Jump to content

Talk:Wikimedia Foundation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.92.79.239 (talk) at 23:49, 5 July 2010 (→Writing: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WP1.0

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, there are some images available for use at commons:Category:Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case i have just added one. Simply south (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Writing

I was just wondering, if Wikipedia is an American project, why do all the articles use British spelling and grammar??

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation&oldid=371936031"