but that page has never been quite right anyway. It doesn't include the interns or the office staff (other than Danny), and never included Delphine even though she was paid for her work on Wikimania. Angela. 04:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Meta stub

Make it so, and maybe replace the double redirect after this action by a direct link to Meta's main page. -- Omniplex 05:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD nominations

The following articles, which are breakout articles of this article, have been nominated for deletion:

• Wikimedia in popular culture (AfD discussion)

See also:

• Wikipedia in pop culture (AfD discussion)

Uncle G 14:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

NTEE?

Link or explain what "NTEE" means. --User:Jidanni 2006-07-12

Done. National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities is a classification system to detail what sort of non-profit an organization is, from what I understand. GChriss 15:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediawiki

Mediawiki should be mentioned somewhere. --Gbleem 18:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimusic

One common type of site on the internet is one that features lyrics, chords, tabs, or other music-related reference to popular songs. Many of these sites don't go very far to ensure quality content (correct lyrics, lack of spelling/grammar errors, etc.) and I think this area of information would benefit greatly from being made available in a wiki format.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias382 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, but must also point out that, though infinatly useful and convinient, there are many copyright issues with providing lyrics, chords, tabs, and other music related reference of popular music.

But a section perhaps illustrating basic playing methods, and chords and tabs for songs belonging ot the public domain on many intruments would be nice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.138.215 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiki projects

What are the chances of new ideas for projects being accepted? Notevery good idea can be included can it? How can ideas get a better chance of becoming a project?

Wikipictures

I would love to see something exactly like wikipedia, except it is ONLY PICTURES, with very limited text, perhaps only links to related wikipedia pages.Flexme 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability

I think some of the articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation are of very borderline notability, according to our own standards. Wikipedia is, of course, widely reported in the mainstream press. The same does not apply to the Foundation's other projects, all of which have articles -- WP:WEB would be a good guideline to consider in this respect. Neither does it apply to most of the articles about individual members of the foundation. It appears to me that people have gotten a little carried away in creating such articles (such as WikiNews). It doesn't look good for the project to have double-standards on the issue of notability. Although I don't think I'll go so far as to start any AfDs myself, I'd strongly suggest that we consider either pruning these articles somewhat (possibly moving content to project space), or providing more concrete evidence of notability in the articles themselves. Thanks. Arbitrary username 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all our projects meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. The one that could possibly fail them is Wikispecies.--Eloquence* 04:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be possible to move the "less notable" projects into the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Just a thought. - dcljr (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Founding date of Meta-Wiki

I've tracked down founding dates for all projects except Meta (and added them to this article). The closest I get for Meta is "November 2001" — no day. Does anyone know what day Meta was founded as a distinct site? - dcljr (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

One account for all wikiprojects

Wikipedia is probably the mother project of all wikiprojects and it looks like more people have accounts in wikipedia than in other wikiprojects. To sign in to other projects, more accounts are needed. I think it would be really nice to have all wikiprojects accessible from one user account. --Midnight Rider 02:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

New Wikimedia project?

I doubt this goes here, but I'm not sure where else to ask. I am interested in starting a new project independent of Wikipedia. What are the steps to take toward doing this? Where do I start? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Go here for new projects. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"mamaels" uh...what?

Under the Wikispecies description near the bottom of the article the list includes "mamaels". I can't find any real English language reference for what a "mamael" is supposed to be. If it means mammals, would it not be "mammalia". Even if so, would that not be covered under "animalia"? I'm removing it from the list. It looks like a typo at best. If I'm wrong, please let me know. Sdr 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My Sincere Apologies

I was in a bad mood yesterday and some guy deleted a legtimate page of mine so I decided to spam this article with bad comments. I believe that Al Qaeda is an evil organization and do not want them to bomb or kill anything. Please accept my sincere apology.

wawa12 05:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikisaurus

There should really be a wikisaurus. i never have a thesaurus around.

Wikimedia Youth Foundation

I've heard of this, does it exist? If so, shouldn't there be a section about it in the article? Littleghostboo[ boo! ] 06:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I got the name wrong. Littleghostboo[ boo! ] 07:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA & Wikimedia Foundation: What's the Corporate Purpose?

Can anyone inform me what is the corporate purpose as embodied in the Certificate of Incorporation, if any exists, or its equivalent, which I assume is on file with the Secretary of State of Florida?

I'm very curious!!!

Thanks!

Yours truly, Ludvikus 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just notice the WM Foundation Logo

This question answered by me by LOOKING. Ludvikus 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

AND IT IS NICE TO KNOW WHO'S WHO in WP & WM

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Logo of the Wikimedia Foundation, designed by Wikipedia user "Neolux"
Company type	Not-for-profit corporation
Industry	Internet
Founded	June 20, 2003
Headquarters	St. Petersburg, Florida , USA
Key people	Florence Nibart-Devouard, Chair of the Board Jimmy Wales, Chairman Emeritus Erik Möller, Executive Secretary Michael E. Davis, Treasurer Tim Shell, Vice-Chair Brad Patrick, Counsel Danny Wool, Assistant Brion Vibber, Chief Technical Officer
Products	Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks (including Wikijunior and Wikiversity), Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, Wikinews, and Meta-Wiki
Revenue	non-profit
Number of employees	5 paid employees
Website	wikimediafoundation.org

Yours, etc., Ludvikus 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Now I'm curious about these people:Brad Patrick, Danny Wool, & Brion Vibber:

? Ludvikus 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Brad Patrick, Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation

? Ludvikus 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Danny Wool, Assistant, Wikimedia Foundation

? Ludvikus 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Brion Vibber, Chief Technical Officer, Wikimedia Foundation

? Ludvikus 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

BEG FOR MERCY!!!

All hail the great Wikimedia Foundation! (Ha!) RocketMaster 08:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Copyright Infringments

Has Wiki paid The Scottish Government for their blatent rip off of their thistle symbol? [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.216.21 (talk)

It does look a bit like a thistle, but I can't find anything from the Scottish Executive with a similar icon. Google also fails to find anything. [2]

On a technical note, only directly copying (or copying and then modifying) an image or icon is copyright infringement. Icons which are similar in appearance are covered by trademark law, which is only designed to avoid confusion between organisations and products. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer) --h2g2bob 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

References

Usernames

If you register for an account at Wikimedia, does that mean you have access to all projects? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now, you have to register a separate account on every project you edit, if you choose not to edit anonymously. However, this will change in the not-too-distant future; I'd recommend registering with the same name and same associated email address wherever you register to make it easier to link them later. Also, this page is actually for discussing the Wikipedia article about the Wikimedia Foundation. (Are you confused yet?) The best place to ask questions about editing or using Wikipedia is at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 07:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why you have to make another acount for every project, but it's not fair. I got blocked for entering the wikimedia site with my wikipedia log in. I'm glad it's changing.

Wikitube

This is a suggestion that hopefully somebody of importance will listen to and one day take live. The suggestion is for a sofware or an internet expert to take the advantages of the most popular internet sites and combine them into one midea rich, very interactive medium. Take the sites, such as Youtube, wikipedia, google, download and yahoo answers and make a site which can do all of the functions of each of those sites. The result will be a portal that is very interactive and that users can edit. Something that there is music, video, text, graphics, everything, combines and you can edit it to make it even more interactive and accomodationg through the use of a very userfriendly editor interface that you don't even have to learn how to use to feel compfortable with. Who ever does this first, will be a very rich man, or woman. Don't worry, I'm not going to sue you for stealing my idea; I will be happy to jsut see it happen and to say that I came up with it first. Now get ready, set, go! --Nadyes 19:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)