Talk:Wikimedia Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Organizations (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Tampa Bay (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tampa Bay, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tampa Bay on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Incorrect date[edit]

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. (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Update to Finance Section[edit]

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


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

Title - "Wikimedia" or "Wikimedia Foundation"[edit]

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)


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

I agree. Over-reliance on primary sources, link farms to Wikimedia websites, etc. JN466 10:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added a primary source tag to start with. The sources really need to be phased out for independent sources wherever possible. For a lot of this, it shouldn't be hard, since the news tends to cover Wikimedia blog posts anyways. SilverserenC 10:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --JN466 12:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It probably needs an {{advert}} and {{COI}} as well :) but I am not a fan of tag bombing so I resisted ;) I split out List of Wikimedia chapters and removed the table from this article. Some sources in the child article that can be used in this one, I might drag them in later. --Errant (chat!) 13:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

I'd be inclined to remove it and simply list "notable board members" (past and present) instead. Also; it duplicates some of the "history" --Errant (chat!) 13:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
You people need to find something worthwhile to nit pick about. Wish I had your spare time, I wouldn't waste it with such idiocies. Disgusting!
Please remove the taggings or fix the problems then remove. BE AN EDITOR, not a whiner. // FrankB 18:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about donors, donations and allocations[edit]

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

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

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

Quotes about MediaWiki[edit]

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)


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

Auberon Waugh[edit]

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 ) (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Although, indeed, The Register may not be the most notable reference, if not extremely bad as characterized here by user The ed17, the facts about German WP chapter spending donors' money for traveling to pop concerts is on the German chapter's wiki page here for everyone to see. I find ignoring the facts that everyone can see, and deleting the section altogether, extremely bad practice. Especially because, as explained on the FDC portal here, apparently the Founation has no mechanism to revise bad decisions made by the chapters, which may prove to be extremely bad for the Foundation's reputation in a long term. --DancingPhilosopher my talk 09:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Please see this. What does it tell you? It tells me that some things should be given money first, and the photos, valid in themselves, can not be the top priority no matter how valid they are in themselves, they are to be considered not in a vacuum, but in context of more important things that need the money first. --DancingPhilosopher my talk 16:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Noticeboard, redirect there?[edit]

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

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

Meta Wiki??[edit]

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

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

Misogyny at Wikipedia and WMF[edit]

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

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

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 2013-08-20Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Note that an edit on this page related to the greenhouse discussion has been removed, [3]Unscintillating (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


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

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

Internal links[edit]

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

You can edit. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
@Rjd0060: Superm401 has a COI, hence is suggesting the edit, per the guideline's recommendation. ;) –Quiddity (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure - but these types of cosmetic changes shouldn't really trigger any issues...but with the people who watch this page, I suppose it's better safe than sorry. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I should note that my comment above was a guess. Possibly he just didn't have time to do it himself, or to investigate whether it had been discussed before and rejected, or etc, and so suggested it? I'm not sure!
Fwiw, I'd agree with the changes. –Quiddity (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sourced text[edit]

"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)

employees section[edit]

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

When scandals are reported in the media and are well sourced in accordance with Wikipedia it must be included. You cannot delete text simply because you don't like it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Much of that section isn't scandals; it's "X was hired in 2007, then Y was hired in 2008, then Z left in 2009" etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

add video[edit]

I just uploaded this:


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

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

Expiry of trustee terms[edit]

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)

[Removal of] Assets section[edit]

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

Monkey Selfie[edit]

See QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirecting Loop[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 07:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Governance information[edit]

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)

Financials 2013-2014[edit]

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

Recent additions...[edit]

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

  • Hi, this was not a "recent addition" it was a revert. This information has been on this article for many months until someone removed it for no reason. Regarding your arguments, here a few references regarding the Board of Trustees of WMF and its notability:
  1. McCarthy, Caroline (July 18, 2008). Wikimedia Foundation edits its Board of Trustees. CNET. -- whole Board was covered in a single detailed article.
  2. SocialTimes publishes an article about the appointment of Bishakaha Datta
  3. Sotirios Paroutis, Loizos Heracleous, and Duncan Angwin on their book Practicing Strategy: Text and Cases discuss in detail the Wikimedia Board, its structure, and its advisory board.
  4. IEP publishes an article about the appointment of Kat Walsh to the board.
  5. Dariusz Jemielniak on his book Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia discusses in detail the Wikimedia Board and its structure.
  6. All Things Digital covering Ana Tori's appointment to the Board
  7. The Wikimedia Foundation and the Self-governing Wikipedia Community – A Dynamic Relationship under Constant Negotiation, in Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader, 351-369, Institute of Network Culture, Netherlands, 2011 -- a research publication about WMF and its self-governance
  8. LiveMint regarding Bishakha's appointment
...and so on.
I highly suggest that you do a Google Search before removing this information. The WMF Board happens to be very notable. Just because the article lacks references it doesn't automatically mean it's not notable. In any case, I suggest you use {{cn}} or {{notability}} to spark a discussion before you remove such a huge chunk of information from the article.
Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The material was originally removed a couple of months ago and the article has been stable since. But in terms of the references you've given, they are mostly the usual on-line "cut and paste" from a Wikimedia press statement, rather than reliable secondary sources or genuine commentary. There are two stronger sources referenced, but they don't mention the relevant information that is being dispute in the article - which in turn, doesn't build my confidence that the material in question is notable. Item by item:
  •'s article isn't what I'd personally consider "detailed" - it is 194 words long, and largely simply reproduces the Wikimeda press release.
  • again reproduces the press release.
  • "Practicing Strategy" is a proper chapter of a book, but it doesn't appear to mention the additional/deleted material.
  • IEF simply cut and pastes the press release.
  • AllThingsDigital is a 40 word statement that a press release has been issued.
  • Shun-Ling Chen again has a proper chapter, but doesn't appear to mention the additional/deleted material.
  • LiveMint does at least give some original content, in the form of a short interview with Bishakha Datta, in which she comments on the male-dominated nature of the Wikimedia Foundation Board and the decent technical skills of her future colleagues (neither of which was in the additional/deleted text), although again it doesn't seem to touch on the additional/deleted material.
Hchc2009 (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • We don't go by what you personally believe to be a reliable source or not. We go by what WP:V establishes. From that policy all the sources I provided are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You claim they are copies of press releases but even if they were that's IRRELEVANT for us as the source "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". You remove a big chunk of information which covers many different aspects of the board. For instance, by the books alone we must include how the board is structured (x amount by the community, the founder, x amount appointed by the board itself) but yet you removed that info, why? Under what logic are you removing this info even though it's both notable and verifiable? What is this "additional/deleted material" you refer to? It is the names? The pictures? The structure? The historic appointments? The committees? What is it exactly? Or is it everything? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • By the way, regarding the committees, here's why we include that info: You just can't start talking about the controversies facing the FDC without explaining how the Board operates through its committees and what does the FDC actually does (or is supposed to do). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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


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



[[Sue Gardner]], the former executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, raised some 
“significant concerns” before she left the organization in 2012:

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

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

WikiProject for Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

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

Just uploaded new photos of the board members[edit]

If anyone wants to use any of them:

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

Sloan Foundation still supporting?[edit]

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

External links modified[edit]

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.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of volunteers[edit]

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)

State of registration[edit]

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)