Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Archive 2

message: There was some controversy about the Virgin foundation making matching donations at the fundraiser. After Wikipedia users send protest mails to Virgin United other matching donations were cancelled. I believe that should be included somewhere here since it's kind of a big deal that also caused the target amount of money not being reached in time which in turn causes cutbacks and delays. --84.178.92.188 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the fact that membership rights and the board's obligation to respect those rights were unilaterally canceled by the board just days before the fundraiser began? It would seem reasonable to think that people might have been giving donations with the mistaken belief that they were giving money to a membership organization where the bylaws guaranteed all individual project contributors "some" voice in the organization, much like shareholders in a corporation. No general announcement was made of these major changes in organizational structure that occurred literally days before the request for money to the "community" went out. There was never a vote of the "members", a report of a bylaws revision committee to give a rationale for all the changes or any other reasonable effort to give the "members" and public some minimal proper notice of a fundamental change in the organization's structure which might effect the willingness of individuals to contribute their volunteer efforts or make individual or periodic monetary donations to what otherwise appeared a stable organization that operated on principles of transparency and access that mirrored the spirit of wiki collaborative efforts. Alex756 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundraiser controversy? 

message: Is the Wikimedia Foundation running out of money? I ams seeing references to this on a number of sites, and I'm not sure whether to believe them at this point. Where would I go to find information on Wikimedia's financial situation? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 23:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can ask this issue in foundation-l or OTRS. --H.T. Chien (Discuss|Contributions) 01:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running out of Money? 

message: I believe that there is also a form 990-A or 990-AR that is also a matter of public record, which should be posted on the external links section of the site. 141.158.240.248 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRS Form 990 

message: I have temporarily protected the article from editing due to what appears to be a content dispute over the article. I encourage the involved users to explain their edits here as part of the road to article unprotection. - Mark 02:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reduced the protection of this article to semi, as it doesn't seem that full protection has succeeded in forcing the involved user to comment or explain his actions. I also don't believe it fair to the other contributors for one person's WikiTruth nonsense. If he begins again, I would advise blocking (which happened in the last case as well) as opposed to protection. If anyone disagrees with my action here, feel free to revert me, though I would appreciate if you would comment first. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protection 

message: Similar to the Wikitube idea suggested at the top, I think we should start Wikilyric. Since people are always putting lyrics in articles, this not only will eliminate it. But it will be possible to correct song lyrics without contacting nerdy[no offence] site adminstrators on current lyric sites. FinalWish 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyrighted material is not allowed on wikipedia 141.158.240.248 03:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is correct – lyrics to songs are copyright violations, unless the rights to the song itself are available under a free licence (which is not the case for virtually all popular music). The Wikimedia Foundation is interested only in creating free-content projects. Also, this is not the place to suggest new projects; please see Meta-wiki – Qxz 07:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea for a new Wiki

message: Should we be using sannse and mindspillage's real names in that section? And if not, should the section be there at all? – Qxz 05:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be there at all and of course it shouldn't be using their usernames... but what do you expect from an article that gets so many basic facts wrong? ... --Gmaxwell 21:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communications committee 

message: In the table listing wiki projects, wikipedia is described as an "Encyclopedia with over 7 million articles in 251 languages".  Is it just me, or does this seem to be advertising wikipedia's size? Watto the jazzman 09:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this biased? 

message: Is there anyone who monitors this talk page who could tell me how I can give money to the Wikimedia Foundation in order to help support its wonderul opensource mission. Uzbek451 13:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DONATIONS

message: For about the last 9 months, the link on the Article page is returning an image, sometimes, instead of Wikimedia's form 990 tax return. I don't think I can upload the return for Wikimedia because I haven't learned how to do that yet. I can offer a link to it though. I found it not from Wikipedia, or the state of Florida, but from GuideStar. Wikimedia's Form 990 Tax Return YE 6/30/05 Nanabozho 16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's time to Fix the dead 990 Tax Return Link 

message: to be fair, this article is pretty boring :-) Anthere 00:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: boring

message: Has anyone seriously attempted to evaluate the effect of budget
on the production of content provided by volunteer work?
Isn't it likely that as budget grows,
many volunteers will consider their work for the wikipedia
something that might require some re-thinking?
If the wikipedia had just received billions of dollars of budget
and started sending reasearches across the planet and galaxy
seeking for knowledge,
will it cover the expense of the lost work of the many volunteers?
Is this extremety and imaginary scenario worth considering for the sake of clarity?
Without self-offense, it is easy to metphorically think of us as slave labour, having some monetary value,
and try and evaluate it as accuratly as is necessery
as per this argument,
and observe how this revenue stream is affected by the actual budget spent elsewhere.
I believe the lower the budget, the higher this revenue stream.
We know and feel this to be true, none of the actual
knowldge within the wikipedia ever having been paid for.
Placing monetary value on volunteer work might be offensive to some,
but brings clarity.
--Ohadaloni 21:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Businees Model Considerations 

message: I was looking at an edit to the factoid block on Wikimedia, and noticed the "Revenue" field is empty. We are still waiting for the IRS form 990 due November 15th of 2006. We are now almost 7 months past the due date so, I'll try to put up the number for the year ended 6/30/06 from the audited statements. Nanabozho 05:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue 

message: OK. Lets review.
#It does not matter what Wales' opinion or Sanger's opinion is when citing the facts. Reason. The facts are supported by both primary as well as secondary sources.
#:Wales and Sanger are the primary sources, and they are in dispute with each other, thus neither "founder" or "co-founder" are neutral.  The secondary sources used so far highlight this dispute nicely...but this article isn't about the dispute, it's about a non-profit organization called the Wikimedia Foundation.  The sources have no bearing on this article.
#The facts must be written from a neutral point of view.
#:Agreed.
#What is th definition of founder. A person who established Wikipedia.
#Two people worked togther to establish and build Wikipedia from the beginning.
#When two people work together and start a project from the very beginning they will be both called co-founders.
#:All opinion, which reflect Sanger and many other's view.  Jimbo, and others, have an opposing view.  I don't care either way.
#It is well documented. In the beginning (before 2004) - various articles, Wikipedia press releases, and Wikipedia articles all described Larry as well as Jimmy as co-founders.
#:Various articles and press releases written by Wikipedia volunteers.  It may shock you, but I would not call us a Reliable Source about ourselves.  
#Some articles refer to Jimmy Wales as 'the' founder (starting about 2004) but do not explain the co-foundership issue at hand.
#The revisionist years (about 2004) is a rewrite of history. Wales never disputed the facts until after Larry left the project.
#Mr. Jimmy Wales has never given any documented evidence for his new version (since 2004) of reality (revisionism).
#At the risk of repeating myself, Wales never disputed his co-founder position before 2004. We can't rewrite history.
#There are a multitude of references to support the facts.
#After Larry left the project, thats when the alteration of reality started taking place.
#When Jimmy Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation he was still known as the co-founder (never disputed at that point in history).
#:And again...it's all disputed information.  Revisionist years?  The very term seems as far from WP:NPOV as you can get.
#This is useful information (co-founder) instead of a redundant word (head). I could not find any secondary sources to support the word head. There are plenty of secondary sources to support the useful term as co-founder.
#:Actually, it's not.  The term founder or co-founder, and dispute around them, have no bearing on the article.  As for "head", I admit about I'm not crazy about it either...it's the best I could think of.  You have read the larger NPOV section here, yes?  Now I've time to consider it, "owner" might be a better, and more accurate term.  And if it's all the same to you, I'd love to get rid of "hitherto"...it just doesn't flow with the overall writing style.
#By the way, the appeal for the verifiability of the facts is exactly what the Wikipedia community demands in its WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT policies. It isn't my rule: it's the community's consensus based on policy.
*Cordially,  Mr.Guru  talk  02:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I understand these policies (I can even tell which ones are only guidelines).  I don't dispute their importance...just your interpretation of how they apply here.  The ultimate in neutral point of view is to avoid the entire dispute between the two primary sources which, coincidentally, are also editors themselves.  Me, I don't care...it's an interesting issue that could probably be addressed best on the Wikipedia History article.  Although, Sanger's own website addresses it better than anything on Wikipedia I've seen yet.  Anyway, I said it before, and I'll say it again: if "co-founder Jimbo Wales" could stand on its own, uncontested and without the need for sources, it wouldn't violate WP:NPOV.  My apologies for threading my response within yours, it seemed the best way.  --InkSplotch 02:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When Jimmy Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation he was known as the co-founder according to primary (official press releases approved by Jimmy Wales) and secondary sources. It was never disputed when he started the Wikipedia Foundation and head or owner is redundant and unverified (no references). The co-founder term is informative and gives the reader the facts about who started the Wikimedia Foundation. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Official press releases approved by Wales?  You have cites?  Because Wales is disputing it.  It's not neutral, it's POV, and it's not necessary for this article.  --InkSplotch 03:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ask him yourself about the press releases he has read. I like to know what he says about it. There was no dispute when Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation. Its neutral, NPOV, and adds useful text for this article. Readers would like to know who is Wales. Co-founder has reliable references and owner is not verified.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, co-founder does not have reliable references it's a disputed term.  The secondary sources acknowledge this.  And ownership?  Wales created the Foundation to transfer ownership to a non-profit entity.  It's referenced, linked (under external links to the Foundation's charter), and pointed out explicitly under section 3 - Foundation History and Growth.  --InkSplotch 03:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The co-founder status has plenty of reliable references and is relevant to this article.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it relevant?  How?  The Foundation came into being after Wikipedia, whoever or however many people founded it.  It was created by Wales, who owned the domain names and copyrights.  The english Wikipedia is relatively minor in this article and bring a dispute over foundership only hurts the article.  How can I make this any clearer?  --InkSplotch 03:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term co-founder gives the reader background who Jimmy is and how it all got started and thus to the creation of the Wikimedia Foundation. Owner is unverified and does not give the uniformed reader any information to the origin of Wikipedia. The word owner implies a business. Do you have any secondary sources to support the word owner? The word co-founder is informative and has plenty of secondary sources. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is clearly taking a position on a controversial matter to call me "co-founder," a claim which is false, and which I have protested about many times.  There are reliable sources for the existence of the controversy, and reliable sources which call the matter in either direction.  I protest this article going into it at all, since this article is about the Wikimedia Foundation, which Larry absolutely without a doubt had absolutely nothing to do with at all.  Some people have an axe to grind here: they are POV pushers.  Don't let them get away with it.--Jimbo Wales 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the co- looks like real POV pushing to me, founder is correct, while the refs strile me as an abuse of our ref system. We dont use refs to push a point, SqueakBox 20:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That you think you have to use boldface only shows how much your protests are lacking in substance. You have been told many times that your saying that something is false doesn't make it so. If you think it's false, provide a source. There are indeed reliable sources for the fact that you claim to be the sole founder, but not a single one that explicitly agrees with that claim. There are, however, many reliable sources explicitly calling you and Larry the co-founders, so there's no controversy, there's only your denial of a well-documented fact. That Larry had nothing to do with the WMF is neither here nor there; the article context has nothing to do with whether you can be described as a co-founder. "Some people have an axe to grind here: they are POV pushers" - yes, you might see one if you look in the mirror... Bramlet Abercrombie 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Bramlet here. Sorry Jimbo, but you will have to provide reliable sources that say that you are the sole founder, not just sources that say that you *claim* to be the sole founder. A statement that is disputed by one person does not suddenly become "blatantly POV". Should we remove any and all references to terrorism in the article 9/11, because there is someone who disagrees with that label? Or should we remove the assertion that the Earth is round, because a distinct minority disagrees with it? No, because there aren't any reliable sources saying that the fact that the Earth is round is disputed. Melsaran (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Bomis was a for-profit business. Wikipedia was not a legal entity at all. Bomis owned the servers and domain names, and Wales owned Bomis, that's all. It doesn't follow that Wales founded Wikipedia, only that he controlled it. That it was run under Bomis was just a convenience; Wikipedia was not intended to make profit for Bomis, but since Wales happened to have this company and Sanger needed an income to devote his time to Wikipedia, it was set up under Bomis with Sanger as an employee. Wikipedia is a cultural entity, not a business, so you're completely on the wrong track here. Bramlet Abercrombie 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Jimbo is correct in this classic case of POV pusghing, and we are here to write an encyclopedia not push our favourite views, SqueakBox 18:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]]

message: this artical seems really out-of date because it does not contain information about anything after 2005. (as I can see) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.195.39 (talk) 08:06, July 30, 2007
:I just scanned it again, and it looks fairly current.  The History and Growth section is current up to Mike Godwin's appoint as Legal Counsel in July of this year...I'm pretty sure someone updated for the recent Board elections too.  Is there a particular bit you feel is out of date?  --InkSplotch 14:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Date