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 98.158.206.103 (talk) at 20:57, 12 September 2019 (→New controversy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

Update to Finance Section

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

Update

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

Title - "Wikimedia" or "Wikimedia Foundation"

This was renamed from "Wikimedia" to "Wikimedia Foundation" in 2005[1] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree. Over-reliance on primary sources, link farms to Wikimedia websites, etc. JN466 10:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. SilverserenC 10:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --JN466 12:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Meta Wiki??

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [2].  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I recall seeing it somewhere, the fileservers are the ones running solaris. not sure where I saw it though. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 20:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You can edit. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjd0060: Superm401 has a COI, hence is suggesting the edit, per the guideline's recommendation. ;) –Quiddity (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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."[4] The text is obviously sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Very nicely done, Vgrigas. I think it's worth adding to the article. Tony (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JFTR, somebody added the video, and as of 2015 it's on the article. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[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)[reply]


Monkey Selfie

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

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)[reply]

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 ([5], 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)[reply]

Financials 2013-2014

Financials are here, [6], if someone wants to update the tables. JMK (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WikiProject for Wikimedia Foundation

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

Just uploaded new photos of the board members

If anyone wants to use any of them:

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

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)[reply]

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 [7] (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 [8] 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)[reply]

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 Sunday, 17 November 2024, 06:59 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 48,275,890 registered users, 121,641 active editors, and 852 administrators. Together we have made 1,253,165,843 edits, created 61,853,693 pages of all kinds and created 6,911,822 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)[reply]

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 [9], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Nearly half a million in severance pay?

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

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:
--Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why the secrecy? Maybe because they think it is none of your business. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

References

  1. ^ Kolbe, Andreas (7 June 2017). "Golden handshakes of almost half a million at Wikimedia Foundation". The Register.

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

Excessive spending section refs

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [10] and [11]. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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

New controversy

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

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)[reply]

test

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation&oldid=915369841"