Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Archive 1

message: Ah great, a foundation dedicated to creating an enyclopedia - how many years to go until Wikipedians dominate the galaxy? ;) 145.254.36.235—Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 20 June 2003
----
As the inventor of the name for this thing, I expect of course to receive fat royalty payments. ;) --Sheldon Rampton 03:41 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:Of a non-profit organization? See the 12/26/99 Sluggy Freelance comic - don't get your hopes high of fat royalties of zero profit. --Geoffrey 03:25 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::I expect when Wikimedia becomes a US$500b organization we will all become fabulously wealthy. --Delirium 07:51 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
We will one day rule the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And beyond ;)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yo, today (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Humor

message: So wikitravel isn't part of Wikimedia then? It should be snapped up by Wikimedia because it has the potential to be really good. Someone should make a similar page to Wikitravel. Call it Wikitravller or Wikiwandering or Wikiplanet. Any better names? To be honest though, there could be so so many wiki projects. Wikispecies was a crap idea. I reckon Wikiwork, an online essay-editing club would be cool. Or Wikibot, where somehow users make a kinda robot. Or Wikicook, an online cookbook. Wikinews, where people tell us about random news that has happened near them. Wikijokes, so everyone can share dirty jokes. And Wikiwiki where people can post ideas about future Wiki services— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewayforward (talk • contribs) 13:58, 22 September 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The people at Wikitravel are well-aware of the fact that the people who run Wikimedia are big fans and would love to host them. So far the Wikitravelers are perfectly comfortable being on their own. Oh, and something like WikiJoke would never fly as a Wikimedia project due to a lack of educational merit. I do agree that Wikispecies was a stupid idea. I fought against it’s creation but obviously lost. Wikinews already exists and is doing very well though. --mav 17:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikitravel 

message: I see wikimedia have the potential to be used as a Blog engine. I've tried it myself in my computer and connect as localhost. I think it's better than any other blog in existence. Is there any group who would make such an idea a reality? Roscoe x 14:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're thinking of MediaWiki, the software, not Wikimedia, the organisation. And the best place to discuss this would probably be the mediawiki-l or wikitech-l mailing lists. - IMSoP 17:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia as a Blog engine 

message: Why have the projects a so strange name, like Wikisomething?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.176.46  (talk • contribs) 02:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of us rather like strange names.  See Wiki for the explanation of this one. JamesMLane 06:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the name of the Project 

message: My understanding is that the Foundation operated for some time with no paid staff, but that now a few people are paid to tend to the servers and/or do development work.  Whatever the facts are, could someone who knows them add them (date first employee hired, size and duties of paid staff as of July 2005)?  In Jimbo's talk at Harvard on April 25, he mentioned the small size of the paid staff compared with 180 employees at USAToday.com, which gets fewer pageviews than we do.  I think that point would be of interest to many readers.  (Well, without the snarky comparison, of course.) JamesMLane 06:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We still don't have any employees. Just two people on contract. Brion Vibber helps keep the servers humming from a software management standpoint (he lives in California) and Chad Perrin helps Jimmy Wales set the physical servers up in Tampa. Both started paid work in February 2005.  --mav 17:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a section about employees, sourced from Jimmy Wales's appearance on Charlie Rose and the official employee page. Robert K S 16:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paid employees

message: Please add this in the article: Wikimedia has been criticised by some Wikipedia users: "The Wikimedia Foundation is undemocratic. Its bylaws were determined by one man. Its statement of principles is arbitrary, and does not agree with my own. Elections just give the appearance of democracy, the board will remain stacked regardless of the outcome. This is fake democracy, it is democracy executed without commitment to democratic principles. I don't believe this is a problem which can be fixed in small steps." - User:Tim Starling (MediaWiki developer). I now nominated this article for POV-check because it needs more balance, and a Criticism section. My edit which added Tim Starling's criticism was removed. Wikinerd 03:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important and notable thing about the Wikimedia Foundation is that it is a self perpetuating autocracy. Any input from the "Community" is purely advisory. see:http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#Section_3._Selection. So I will mention this near the top of the article unless someone gives reasons not to. Fourtildas 04:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

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

message: i tend to get confused when there are statements about an action or decision of Wikimedia Foundation, e.g. on Wikipedia:Tools/1-Click_Answers or when people say something like the Wikimedia Foundation's policy is....
Is the Wikimedia Foundation:
#Jimbo? or
#the Board? or
#the members (e.g. people with a minimum number of edits etc, eligible to vote for board members)?
If the board makes a decision, does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation makes the decision?
Or if His Majesty Jimbo Wales makes a decision, does that make it a decision of the Wikimedia Foundation? - e.g. 4. Final policy decisions are up to me, as always. 
Or does the Wikimedia Foundation constitute all of its members, i.e. people who have made a minimum threshold number of edits, i.e. were authorised to vote for board members?
If all people who were eligible to vote for the board (or would be eligible now) constitute part of the Wikimedia Foundation, then shouldn't controversial proposals like this one be rather more widely announced (like the board election itself - with a small warning at the top of each wikipedia page)? If wide community participation in a proposal is not invited, and if afterwards a statement is made that Wikimedia Foundation decided this or that, then it seems to me inconsistent to claim that the Wikimedia Foundation includes all of its members.
In any case, IMHO there should be some clear statement of this on the article page here. Boud 13:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikimedia foundation = wikimedia board? section needed in article 

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

message: I would like to bring to the foundation's attention a situation which has developed on the Spanish version of WP. Dodo & Ecemaml have been abusing their position as admins, and have blocked the whole of Gibraltar from editing .es
Many people have been using the Gibraltar article as a "Gib bashing" excersize, and it has become a page of anti-Gibraltar propaganda. It is very POV, some of it outright lies, and much of it written by trolls with the express purpose of causing discord. Much of it is offensive to the Gibraltarian Community. As I am sure you will agree WP is not the place for this activity. There has been no attempt at consensus, merely a conspiracy to prevent NPOV, glorify the spanish arguments, and ridicule or trivialise any other position.
Dodo & Ecemaml have become self-appointed dictators of .es and have blocked ALL participation from Gibtelecom (Gibraltar's main ISP). It is not the role of an admin to censor a page, much less to block all editing which does not conform to the "Gospel according to Dodo". Their attitude and behaviour is not only a gross violation of WP principles, but of basic common decency.
I request that someone intervene urgently, and puts a stop to this abuse of position, and unblocks Gibraltar's participation. Dodo & Ecemaml should be removed as Admins forthwith. I thank you in anticipation. --Gibraltarian 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse of position on .es 

message: Any objection to moving this back to Wikimedia Foundation?  Looks like more link to it that way. --Pmsyyz 18:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here. --mav 03:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: The article says 
:"Later, other official positions were developed: Tim Starling was appointed Developer Liaison to help improve the organisation of the development of the MediaWiki software, and Daniel Mayer was appointed Chief Financial Officer to help keep a budget and coordinate fund drives. Erik Möller had been the Chief Research Officer, but resigned in August 2005 due to differences with the board. [2] James Forrester was subsequently appointed to the position."
Firstly, Tim resigned about a year ago. Secondly, it seems a strange bias to mention only some of the people with "official positions" and not others. Also, these were just titles Jimbo gave out to people, not legally recognised officers of the Foundation. If anyone should be mentioned, it would make more sense to mention Brion Vibber, CTO, and Wikimedia's first employee. Does anyone think this section needs to be kept? The article is quite poor in general (no mention of local chapters, wikinews missing from the project list, inaccurate stuff about Wikia) but I'm probably too biased to be editing it myself. Angela. 09:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positions

message: Whats that?
:From In Memoriam: September 11, 2001, part of the September 11, 2001 wiki.
:"This is the home page for the memorial part of this wiki. It was started in 2001 in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The aim was to allow a more detailed report of the event than was allowed in Wikipedia that could include personal opinions. Part of the content here was originally uploaded to Wikipedia, a project of the Wikimedia Foundation." Thryduulf 15:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not linked from the article's lead or template like all the others, is there a reason why? Шизомби 07:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as far as I know. Add it in - someone can revert you if there is a reason that we don't know about. Thryduulf 09:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Memoriam 9/11

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

message: The above mentioned sites (there are probably a few more) aren't listed in this article; aren't these sites also under the Wikimedia Foundation? Also, has anyone considered maybe making something like a WikiBlog? There also needs to be some kind of group effort to organize and gather all the Wikimedia policies, sub-sites, guidelines, tutorials, groups, tags, lists, projects, etc., etc.; because it seems like every time I search Wikipedia; there is something new dealing with Wikipedia itself (just a minute ago, I found out that there was a support group for those who wish to have their problems solved; or this counter-vandalism unit program; along with a few other "projects" I stumbled upon) -- there really needs to be a grouping of all of these things (I really have no word to call them; maybe sub-site or "wikiProject"? I mean, people are creating new projects like hotcakes; attempting to help improve Wikipedia and expand it; but there is no way to really "advertise" or let others know these programs or projects even exist.  EDIT:     Just a minute ago, I found out there was a September 11th  Wiki. A wiki devoted to 9/11. I then decided to wiki September 11 attacks here at Wikipedia; and found out that the article was completely unaware that a September 11 Wiki even existed! An article about 9/11 didn't know that there was a Wiki devoted to 9/11? This is how "disconnected" wikipedia is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.209.137 (talk)  04:11, May 3, 2006 (UTC)
: The community portal organizes all these sorts of things. Also, people can "advertise" their new projects through Wikipedia Signpost, a newsletter for the community.
: Simple English is listed, as it's a "language" project of Wikipedia, is is no more special than any other language. Meta-Wiki is irrelevant to any regular reader wanting to know about Wikimedia, and our articles are written for readers, not contributors.
::The Reader handbook is supposed to be of some use for readers, but of course its origin on Meta is irrelevant. "Simple" is a bad idea as far as I'm concerned. -- Omniplex 07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sept. 11 Wiki was created as a way to make sure Wikipedia wasn't flooded with biographies of people whose sole notability was dying in the World Trade Centres, the Pentagon, or the planes. The plan is to archive it offsite, and officially de-list it as a Wikimedia project.  --  Zanimum 19:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meta-Wiki & Simple English Wikipedia 

message: What are the salaries of these employees? If anyone knows, it would be nice to include in the article.
--Dan Asad 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice, but do any of the other articles on corporations mention their employees salaries?  --  Zanimum 19:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The salaries need not be listed. But I think the number "5" is out-of-date.  I see six paid  Staff and I expect that Jimmy does not work for free. That would make it now seven. -- 75.24.213.215 20:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimmy is not paid for his work on Wikimedia. Wikimedia:Current staff currently lists five people, not 6, but that page has never been quite right anyway. It doesn't include the interns or the office staff (other than Danny), and never included Delphine even though she was paid for her work on Wikimania. Angela. 04:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 paid employees 

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

message: The following articles, which are breakout articles of this article, have been nominated for deletion:
* 
See also:
* 
Uncle G 14:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD nominations 

message: Link or explain what "NTEE" means.
--User:Jidanni 2006-07-12
:Done.  National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities is a classification system to detail what sort of non-profit an organization is, from what I understand.  GChriss 15:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NTEE? 

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

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

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

message: I think some of the articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation are of very borderline notability, according to our own standards.  Wikipedia is, of course, widely reported in the mainstream press.  The same does not apply to the Foundation's other projects, all of which have articles -- WP:WEB would be a good guideline to consider in this respect.  Neither does it apply to most of the articles about individual members of the foundation.  It appears to me that people have gotten a little carried away in creating such articles (such as WikiNews).  It doesn't look good for the project to have double-standards on the issue of notability.  Although I don't think I'll go so far as to start any AfDs myself, I'd strongly suggest that we consider either pruning these articles somewhat (possibly moving content to project space), or providing more concrete evidence of notability in the articles themselves.  Thanks.  Arbitrary username 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Virtually all our projects meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. The one that could possibly fail them is Wikispecies.--Eloquence* 04:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be possible to move the "less notable" projects into the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Just a thought. - dcljr (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

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

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

message: I doubt this goes here, but I'm not sure where else to ask. I am interested in starting a new project independent of Wikipedia. What are the steps to take toward doing this? Where do I start? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go here for new projects.  Shyam (T/C) 14:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Wikimedia project? 

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

message: I was in a bad mood yesterday and some guy deleted a legtimate page of mine so I decided to spam this article with bad comments. I believe that Al Qaeda is an evil organization and do not want them to bomb or kill anything. Please accept my sincere apology. 
wawa12 05:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My Sincere Apologies

message: I've heard of this, does it exist? If so, shouldn't there be a section about it in the article? Littleghostboo[ boo! ] 06:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I got the name wrong. Littleghostboo[ boo! ] 07:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia Youth Foundation 

message: Can anyone inform me what is the corporate purpose as embodied in the Certificate of Incorporation, if any exists, or its equivalent, which I assume is on file with the Secretary of State of Florida?
:I'm very curious!!!
::Thanks!
:::Yours truly, Ludvikus 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Ludvikus 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: ? Ludvikus 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WIKIPEDIA]] & [[Wikimedia Foundation]]: What's the Corporate Purpose? 

message: This question answered by me by LOOKING. Ludvikus 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just notice the WM Foundation Logo

message: Yours, etc., Ludvikus 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Ludvikus 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: ? Ludvikus 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AND IT IS NICE TO KNOW WHO'S WHO in WP & WM

message: :? Ludvikus 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Brad Patrick]], Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation

message: :? Ludvikus 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Danny Wool]], Assistant, Wikimedia Foundation

message: :? Ludvikus 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Brion Vibber]], Chief Technical Officer, Wikimedia Foundation

message: All hail the great Wikimedia Foundation! (Ha!) RocketMaster 08:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BEG FOR MERCY!!! 

message: Has Wiki paid The Scottish Government for their blatent rip off of their thistle symbol?
[]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.216.21 (talk) 
: It does look a bit like a thistle, but I can't find anything from the Scottish Executive with a similar icon. Google also fails to find anything. 
: On a technical note, only directly copying (or copying and then modifying)  an image or icon is copyright infringement. Icons which are similar in appearance are covered by trademark law, which is only designed to avoid confusion between organisations and products. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer) --h2g2bob 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Copyright Infringments

message: If you register for an account at Wikimedia, does that mean you have access to all projects? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, you have to register a separate account on every project you edit, if you choose not to edit anonymously. However, this will change in the not-too-distant future; I'd recommend registering with the same name and same associated email address wherever you register to make it easier to link them later. Also, this page is actually for discussing the Wikipedia article about the Wikimedia Foundation. (Are you confused yet?) The best place to ask questions about editing or using Wikipedia is at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 07:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usernames 

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