Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Claims that Wikipedia supports pedophiles

There's a strange blog entry here that claims that the #2 at Wikimedia Foundation is an active supporter of pedophiles. This is a fairly serious accusation against the Foundation. Personally, I would like it if Wikipedia had less entries on weird subjects like child sex abuse. Because after a while, it almost feels like Wikipedia is turning into a pedophile encyclopedia, one that is free just for them so they can hang around here and brag about their abuse. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] ADM (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. Pedophiles who reveal themselves as such are routinely banned as a threat to the project's existence. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 04:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are completely unreliable sources and your post seems to only perpetuate negative stereotypes. You also imply "I would like it if Wikipedia had less entries on weird subjects like child sex abuse" while simultaneously adding dozens of entries on this very topic across the encyclopedia. It would seem you are one of the strongest proponents of discussing all manner of pedophilia interest. Care to explain this apparent contradiction? -- Banjeboi 04:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I guess I just find these claims to be outrageous, but still worthy of frank discussion. I am kind of afraid of pedophiles, and I find it increasingly difficult to write about them in a clearly negative way. I have a feeling that's it's becoming harder and harder to oppose the influence of pedophiles on Wikipedia, so I felt like I had to bring it up somehow. ADM (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be bloody kidding me. Wikipedia is not supposed to have a bias on *any* article; that is not negotiable. We are supposed to present everything *neutrally*, not for- or against-, regardless of topic. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 05:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the articles themselves, but about claims that the Foundation is somehow controlled by supporters of pedophilia. I didn't make those claims, other people did. ADM (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies; I read your comment above as wanting to introduce a bias. As to the blogosphere, fuck them. This isn't the first defamatory thing someone has said about the WMF; it sure as hell will not be the last. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 05:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

actually you seem to be perpetuating the fallacy that Wikipedia and or the foundation in any way is encouraging anything but encyclopedic treatment of these subjects and in some way is a haven for pedophiles. We write encyclopedia articles not build soapboxes for or against anything. If a reliable source supports your POV it can be considered for an appropriate article, until then please refrain from the general and seemingly inflamatory off-topic discussion. -- Banjeboi 05:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC

Hi, this is Mike Godwin, and I am the general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. I want to gently suggest that accusations about pedophilia may easily be taken as defamatory and actionable in court. Although I would not bring such an action on behalf of the Foundation, I would certainly cooperate with any individual at the Foundation who believed that unfounded accusations damaged his or her reputation. I can assure you that there is no philosophical disposition at the Foundation generally to promote child sexual abuse, and no one here has ever been charged (much less convicted) of any such crimes. Please be aware that some individuals here (and elsewhere on the project) would take damage to their reputations very seriously, and it is our policy here to help our staff members in any efforts they make to protect or repair their reputations.MikeGodwin (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, Mr Godwin ! I think we have gotten to the point of Godwin's law now, which is defined as anytime Mike Godwin spontaneously intervenes in a discussion thread for bringing up an unusual subject like that. ADM (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no reductio ad Naziium. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Link for "volunteers"

I think one of the references on this page to "volunteers" should link to [[Volunteer|Wikipedia's page on volunteers]. I also think there should be a reference to [Virtual_volunteering|online volunteers] page instead, especially since Wikipedia is one of the largest examples of virtual volunteering. Comment by: User:Jcravens42 22:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC-8)

Font size for Advisory Board Members too small

Why is the font size for Advisory Board Members so small? It's hard to read. Stillwaterising (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Funding

Could there be a section on fundting, and the use of banners saying "My amount is little, but my support is sincere," and not adverts, as on "the library," Wikia. There is press comment about this somewhere.--Timtak (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

HQ

There are pictures of the HQs of large companies such as Google, Sainsbury's and Honda, so why not one for Wikimedia? Simply south (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are some images available for use at commons:Category:Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case i have just added one. Simply south (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Page Layout

Anyone else seeing a big white space below the section 'Advisory Board' in the article? Maybe it's because of the high number of photos on the right side and happens between the "As of August... they are:" and the following enumeration. Any way to fix it? If not one might bring this to the attention of the mediawiki development team to find a more nicely viewing solution. - 134.76.223.2 (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Local Chapter in Brazil?

The map in this page show that there is a Local Chapter in Brazil (blue colour). But it is not listed on the list of Local Chapter. --79.218.70.77 (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Brazil's group was approved to become a Chapter as soon as they incorporated, but later decided never to incorporate. So they do not have a Chapter (but were listed as a "pending chapter" on some lists, including one used to make that map). –SJ+ 18:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Information

Wikipedia needs to inform that the ID password for wikipedia don't work for wikimedia.

Wikimedia in litigation

Has Wikimedia *ever* been involved in litigation? What does Michael Snow do, and how much did he get paid in 2008? And, who conjures up these silly ideas like "low-resolution" for a fair use screen shot of proprietary software? Why can't we have an encyclopedia that makes it easier for contributors by simply claiming /all/ of its content is fair use and therefore it doesn't have to be concerned with copyright? I'm disturbed in the direction wikipedia (and wikibooks) is going, and want to believe their fear of fair-use on an educational encyclopedia is grounded in reality, but I see no evidence for it. Evan Carroll (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, I've simply studied these issues) Yes, the Wikimedia Foundation has been involved in litigation. Many instances are minor, involving proceedings to disclose information about editors of articles. But there are some other, more serious matters, most notable perhaps the _Bauer_ case. Michael Snow didn't get paid anything, see the "Form 990". The idea of "low-resolution" for fair use is rooted in various court decisions on specifics of copyright law related to digital images, you'd have to study that material. Ignoring copyright law would be a bad idea, because copyright law may not ignore you. Critically, ligation can be very expen$ive, and the Wikimedia Foundation does not have deep pockets. My favor quote on the topic comes from the writer of the Cyber Patrol break FAQ - "What I found out was that those organizations, through no fault of their own, were able to give me a lot of sympathy and not enough of anything else, particularly money, to bring my personal risk of tragic consequences down to an acceptable level, despite, incredibly, the fact that what I had done was legal. Ultimately, I couldn't rely on anybody to deal with my problems but myself. Some people learn that lesson a bit less impressively than I had to." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well stated. I need to emphasize that Seth is absolutely correct that litigation is VERY expensive. To put on a decent defense in most civil litigation nowadays, you can expect to spend at least $10,000, and that's only if it settles before trial. It costs at least $100,000 to $150,000 to defend a case through trial nowadays. The average civil case requires at least six expert witnesses, all of whom insist on charging at least $300 per hour for their time from door-to-door (from when they leave home to when they come back), plus lodging, meals, and travel. And then any minimally competent lawyer will charge at least $100/hour for their time (most good lawyers will charge $250/hour and up), plus you have courier fees, filing fees, transcript fees, photocopy fees, etc.

Also keep in mind that under the American Rule, everyone normally bears their own attorney's fees. Sometimes you can get monetary sanctions or sue for malicious prosecution if the lawsuit against you is totally frivolous. But judges are reluctant to allow such counterclaims unless the complaint is totally and completely disconnected from reality (that is, a complete non sequitur). If the cause of action appeared to have the tiniest bit of merit at the time the complaint was filed (even if a little bit more investigation would have revealed that it was groundless), a judge will NOT award sanctions or allow a malicious prosecution claim to proceed.

Plus, lawsuits are extremely stressful, and if you're the defendant, you have to spend a lot of time working with your lawyer to respond to discovery requests, and preparing for depositions and trial. And you don't get paid for all that time, unless the actual defendant is a corporation that employs you.

And if you're wondering why the U.S. Constitution even protects copyright to begin with, and therefore subjects content creators to such a high risk of litigation any time they integrate the content of others into new content, you need to review the history of publishing and copyright. The truth is that in jurisdictions that don't protect copyright very well, like East Asia, or abolished copyright, like revolutionary France, there are (or historically were) relatively few content creators because no one can make a living off of it. Science had the same problem before governments, universities, and corporations began to subsidize scientific research in the 19th century---the only people who could afford to do it were wealthy part-time hobbyists. The process of creativity is invariably time-consuming, physically draining, and expensive. The point of copyright is to protect people who dedicate their entire lives to making creative works, thus increasing the amount of creativity overall. Is copyright a pain in the neck, like taxes? Yes. Is it a necessary evil, like taxes? Yes. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is an unnecessary evil. By the way, there's a term for organizations that don't have deep pockets: judgment-proof. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 01:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is good but we should get to work. I started a new section for disputes in need of expansion. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dan Brown/Haiti relief efforts

Hi. Those who have been tracking the Haiti earthquake story may be interested in this recent Youtube proposal to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Garble

I can't parse this to edit it: "in the European Union Jimmy Wales has created loose on January 20, 2005." Someone may be able to do so.--Wetman (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with when the Wikimedia Foundation was recognized in the EU -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiGovt

Can we think of creating WikiGovt, which will give information about government policies of all nations on any topic. Lets say I want to open up a business in Brazil. What should I do? which forms to fill up? How much is the expexted time frame? whom to contact in case of corrupt practices?

Or I wish to know the state rules and regulations or government resolutions.

If this project is started it will surely help to reduce beurocracy and lessen the burden on beurocracy and making it more efficient. Also good practices can be picked up by beurocrats bu looking into other nations policies.

regards

Ssbhat (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT the place for that, as what you are proposing conflicts with numerous aspects of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Please see Wikia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to be rude. Ssbhat, proposals for new projects can be made at m:Proposals for new projects. I would disregard the comment above as I'm pretty sure you weren't suggesting that we add such information to Wikipedia, given the location of your comment (on the talk page of the Wikimedia Foundation article). - Rjd0060 (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Board of Trustees has a new person on it

In April 2010, Bishakha Dutta became the first Indian ever to become a part of the Board of Trustees of the WikiMedia Foundation. I think this has to be added in this article, as it is significant.

The source for this info is [7].

Ankitbhatt (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection Suggestion

I'm suprised this page isn't already semi-protected. I'm just suggesting you do, because this is almost as big of a target for vandalism as Wikipedia herself.

114.241.24.45 (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Although generally I agree, there is not enough recent continued vandalism to justify a semi-protection (at the time of this writing). -- œ^™ 06:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive Suggestion

This page has discussions that are years old. I suggest a manual archive, or an automatic archive be put in place. Just a thought.

114.241.24.45 (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I manually archived all of 2008 and early 2009. I also added archive search functionality. -- œ^™ 06:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Employee start dates

Further to [8], for what it's worth, I've been a full-time staff member since April 20, 2006. -- Tim Starling (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

English Wikipedia, as one of top ten global sites?

I reduced the lead description to Wikipedia as a whole [9], because

• Alexa.com ranks "Wikipedia.org" as a whole, not en.wikipedia.org. They don't give a detailed traffic for subdomains.
• It is dubious if en.wikipedia.org is one of the top ten websites, even if so, I think alexa.com gives no good and accurate evidence. They give us a rough percentage of major subdomain traffic - en shares 54% of traffic as a whole. Let us compare it w/ the 10th website, qq.com, then we'll find they make a deadly race: either en.wikipedia.beats qq.com or en.wikipedia.org alone hasn't been one of top ten websites anymore. Regardless what happens in truth, anyway those two possibilities would be rather our estimation from the information above, not what alexa.com says, it would be our analysis, and as such, our original research. So I cut down the description to Wikipedia, not a specific language version, as well what alexa.com says exactly. --Aphaia (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Writing

I was just wondering, if Wikipedia is an American project, why do all the articles use British spelling and grammar?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.79.239 (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles don't all use British spelling and grammar. Sometimes they use British English, sometimes (more often, actually) they use American English. See Color, for instance. For more on the issue click here: [10] Sonicsuns (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone please update this article

I came here to find a couple of statistics. They're not here, which isn't critical; I will find them elsewhere -- but I did notice that the article is pretty outdated. For example, the org chart is old and out-of-date, as is much of the text information about the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation. If somebody has time and is so inclined, I think the article could use an update and maybe also a somewhat deeper revamp to more fully reflect recent history and events. Thanks. Sue Gardner (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think there's a lesson here :-). By the way, if people are going to update the article, it would be a good time to work out something about the various lawsuits which have involved the Wikimedia Foundation. Maybe that should be a separate article. But the question "Has the Wikimedia Foundation ever been sued?" seems to come up rather frequently (again, the answer is yes). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Structure of the Board

The article really needs to clarify how new board members are chosen, what their terms of office are, etc.. All we have is this:

• In April 2008, the board announced a restructuring of its membership, increasing the number of board positions to 10 overall, as follows:
  • Three community-elected seats
  • Two seats to be selected by the chapters
  • One board-appointed 'community founder' seat, to be occupied by Jimmy Wales
  • Four board-appointed 'specific expertise' seats

That's fine for April 2008, but what about before and after? I'm guessing after is the same as April 2008 (or else there would be another part about another update), but that needs to be clarified. And before April 2008? I don't know. Everything is hazy. There's a combination of appointed-by-Jimbo and elected-by-the-community, but it's unclear how many and when and for how long of a term were people elected/appointed to. For instance, Wales' term expired in December 2008, but he remained a member of the board, and indeed he apparently acquired a "community founder" seat earlier that same year. Did he hold two seats in the interim? If Michael Snow was replaced as chair of the board in July 2010, who replaced him? (I'm guessing Ting Chen, but it's not really made clear.)

And even given the April 2008 changes, I'm still not sure how things work. For instance, how exactly does the community elect board members? Is the voting open to everyone, or just registered users, or some subset thereof? How do they deal with sockpuppets? How often do these elections happen? When will the next one be?

How are two seats selected by the chapters? Do they have a vote, or do they just "select" people via consensus? Does every chapter have an equal vote, or are they weighted according to respective representation of the userbase?

What is the "community founder" seat? Is it just an automatic seat for Jimbo? If so, how can be said that the seat is "board-appointed" when there's only one person whom they could possibly appoint? Or perhaps we're saying that the board could appoint someone else if it wanted to, but it probably won't because everybody likes Jimbo. But if that's the case, how could any other hypothetical appointee be called the "community founder"? Is the seat restricted to people who have been with Wikimedia from the beginning, or is "community founder" sortof an unofficial (or inaccurate) title?

And as for the four "specific expertise" seats, are there four listed expertises, and each must be filled with an expert in that subject? If so, what are these 4 subjects? Or is it more of a broad thing, and there are no specific subjects, and sometimes even 2 people can be experts on the same subject?

For the 5 board-appointed positions, do the members up for re-appointment get to vote for themselves, or do they have to recuse themselves from voting?

The current board members are listed, but it's not clear who holds which seat (appointed by the board, elected by the users, etc.) unless you want to parse through the "History and Growth" section. (And the current board member listing should be in table format, anyway)

On top of that, I see that some board members have positions like "chair", "vice-chair and treasurer", and "executive secretary". How are these positions chosen? Do people just become board members, and later the board votes among itself who gets to be the chair? Or is the chair a direct function of how you become a board member; i.e. if you're replacing the guy who was chair, then you get to be the chair? Can you cease to be chair but still be a board member? Is being chair concurrent with your term as board member, or does it have a separate term of office?

Gah, my head is spinning.

Someone please clarify all this. I recommend we split things up, first with a bit describing the structure of the board (how many members there are, how each seat is chosen, etc.) Then we should name the current members, their terms of office, and their seats (who was elected, who is a "specific expertise" member, etc.). The whole history of who was elected when could be a separate article, in my opinion. Sonicsuns (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I just found this: [11]. It should be helpful. Sonicsuns (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Publicity suggestion: Promoting 10th Anniversary Events / Local Wikipedia Support Communities

I'm posting here because I'm not sure where the best place is to make a suggestion relating to publicity. It's shameful that few people seem to know about Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary. This could have been an incredible opportunity to get articles in newspapers — and also it could have provided a good excuse to bring together contributors and establish face-to-face local communities or even (in the long term) chapters to support Wikipedia around the world.

One of Wikipedia's architecture (infrastructure) people — Ryan Lane — visited Tokyo recently, and spoke at a "Wikipedia technology event". An advertisement (like the "Please read: A Thank You" currently displayed) was displayed at the top of the page (here in Japan) to advertise this event locally — so presumably Wikipedia is capable of using Geo-IP to display messages targeted at specific geographic areas. The same mechanism could be / could surely have been used to display messages to logged-in contributors and editors, suggesting that they organize a local event (with Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary as the excuse) or even (in the long term) set up a local chapter. LittleBen (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the suggestions. Right now we're actually running banners and watchlist notices on English Wikipedia that link to all the 10th anniversary events. We've also opened up the floor for those organizing events to advertise theirs directly through geocoded banners, though we're not running any just yet. As for media stories, there have already been a couple high profile stories in papers in English and other languages (like Norwegian and Hebrew), but most media stories are planned for later in the week, closer to the actual anniversary. If you have more ideas, for promoting the events and communications stuff around the anniversary, here and here are the discussion spaces where they're most likely to be seen. Steven Walling at work 00:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Toolserver

Wikimedia Toolserver redirects here, a reference to http://toolserver.org/, run by m:Wikimedia Deutschland. Could someone familiar with toolserver and its relationship to the foundation create a little section about the topic? Thanks. 67.101.7.182 (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Racial Lists and Categories of People

Below is a comment I added tonight to Talk:List of French Jews. I am reposting it here because I would like a reply, and I don't know where else to post it where I might get a response. The issues surrounding race, religious, and ethnic lists of people has been a very troubling one about Wikipédia for me, and other editors, for years. Thank you in advance for your reply:

• This article [ List of French Jews ], and ones like it, makes me sick as well, and angry beyond words. I simply cannot understand why Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation continue to permit these list articles and categories compiled by racists and race obsessed individuals to exist. --- What makes lists like this one particularly offensive is that it identifies people as Jews (or whatever) by the article title even if they never practiced the faith themselves; only that some editor has determined an ancestor or relative - even distant - once practiced the faith (or had an ancestor of a certain ethnic heritage [e.g. List of German Americans: Paris Hilton?!, Bruce Lee?!, etc., etc., etc.]. However, personally, I am outraged by all of these types of lists and categories. --- American Wikipediens, in particular, seem to continue to accept the historical « one drop rule » as an acceptable methodology and standard to apply in all sorts of absurd ways to categorize people. I am certain that there are tens of thousands of Wikipédiens that hope this deeply offensive categorization and list making will permanently end one day soon. Charvex (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect date

The statement "In December 2012 the Foundation hired Washington, DC lobbyist Dow Lohnes Government Strategies LLC", should be edited once the correct date is verified. 76.204.114.160 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Update to Finance Section

From the Wikimedia Foundation Financial department, updated finance article. Rmacgeorge (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC), WMF Contractor

Update

Can anyone update the no. of volunteers and staff in the the infobox? extra999 (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Title - "Wikimedia" or "Wikimedia Foundation"

This was renamed from "Wikimedia" to "Wikimedia Foundation" in 2005[12] (see Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation/Archive_1#Article_title). If this covers more than the foundation, shouldn't this be renamed back to just "Wikimedia"? Note that the article doesn't define "Wikimedia". --Chealer (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC) also if i key in the word 'Wikimedia' i will redirect to this page Ab8 (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

POV

The article refers to Wikimedia in glowing terms and relies heavily on sources related to the Wikimedia Foundation. Thoughts on POV? G. C. Hood (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Over-reliance on primary sources, link farms to Wikimedia websites, etc. JN466 10:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added a primary source tag to start with. The sources really need to be phased out for independent sources wherever possible. For a lot of this, it shouldn't be hard, since the news tends to cover Wikimedia blog posts anyways. Silverseren^C 10:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --JN466 12:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It probably needs an {{advert}} and {{COI}} as well :) but I am not a fan of tag bombing so I resisted ;) I split out List of Wikimedia chapters and removed the table from this article. Some sources in the child article that can be used in this one, I might drag them in later. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the two lists of names here – in my view, this sort of stuff belongs on an organisation's website, but not in its Wikipedia article. No secondary source in sight, of course ... JN466 12:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to remove it and simply list "notable board members" (past and present) instead. Also; it duplicates some of the "history" --Errant ^(chat!) 13:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You people need to find something worthwhile to nit pick about. Wish I had your spare time, I wouldn't waste it with such idiocies. Disgusting!

Please remove the taggings or fix the problems then remove. BE AN EDITOR, not a whiner. // FrankB 18:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about donors, donations and allocations

Regarding FDC portal/2012/FDC members the question was posed:

Hi, could someone please clarify where the bulk of the $10 million to be distributed comes from? Presumably it's mostly from donors in the United States. How many donors really donate/d from Poland or India or Bangladesh? If so, why is there only one board member from the USA who will help make decisions about the allocations? The national origins of the board members should at least roughly reflect where the largest proportions of donations to this fund are coming from. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not forum for discussion of the Wikimedia Foundation; it is for discussion about the article about the Wikimedia Foundation. WP:TALKNO refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Quotes about MediaWiki

I'm doing research for Wikiquote, if anyone knows of interesting or pithy quotes about q:MediaWiki, please let me know at q:Talk:MediaWiki, it would be most appreciated! Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Errors

I heard that the parent page of this page has errors. Please fix them if you can Wikimedia? ElliottBelardo (talk)

Auberon Waugh

I just wanted to email wikipedia . This seems very difficult ! the "contact us" pages of most organsisations do tell you how to contact them .

To say ;I just read the wiki biography account of Auberon Waugh ; warm , funny , balanced . It may break a few of your rules but some for subjects, if you are forever 'formal,& dispassionate' you miss the man ; how can you omit 'peacock and weasel terms ' when these refer to a man himself seemingly as well-qualified as any to be termed part-weasel and part-peacock ?

In contrast, your account of the history of the Falklands/Malvinas , I found highly informative and balanced, factual and diplomatic; the rules seemed as scrupulously observed as they were appropriate to the occasion .

Peter Waugh ( not remotely any relation ) 86.166.49.81 (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Info on the donors' money spending by the Wikimedia, and the absence of criticism

I have today stumbled upon an article published on 20th December 2012 by a British technology news and opinion website The Register. Upon reading it here I naturally wanted to find out more about how is the donors' money spent by Wikimedia and by its chapters here on Wikipedia itself. I was, however, left wondering why there is neither any information about it nor any criticism of it, so I will be bold and add it myself. --DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 14:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Although, indeed, The Register may not be the most notable reference, if not extremely bad as characterized here by user The ed17, the facts about German WP chapter spending donors' money for traveling to pop concerts is on the German chapter's wiki page here for everyone to see. I find ignoring the facts that everyone can see, and deleting the section altogether, extremely bad practice. Especially because, as explained on the FDC portal here, apparently the Founation has no mechanism to revise bad decisions made by the chapters, which may prove to be extremely bad for the Foundation's reputation in a long term. --DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 09:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please see this. What does it tell you? It tells me that some things should be given money first, and the photos, valid in themselves, can not be the top priority no matter how valid they are in themselves, they are to be considered not in a vacuum, but in context of more important things that need the money first. --DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 16:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone write a criticism section? Nkn7391 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

5+ years later........... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.187.112 (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Noticeboard, redirect there?

There is a noticeboard I started, the WP:WMF noticeboard, which is under discussion. I was thinking about making WP:Wikimedia Foundation, which redirects here, redirect there though that may be premature. Biosthmors (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:WMF now exists for an English Wikipedia volunteer-specific explanation of the Foundation. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Meta Wiki??

Is there really no mainspace article about meta.wikipedia?? Red Slash 03:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Wikimedia Meta-Wiki has some discussion and a link to the AfD. You can read Meta's own "about" page if you want information. Apparently it's not notable enough for its own article. Note: it's meta.wikimedia.org, not wikipedia, although it was originally "Meta-Wikipedia" (historical note). πr² (t • c) 23:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Misogyny at Wikipedia and WMF

• Murphy, Dan (2013). "In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny: Recent events in Britain draw more attention to endemic hostility towards women online". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 1 August 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WT:Article Incubator/Wikimedia Incubator#Incubator Greenhouse discussion, closeout date 2013-08-20

At the 2006 AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia Incubator, the closing was to merge and redirect to the Wikimedia Foundation.  Various versions exist in the edit history at [13].  There is a version at meta.  There is a version on the Italian wiki, although this doesn't show up on the Language links at Wikimedia Incubator.  There is currently a version at WP:Article Incubator/Wikimedia Incubator that needs attention, and there is a discussion at WT:Article Incubator/Wikimedia Incubator#Incubator Greenhouse discussion, closeout date 2013-08-20.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note that an edit on this page related to the greenhouse discussion has been removed, [14].  Unscintillating (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

OpenSolaris

Is there a source for Wikimedia using OpenSolaris and specifically because of ZFS? Cannot find any data on that from the Wikimedia page on their servers: Wikimedia servers from Meta. Laval (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I recall seeing it somewhere, the fileservers are the ones running solaris. not sure where I saw it though. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Internal links

This is an encyclopedia article. In my opinion, we should not be using inline internal links like Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan and {{main|wmf:Board of Trustees}}. We would not have inline links like that for a random company or charity, and we shouldn't here either. WP:Avoid self-reference applies. Both of these should probably go in the External links section at the bottom. Superm401 - Talk 21:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You can edit. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@Rjd0060: Superm401 has a COI, hence is suggesting the edit, per the guideline's recommendation. ;) –Quiddity (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure - but these types of cosmetic changes shouldn't really trigger any issues...but with the people who watch this page, I suppose it's better safe than sorry. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I should note that my comment above was a guess. Possibly he just didn't have time to do it himself, or to investigate whether it had been discussed before and rejected, or etc, and so suggested it? I'm not sure!

Fwiw, I'd agree with the changes. –Quiddity (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sourced text

"It was from the success of sleaze on Bomis that Wikipedia, the "first truly idealistic website", was born. Revenue from Bomis supported the web servers and bandwidth for Wikipedia and its predecessor, Nupedia. Strange as it may now seem, while Wikipedia's popularity soared advertising revenue stagnated. The encyclopedia's huge fan base became such a drain on Bomis's resources that Mr Wales, and co-founder Larry Sanger, thought of a radical new funding model – charity."[15] The text is obviously sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

employees section

I think this is in need of a good solid trimming. We don't need to report on the comings and goings, hirings and firings of various employees, nor scandals related to them. We should pare down to the essentials, and focus on any major issues which really received a lot of coverage. I will take a scalpel to it later this week.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

When scandals are reported in the media and are well sourced in accordance with Wikipedia it must be included. You cannot delete text simply because you don't like it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Much of that section isn't scandals; it's "X was hired in 2007, then Y was hired in 2008, then Z left in 2009" etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You deleted my edit that reported on the salary paid to Sue Gardner. Your justification: "why is this relevant to article? Do we list salaries for other companies?" It's relevant because we contribute money to Wikimedia Foundation, and we have a right to know how it's spent. We don't contribute to "other companies" so they can do their work. The Foundation is not a company - it's a charitable foundation that has to report its income and expenses data to the IRS to maintain its tax-deductible status. Apparently you read something negative into my edit, which was a factual, non-opinionated statement of Gardner's salary of $219,000 plus the five other foundation employees who made between $170,000 and $212,000. This is information that the IRS requires to be submitted, and it is public information. As such, it belongs in this article. Since the donors are the source of the foundation's income, they are also entitled to read about properly reported "scandals." I see that you're pretty high up in the editor rankings here. But as QuackGuru notes, you don't have the right to delete text simply because you don't like it. You are not a guardian of the foundation's reputation; you are supposed to be an editor, not a PR flack. You are abusing your authority. Wlegro (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not deleting the text because I didn't like it; I deleted the text because I don't think it's appropriate, in this article or any article about a charity. I think the article you are looking to edit is this one Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Foundation, where such financial details would be relevant and welcome. But *this* page is for readers, not wikipedia editors nor contributors. The whole page is bloated and needs a serious trimming, it's evidence of too much navel gazing on our part. What other page has pictures of all board members? Rather ridiculous I think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Faisal motaher (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

add video

I just uploaded this:

B-roll

It's basically b-roll of the foundation offices for tv news or other outlets to link to. Thought It might work on this page too. Vgrigas (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Very nicely done, Vgrigas. I think it's worth adding to the article. Tony (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

JFTR, somebody added the video, and as of 2015 it's on the article. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Expiry of trustee terms

I note that some of the board members show that their terms expire "December 2013", for example. It's now July 2014. Shouldn't Wikipedia be more timely than this? - 2001:558:1400:10:D910:A8D8:5368:2A0E (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please call l2092857964 in California and I am a person of disabilities and unable to access certain technocalotties ,so I'm not sure if I removed historical document regarding maria nettie Gonzales classified archive in public domain, and if there are holding estate trusts? Medical health and safety... Alise soto (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Contact to block and protect archives Alise soto (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

[Removal of] Assets section

A section I started was removed by @Nemo bis, whose edit summary seems to argue that hosting a domain implies ownership, which is of course incorrect. I recommend to restore this and extend it to cover all big domains owned if appropriate sources can be found and other intellectual property. --Chealer (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Monkey Selfie

See http://www.newser.com/story/192101/wikimedia-monkey-selfie-is-staying-put.html QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirecting Loop

Hey, anyone, I'm brand new and I don't really know what I'm doing, someone please grab me for coffee or something. But seriously I don't know jack about how to edit these pages, though I am fixing to learn how! So, the reason I'm here is because the link on the Wikimedia Foundation page to Jan-Bart de Vreede simply directs you right back to the Wikimedia Foundation page. I'd love someone to show me how to fix this! ~Ryan Bartlett — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanBartlett13 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Governance information

I came to this article looking for information on the Wikimedia Foundation's governance. There is lots of information on individual directors, etc., but not quite the information I was looking for. I realize that there are restrictions on advertising Wikimedia elections (can anyone tell me where they are so I can read them?), so I'm being rather less than bold and suggesting my changes here before making them.

Proposed change, to the section describing the members of the board:

• "three who are selected by the community encompassed by all the different Wikimedia projects"
• "three who are elected by the community encompassed by all the different Wikimedia projects"

A section of the new organizational charts

A proposal for a WMF's governance structure

Iran's political structure

The United States' political structure

GreenPeace's governance structure

On a slightly larger scale, there are some really nice org charts coming out ([16], Org chart tool), and I'd love to see one in this article. I've included some examples to show how much such a graphic can tell you about an organization (I am not equating, or commenting on the merits of, any of the organizations; please don't take umbrage). HLHJ (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Financials 2013-2014

Financials are here, [17], if someone wants to update the tables. JMK (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent additions...

Ahnoneemoos, as per bold-revert-discuss, I've reverted your addition of details and pictures of the trustees of the board, the history of staff movements and standing committees, because I don't think that in most cases they are notable. Most seem to be entirely based on primary sources, and have little substantial reflection in reliable secondary sources; they are therefore verifiable, in my opinion, but I don't think they're of encyclopedic value or notable. To take articles on comparable organisations, like a global IT firm or a large charity, I'd expect some coverage of governance - but not a breakdown of sub-committees, photos of every board member and details of their previous jobs, or a history of minor board changes over many years - unless these were significantly covered in reliable secondary sources (e.g. if there had been a scandal, or extensive discussion in the media etc.) This is the kind of detail which should be rightly on the organisation's own web page (and indeed is, in this case), rather than an encyclopedic article about the organisation. Happy to discuss further, of course! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, this was not a "recent addition" it was a revert. This information has been on this article for many months until someone removed it for no reason. Regarding your arguments, here a few references regarding the Board of Trustees of WMF and its notability:

1. McCarthy, Caroline (July 18, 2008). Wikimedia Foundation edits its Board of Trustees. CNET. -- whole Board was covered in a single detailed article.
2. SocialTimes publishes an article about the appointment of Bishakaha Datta
3. Sotirios Paroutis, Loizos Heracleous, and Duncan Angwin on their book Practicing Strategy: Text and Cases discuss in detail the Wikimedia Board, its structure, and its advisory board.
4. IEP publishes an article about the appointment of Kat Walsh to the board.
5. Dariusz Jemielniak on his book Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia discusses in detail the Wikimedia Board and its structure.
6. All Things Digital covering Ana Tori's appointment to the Board
7. The Wikimedia Foundation and the Self-governing Wikipedia Community – A Dynamic Relationship under Constant Negotiation, in Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader, 351-369, Institute of Network Culture, Netherlands, 2011 -- a research publication about WMF and its self-governance
8. LiveMint regarding Bishakha's appointment

...and so on.

I highly suggest that you do a Google Search before removing this information. The WMF Board happens to be very notable. Just because the article lacks references it doesn't automatically mean it's not notable. In any case, I suggest you use {{cn}} or {{notability}} to spark a discussion before you remove such a huge chunk of information from the article.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The material was originally removed a couple of months ago and the article has been stable since. But in terms of the references you've given, they are mostly the usual on-line "cut and paste" from a Wikimedia press statement, rather than reliable secondary sources or genuine commentary. There are two stronger sources referenced, but they don't mention the relevant information that is being dispute in the article - which in turn, doesn't build my confidence that the material in question is notable. Item by item:

• cnet.com's article isn't what I'd personally consider "detailed" - it is 194 words long, and largely simply reproduces the Wikimeda press release.
• socialtimes.com again reproduces the press release.
• "Practicing Strategy" is a proper chapter of a book, but it doesn't appear to mention the additional/deleted material.
• IEF simply cut and pastes the press release.
• AllThingsDigital is a 40 word statement that a press release has been issued.
• Shun-Ling Chen again has a proper chapter, but doesn't appear to mention the additional/deleted material.
• LiveMint does at least give some original content, in the form of a short interview with Bishakha Datta, in which she comments on the male-dominated nature of the Wikimedia Foundation Board and the decent technical skills of her future colleagues (neither of which was in the additional/deleted text), although again it doesn't seem to touch on the additional/deleted material.

—Hchc2009 (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• We don't go by what you personally believe to be a reliable source or not. We go by what WP:V establishes. From that policy all the sources I provided are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You claim they are copies of press releases but even if they were that's IRRELEVANT for us as the source "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". You remove a big chunk of information which covers many different aspects of the board. For instance, by the books alone we must include how the board is structured (x amount by the community, the founder, x amount appointed by the board itself) but yet you removed that info, why? Under what logic are you removing this info even though it's both notable and verifiable? What is this "additional/deleted material" you refer to? It is the names? The pictures? The structure? The historic appointments? The committees? What is it exactly? Or is it everything? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• By the way, regarding the committees, here's why we include that info: http://www.dailydot.com/business/sue-gardner-log-rolling-corruption-wikimedia-chapters/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/08/wikipedia_foundation_money_in_wrong_place/ You just can't start talking about the controversies facing the FDC without explaining how the Board operates through its committees and what does the FDC actually does (or is supposed to do). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

In terms of policy, one might also look to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which notes that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia... data should be put in context with explanations referenced to indepedent sources". I'm not suggesting that AllThingsDigital is not a reliable source for whether the Foundation has issued a press release; rather, the fact that it has cut and pasted a press release onto its website does not necessarily make the contents of the press release notable, or of encyclopedic value. Examples of my concern with the additional material include:

• Superfluous details on board members. I can't think of another wiki article on that gives pictures of all the board members of a company, the town each of the board members live in, the other jobs of the board member or their former employment. Take Frieda Brioschi, for example; is it really necessary to present all this in an article, not on Brioschi herself, but her current employers? Are there independent secondary sources which explore the links between Brioschi and the Foundation in a way that makes this level of detail relevant? If this was Apple Inc., or Microsoft would we want or expect to see a similar section on each of their board members? I'm really not convinced.
• The history of board moves feels excessive. Why is it important for the reader to know about Michael Snow's role in 2008, or Domas Mituzas's prior employment and nationality? No explanation is given as to why this is all relevant to the article, and it is only referenced to the Foundation's own mailing list. I wouldn't expect a blow-by-blow explanation of similar moves in Apple, Microsoft, etc., particularly if the only sourcing was their own publicity releases (or equivalent). I would expect a proper narrative, based on decent secondary sourcing, that tells the history of the organisation's board in an encyclopedic style.
• Why give all 24 names on the advisory board, particularly where individuals are not notable in their own right, and no context or explanation is given. Again, would we expect every member of a similar advisory group in another charity or company to be listed by name? Why not simply name one or two prominent ones?
• Nor am I convinced that listing the subcommittees to the board is necessary, at least on the referencing given here. I'm unsurprised that there is a Human Resources Committee, or an Audit Committee for example - most organisations have them, and I can't see why it is necessary. I can't find much in the way of secondary sources that tells us anything about them, or why their existence is particularly significant to the Foundation, which doesn't convince me that the facts have encyclopedic value.

Many of these are topics that I would expect to see on the Foundation's own pages, of course - but not necessarily in an article on the topic.

NB: (post edit conflict) I don't think the article makes any reference at the moment to the Register and DailyDot pages you've just linked to around how "the outbound exec of Wikipedia's tin-rattling nonprofit has admitted the organisation wastes public donations" and "log-rolling, self-dealing and other corrupt practices" (their language seems overblown, but perhaps that's just my personal opinion), but I'm not convinced that it would be necessary to add in all the details I've outlined above (photographs, home towns, events in 2008 etc.) in order to explain Gardner's 2013 statement if an editor wanted to. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversies

While there are lots of criticism AWOL I've removed a rather lame attempt to start it:

==Controversies==

===Critisism===

====Fundraising====
[[Sue Gardner]], the former executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, raised some 
“significant concerns” before she left the organization in 2012:
<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/08/wikipedia_foundation_money_in_wrong_place/</ref>

{{quotation|I believe that currently, too large a proportion of the movement’s money is being
spent by the chapters. The value in the Wikimedia projects is primarily created by individual
editors: individuals create the value for readers, which results in those readers donating money
to the movement… I am not sure that the additional value created by movement entities such as
chapters justifies the financial cost, and I wonder whether it might make more sense for the
movement to focus a larger amount of spending on direct financial support for individuals
working in the projects.|Sue Gardner, former executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation|}}

A statement by the former boss in office—that's no criticism by a third party, that's trivia. Add it where it fits if necessary, but no h2+h3+h4 sections claiming to be controversies only for one old statement by the old CEO, please. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject for Wikimedia Foundation

FYI, see a proposal at WT:WikiProject Wikipedia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Just uploaded new photos of the board members

If anyone wants to use any of them:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees
• and in my uploads there's a few more shots: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListFiles&user=VGrigas_(WMF)&ilshowall=1

Victor Grigas (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sloan Foundation still supporting?

I just heard a message on NPR by the Sloan Foundation that alerted me that they're supporting Wikipedia. This article mentions two 3-year grants, the second one of which should have ended last year. Did they renew it again? — Sebastian 06:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wikimedia Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121016202104/http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=300433882 to http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=300433882

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of volunteers

I've removed the "number of volunteers" stat that used the {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} magic word and thus merely reflected the number of registered accounts on the English Wikipedia. There's many problems with this, including at least the following:

• The majority of registered accounts do not edit. Right now that I'm writing this (Mar 5 2016), the total number of registered accounts is 27,668,268. In contrast, the number of Wikipedians, according to [18] (stats generated on Wednesday February 17, 2016 20:55; dump file enwiki-20160204-stub-meta-history.xml.gz processed till Jan 31, 2016), the number of registered accounts who ever made any edit is 5,805,643; the number of Wikipedians (i.e. Contributors, defined as "made 10 or more edits while logged-in over all time on one wiki") is 1,026,072, and the number of active users ("makes 5 or more edits in any month in mainspace on countable pages") hovers around 30,000.
• Editors are not required to register accounts. (Note that [19] does not make available detailed statistics for anonymous users on en.wp, for "performance reasons".)
• Furthermore, editors are neither prohibited by policy nor kept in practice by technical measures from registering and/or using more than one account. (See WP:VALIDALT.)
• Even if the number of registered users as given by {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} were indicative of the number of contributors, it would only apply to the English Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation runs many different projects; Wikipedia is just one among them, and most projects come in different languages, English just being one among them.
• Finally, even if it were possible to accurately capture the number of editors across all Wikimedia projects, it is at best debatable whether editors can be equated with volunteers in the usual sense. A person may well contribute without self-identifying, or being identified by the WMF, as a volunteer; conversely, there is nothing requiring a volunteer to edit, much less on a specific project.

Ignoring the last bullet point, I'd suggest replacing the stat with an estimate of the number of people editing across all Wikimedia projects and a link to an appropriate page on Meta, assuming one exists. If no relevant research exists, we should be conservative and not try to provide ill-defined ad-hoc estimates ourselves. -- Schneelocke (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

How about using the ACTIVEUSERS magic word instead?

The following wikimarkup...

 <div>As of {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{CURRENTDAY2}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}, {{CURRENTTIME}} (UTC), The English Wikipedia has {{NUMBEROF|USERS|en|N}} registered users, {{NUMBEROF|ACTIVEUSERS|en|N}} active editors, and {{NUMBEROF|ADMINS|en|N}} administrators. Together we have made {{NUMBEROF|EDITS|en|N}} edits, created {{NUMBEROF|PAGES|en|N}} pages of all kinds and created {{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|en|N}} articles.</div>

...displays as...

As of Wednesday, 01 May 2024, 09:10 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 47,334,849 registered users, 123,503 active editors, and 859 administrators. Together we have made 1,216,924,413 edits, created 60,567,914 pages of all kinds and created 6,818,969 articles.

...which gives the current numbers (note how the date/time changes) for each new visitor or when you refresh the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

State of registration

Hello, could someone with better knowledge of US law than we Europeans please tell whether WMF is still "a foundation based on the law of the state of Florida", or whether this has changed due to its relocation to California? I don't know how foundations work in USA and what is the relationship between this registration and actual headquarters, but Czech Wikipedia still states "Florida", attributing it to [20], which does not mention the name of that state at all. This English article speaks of a 2003 incorporation in Florida and present headquarters in California, but it does not give a clear response to my question either (with the exception, possibly, of the infobox, where it says "registered agent", but I do not know if this is the same thing or yet something else). --Blahma (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

US law allows corporations organized in one state to be headquartered in a different state. - Truth about MVNOs (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Concur with User:Truth about MVNOs. Florida's corporate records database shows that the Wikimedia Foundation is still an active Florida not-for-profit corporation. A corporation usually has no obligation to actually maintain its principal place of business in its state of incorporation. (There are specific exceptions, such as state-owned corporations like California's State Compensation Insurance Fund and insurance companies incorporated under the law of the state of Illinois, see 215 ILCS 5/8.) This is why it's so popular in the United States for corporations to be formed under the Delaware General Corporation Law, since corporations don't have to be headquartered in Delaware to take advantage of its corporate regulatory regime and lack of corporate income tax (although they must pay Delaware franchise tax). --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Trending wrong

I was just looking at the box on the top right in which one finds the following information:

" Revenue

   Increase US$ 75.8 million (2015)
   52.5 million (2014)[2]

Expenses

   Decrease US$ 52.6 million (2015)
   45.9 million (2014)[2]

"

It seems to be the expenseses have been growing from 2014 to 2015, so the arrow goes in the wrong direction. 80.152.241.62 (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I initially did that, but thanks for pointing it out. Fixed. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-membership organization

The matter of this wording: "On December 11, 2006, the Foundation's board noted that the corporation could not become the membership organization initially planned but never implemented due to an inability to meet the registration requirements of Florida statutory law. Accordingly, the by-laws were amended to remove all reference to membership rights and activities. The decision to change the bylaws was passed by the board unanimously." ...was discussed back in 2007 here. While Wikimedia Foundation board member (and future senior management member of the WMF) Erik Moeller weighed in that the previous wording was "nonsense", frankly the replacement wording feels almost as nonsensical. We're to understand that somehow "Florida statutory law" prevented ("could not become") the Wikimedia Foundation from being a membership-based organization. That is utter nonsense on the face of it, and frankly it sounds like a board member (Moeller) asked for another Wikimedia insider (Alison Wheeler) to concoct a more palatable version of history to plaster over what the consulting attorney had used to describe the situation. Regardless, using the reference currently cited, there is no basis to conclude most of what currently stands in this portion of the article, and it really should be changed or deleted. - Truth about MVNOs (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Propagate the model, not issues

I just created this ^ page because I think it is very important that the WMF does not propagate their viewpoints on any specific issues that is not directly related to Wikipedia's operation and preserves its neutrality (and the public image of Wikipedia being neutral and unbiased) as well as avoids the exclusion of differing groups / viewpoints or conflict with certain groups of editors and readers. I think this is important to maintaining the quality (reliability, neutrality, many-sidedness), financial security as well as unity of the site - more details there.

--Fixuture (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

whitewash

This whole article is a whitewash and proves the lack of subjectivity of the editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.114 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@209.93.94.114: You, or anyone reading this, is welcome to express exactly why you think this article does not conform to a neutral point of view. However, we need specifics to be able to act on it. --MarioGom (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section?

For those who claim that there isn't enough material for a criticism section, please see WP:CANCER, paying especial attention to the links. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Guy: I have added an initial section with some of the most significant controversies. --MarioGom (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Staff vs contractors

(Sorry for my previous versions of this subject, my mistake)

I did appreciate to read the pix and function for each one of the 280 employees.

Now I'd like to get some explanations about the reasons of contractors' status, for example where do they work if they are not located in the Headquarties.

And would s'dy be kind enough to show both figures of staff and contractors in the article, at their right places?

Thanks --Bibliorock (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC) --Bibliorock (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bibliorock: You can request this kind of information on the meta:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard. You might or might not get an answer. Actually, it might not even be legally possible for them to answer, but that's the place where you can officially ask this. --MarioGom (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Nearly half a million in severance pay?

Burning money? Where should it be added? QuackGuru (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This page badly needs a Criticism of the Wikimedia Foundation page or section. (Whether this should be in the article or on a separate page would depend on how big the section becomes).

Compare the following:

• Criticism of Wikipedia
• Criticism of Google
• Criticism of Microsoft
• Criticism of Apple Inc.
• Criticism of Facebook

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION for now. There is not enough content for a separate Criticism section.

Almost all editors on Wikipedia are volunteers not being paid. People at the WMF should donate their time and be paid poorly. Wales may want a fat paycheck if he retires according to this. The WMF can be more transparent after the people from the WMF who are against transparency retire. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Why the secrecy? Maybe because they think it is none of your business. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Source is formatted and ready to go. QuackGuru (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Assuming there are reliable sources, notability and that it meets neutral point of view, there is now a criticism section in the article where you can add this. --MarioGom (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

So why can't we include WMF's street address in the article?

Seems like a very stupid rule and an obvious double standard. Someone explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8502:EC0:D5FA:BB91:1C05:D278 (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Possibly there is a guideline somewhere, but as a sanity check please check a few articles and see if you can find one with a street address. The lack of such addresses suggests that is the way things are done because Wikipedia is not a directory trying to list phone numbers and contact details. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in that case it seems like having that comment in the article is a bit redundant and unnecessary in the first place. 2601:644:8502:EC0:D5FA:BB91:1C05:D278 (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about text with the city of the headquarters? I believe that has some legal significance as it determines the jurisdiction that applies to certain issues. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, no. If you edit the article there is an actual comment near the location parameter which tells people not to edit the street address into the Wikipedia page. That's all. Only reason I saw it is because I was adding a citation for the location parameter. 2601:644:8502:EC0:D5FA:BB91:1C05:D278 (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Incubator

Wikimedia Incubator was deleted and redirected to here. There is nothing mentioned about, only a single word of existence, great. I mean this is a shame for a 10 year old project on is own hoster. Greetings → User: Perhelion 20:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I added a new section Wikimedia Foundation § Infrastructure and coordination projects that lists Incubator. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Not able to edit Marathi Wikipedia if English language is used for discussion

When I am trying to edit Marathi Wikipedia and it is throwing following message and I am not able to save my edit. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"No for non Marathi languages and/or roman script !!![Language policy & exceptions] Warning: An automated filter has detected your edit because it appears to contain few or no Marathi letters. You are currently editing the Marathi language Wikipedia; contributions in any other language will be deleted.[Language policy & exceptions]. To contribute in a language other than English, please select that language from http://www.wikipedia.org If your edit is constructive and suitable for the Marathi version of Wikipedia, please click 'Save page' again, and report this error."

I am sharing it here because I have got to know that no other Wikipedia prevents writing in English in this way. I would request experienced editors and administrators to kindly do as appropriate. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Marathi Wikipedia is at [ https://mr.wikipedia.org ].

I ran into the same issue in 2015.

Cannot create सदस्य:Guy Macon

https://mr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF_%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BE:Guy_Macon Cannot post to Wikipedia Embassy]

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Now why didn't the "Cannot create सदस्य:Guy Macon" link above hide the URL like it is supposed to? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Advisory Board

Why does the Advisory Board page only list former members and Alumni? Are there no current members? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon: I can't tell for sure because there is no official statement. But according to a comment left on on meta: by Peteforsyth some time in 2015 all one-year terms would have expired and there is no record of new appointments since then. So everything suggests that, as of 2015/2016, there is actually no Advisory Board at all, at least formally. Of course this is pure speculation, someone at the WMF should update Meta or the WMF wiki, or issue a statement, or something. --MarioGom (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

A resolution was passed on June 16, 2017 appointing a new Advisory Board. Except for the resolution, other pages are completely outdated. --MarioGom (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wikimedia Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080202052634/http://www.guidestar.org/npo/ntee.jsp to http://www.guidestar.org/npo/ntee.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303204708/http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/presentations/san/Wikimedia%20architecture.pdf to http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/presentations/san/Wikimedia%20architecture.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130718074115/http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F08-25-2009%2F0005082868&EDATE= to http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F08-25-2009%2F0005082868&EDATE=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Excessive spending section refs

• Mihir Patkar (December 18, 2014), Wikipedia Has Millions In The Bank – Why Beg For More?, The value in the Wikimedia projects is primarily created by individual editors: individuals create the value for readers, which results in those readers donating money to the movement… I am not sure that the additional value created by movement entities such as chapters justifies the financial cost
• Mary-Ann Russon (June 8, 2017), Why does Wikipedia keep asking for money when execs get six-figure golden handshakes?

Parking the citations here for future use in the article. Bright☀ 10:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia 2030

Can someone who better understands it than myself add information about the Wikimedia 2030 project/initiative and a link. This seems like it would be relevant and a good update. Redirects to the project descriptor are also needed. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Propose that Wikimedia foundation create alternatives to Twitter & Facebook's monopolies

• How about it? Surely others have suggested this.
• Growing numbers of people have noticed that corporate, profit oriented monopolies: Twitter & Facebook leave much to be desired.
• Both have histories of supporting the status quo (of fake democracy, permanent war, oligarchy & their clever, intentional division & enslavement of the people, etc) and censoring radical material of those seeking revolutionary changes.
• The billionaires are rich enough already, and like some morbidly obese people who need professional mental health care, they don't know when they've had enough. Such people should have NO power over other people. They have too much power and should be restrained.
• Wiki could do both much better, and it would help humanity move forward.
• We the people need to take control, or we'll be their slaves forever. These could be big steps in that direction.

Om777om (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

How do you propose that the WMF would fund such an effort? The way Twitter pays for their servers and staff (advertising) and the way Facebook pays pays for their servers and staff (selling personal information) both go against the basic principles of the WMF. And we are talking about a huge staff. Facebook and Twitter each have an army of people nuking contributions that are nazi propaganda, porn, doxxing, etc. See [21] and [22]. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a discussion for m:Wikimedia Forum. Anyway, it sounds like you might have missed some news of the last years, such as ActivityPub and https://degooglisons-internet.org/ Nemo 20:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Are the non-English-language wikis within the Foundation

Are the non-English-language wikis within, or outside of, the Foundation? What ARE the relationships between the non-English-language Wikipedias and the Foundation? I myself do not know, but wish to find out. I believe that it would be helpful if this article would clarify these points. Acwilson9 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It's the same relationship as with all other Wikimedia wikis: they're hosted on Wikimedia Foundation servers. Norhing more, nothing less. What in the text of the article gives the impression that English-language wikis might have some special status? Nemo 19:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect value for Endowment in infobox

• Information to be added or removed: change "endowment" value in infobox from US $113,330,197 to US $35,000,000
• Explanation of issue: We noticed that the value given for the Endowment in the infobox is incorrect, presumably someone confused it with financial reserves. This is particularly bad as it's getting picked up by Google in a search for "Wikimedia Endowment". As of April 2019 the Endowment total was roughly $35m
• References supporting change: https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/24/peter-baldwin-lisbet-rausing-give-an-additional-3-5-million-to-the-wikimedia-endowment/ (6th paragraph, already used as a reference in Wikimedia Endowment section)

Thanks, Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply 31-MAY-2019

  Edit request implemented  

1. The amount in the infobox was corrected to read as |endowment=US$35,000,000.
2. The year listed for the endowment parameter was updated to 2019.
3. The Wikimedia Endowment section of the article's prose was double-checked and found not to need any corrections, as the total amount was not listed there, incorrectly or otherwise. The reference already listed there was re-formatted to match the style now being used by the same reference in the infobox (WP:CS1).

Regards,  Spintendo  22:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

New controversy

Fram controversy. Do we need new sub-section?·Carn !? 19:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Carn, Seems more appropriate for List of Wikipedia controversies than the parent article at this time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Need help updating image for Wikimedia financials

At User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer the table has been updated for 2017-2018 but the image at commons:File:Wikimedia Foundation financial development multilanguage.svg only goes to 2016-2017. Could someone with SVG editing skills please look at that table and update the image? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I solved the problem on my page by replacing the image with a template. The other pages that use the image still need an updated version. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC) The other pages that use the image still need an updated version. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Robert Willard Hudson

He has passed aways and I don't know how to send the death certificate to you guys to prove it because I do have it Alifocus369 (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Bro just like put it in like a scanner and turn it into a PDF, then give us the link if you really do have it. ECPBlue (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe

I believe that at this time and age, Wikipedia should require that all those who wish to edit or add to our project should be registered users. It is easy for an unregistered user to vandalize an article which many of us have gone through a lot of trouble to write, then immediately make a copy as if that is what was truly written, thereby dis-crediting our project and adding to the reality that ours is an unreliable encyclopedia. The fact is that the majority of the vandalism is caused by un-registered users who have nothing better to do with their lives. If Wikipedia wants to keep it's good and honest contributors who love to share their knowledge with the world in general and wants to gain some sense of being a reliable encyclopedia, then it must do something to protect it's contributors and the articles which they have written from the constant vandalism going on, otherwise what's the use of staying here? Tony the Marine (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)'

This has been an ongoing source of debate within the community. But the appropriate place for this would be WP:village pump. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I recommend WP:PCPP for all articles or all pages. Only approved edits pass, while still allowing IPs and new accounts to edit. QuackGuru (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Profile

How to place my profiles Pastor Wisdom Uchenna Eni (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Need to place my profile Pastor Wisdom Uchenna Eni (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Knowledge Engine (KE)

Just wondering, is the Knowledge Engine described in the "Controversies" section still in active development or has the project been abandoned--is describing it in the past tense correct? The project's dedicated Wikipedia article is in the present tense and seems to suggest that it is still an active project. Indefensible (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The past tense is probably correct. From what I recall, the so called "knowledge engine" was always a relatively minor project compared to other way bigger and more controversial software projects at WMF, so it's no surprise that the corresponding article is now neglected. "Knowledge engine" probably borrowed from other ideas which have continued after that name was discontinued (for instance the work on the MediaWiki search engine has continued). Nemo 19:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, that's interesting to know. Is there a place where I can check out some of the "bigger and more controversial software projects" you referenced? The Wikipedia controversies page does not seem to call them out specifically. -Indefensible (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

m:Limits to configuration changes and m:Project-wide protests can provide some hints. From 2010 to 2014 there were also regular reports from WMF engineering at mw:Category:Wikimedia engineering reports, and until 2016 there were m:Wikimedia monthly activities meetings/Quarterly reviews, but recently the reporting and even the annual plans vanished. With enough digging you can find some primary sources for an approximate number or person-years working on this or that project, but don't expect dollar amounts or a margin of error smaller than ±50 %. Nemo 06:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again, that is informative! Will take a look. - Indefensible (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)