Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Fundraiser controversy?

There was some controversy about the Virgin foundation making matching donations at the fundraiser. After Wikipedia users send protest mails to Virgin United other matching donations were cancelled. I believe that should be included somewhere here since it's kind of a big deal that also caused the target amount of money not being reached in time which in turn causes cutbacks and delays. --84.178.92.188 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact that membership rights and the board's obligation to respect those rights were unilaterally canceled by the board just days before the fundraiser began? It would seem reasonable to think that people might have been giving donations with the mistaken belief that they were giving money to a membership organization where the bylaws guaranteed all individual project contributors "some" voice in the organization, much like shareholders in a corporation. No general announcement was made of these major changes in organizational structure that occurred literally days before the request for money to the "community" went out. There was never a vote of the "members", a report of a bylaws revision committee to give a rationale for all the changes or any other reasonable effort to give the "members" and public some minimal proper notice of a fundamental change in the organization's structure which might effect the willingness of individuals to contribute their volunteer efforts or make individual or periodic monetary donations to what otherwise appeared a stable organization that operated on principles of transparency and access that mirrored the spirit of wiki collaborative efforts. Alex756 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Running out of Money?

Is the Wikimedia Foundation running out of money? I ams seeing references to this on a number of sites, and I'm not sure whether to believe them at this point. Where would I go to find information on Wikimedia's financial situation? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You can ask this issue in foundation-l or OTRS. --H.T. Chien (Discuss|Contributions) 01:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

IRS Form 990

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

There is. I posted a link to it that stayed up for about week. It just wasn't to be. They didn't like my domain name, and thought it could be fake. It's a .pdf file, and can't be uploaded. I tried to get assistance from Beasley and the Wikimedia Foundation, but it seems no one thought it was important. Attorney Generals often thinks it's important, the IRS thinks it's important, but I guess it isn't going to happen. And by the way, it is an IRS form 990. Seem my entry below. Nanabozho 02:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Article protection

I have temporarily protected the article from editing due to what appears to be a content dispute over the article. I encourage the involved users to explain their edits here as part of the road to article unprotection. - Mark 02:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reduced the protection of this article to semi, as it doesn't seem that full protection has succeeded in forcing the involved user to comment or explain his actions. I also don't believe it fair to the other contributors for one person's WikiTruth nonsense. If he begins again, I would advise blocking (which happened in the last case as well) as opposed to protection. If anyone disagrees with my action here, feel free to revert me, though I would appreciate if you would comment first. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Idea for a new Wiki

Similar to the Wikitube idea suggested at the top, I think we should start Wikilyric. Since people are always putting lyrics in articles, this not only will eliminate it. But it will be possible to correct song lyrics without contacting nerdy[no offence] site adminstrators on current lyric sites. FinalWish 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted material is not allowed on wikipedia 141.158.240.248 03:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is correct – lyrics to songs are copyright violations, unless the rights to the song itself are available under a free licence (which is not the case for virtually all popular music). The Wikimedia Foundation is interested only in creating free-content projects. Also, this is not the place to suggest new projects; please see Meta-wiki – Qxz 07:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense about membership

On February 2, User:Alex756 added the following as a "minor edit":

On December 11, 2006 the Wikimedia Foundation board decided that the corporation should cease being a membership organization by vote of the trustees who thereby changed the bylaws to remove all reference to membership activities such as an organizational disciplinary procedure, committee structures or any other statutory rights of members under Florida law; none of the then board members, including those previously elected as member representatives, voted against those changes.

Alex was one of the pro bono lawyers of the Foundation he refers to, and as such, his edit is problematic on WP:COI grounds alone. It also does not cite a source. The Foundation never had any members, because it did not meet the registration requirements of the Florida Statutes. The idea of a membership registration system was contemplated, but never implemented. The bylaws were merely changed to reflect that reality, which is why that decision was unanimous. The idea to implement a membership has also been extensively debated on the foundation-l mailing list with members of the community before the relevant text was removed.

I would remove this myself except, of course, as a Board member I should be cautious in doing so. I would, however, strongly ask that someone else removes or rewords this, as it is simply nonsense in the present form.--Eloquence* 06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your view as I recall discussion at the time. I have replaced the paragraph with

On December 11, 2006 the Wikimedia Foundation board acknowledged that the corporation could not become the membership organisation intially planned but never implemented due to an inability to meet the registration requirements of Florida Statute. Accordingly the bylaws were amended to remove all reference to membership rights and activities. The decision to change the bylaws was passed by the Board unanimously.

which is, I believe, more accurate. --AlisonW 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Still not sourced, though. Is there a page somewhere on the Foundation website about this that we can cite? – Qxz 19:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Communications committee

Should we be using sannse and mindspillage's real names in that section? And if not, should the section be there at all? – Qxz 05:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there at all and of course it shouldn't be using their usernames... but what do you expect from an article that gets so many basic facts wrong? ... --Gmaxwell 21:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this biased?

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

DONATIONS

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

I'd like to donate, but I need to mention that the donation ticker is screwing up pages. Pages are loading with just the ticker at the top. 164.214.1.54 18:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Kageskull

It's time to Fix the dead 990 Tax Return Link

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

Look at this file I just uploaded: Wikimedia_Form_990_063005.pdf.‎ It is supposed to be a .pdf file with their 990 return in it, but it's an image from Adobe that doesn't download well. I hunted around looking for the special instructions for a .pdf file versus and image file and found none. I Googled it and found nothing. So I think I will put the above link on the article page, to prompt some admin to go to my site, get the file, and then upload it to Wikipedia, and replace my link with yours, thus removing any reference to my sites name. Is this a good plan? Nanabozho 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the day WP gets the important IRS form 990 for Wikimedia on its site, or so I think. Since it appears to be up to me to do this, here goes. Going on this article page now is the link to the 990 that runs through my domain. As I wrote above, I expect an admin to correct the situation, and get this vital finacial information on your site. We will see how WP conducts itself? Nanabozho 07:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

boring

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

Well, thanks for livening it up with your contribution.

--Ohadaloni 21:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Businees Model Considerations

Has anyone seriously attempted to evaluate the effect of budget on the production of content provided by volunteer work?

Isn't it likely that as budget grows, many volunteers will consider their work for the wikipedia something that might require some re-thinking?

If the wikipedia had just received billions of dollars of budget and started sending reasearches across the planet and galaxy seeking for knowledge, will it cover the expense of the lost work of the many volunteers? Is this extremety and imaginary scenario worth considering for the sake of clarity? Without self-offense, it is easy to metphorically think of us as slave labour, having some monetary value, and try and evaluate it as accuratly as is necessery as per this argument, and observe how this revenue stream is affected by the actual budget spent elsewhere. I believe the lower the budget, the higher this revenue stream. We know and feel this to be true, none of the actual knowldge within the wikipedia ever having been paid for. Placing monetary value on volunteer work might be offensive to some, but brings clarity.

--Ohadaloni 21:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Revenue

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

NPOV

Adding 5 references to a publicly disputed fact, when many excellent references exist about the controversy, does not make a blatantly POV statement into NPOV. Wikimedia must not take sides on controversial issues, and stating as if it is a simple fact that I am "co-founder" rather than founder is at odds with our core values of neutrality.

What I recommend is omitting the word completely or finding another way to make the point here without implicitly making a highly controversial (and false) claim. --Jimbo Wales 19:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please. Provide evidence that it is "publicly disputed" as opposed to "disputed by you and no one else". Otherwise explain how a perfectly uncontroversial statement of fact suddenly becomes "blatantly POV" just because one person denies it. Not to mention that you still haven't explained how you either haven't noticed the widely-published co-founder view, or if you did, why you never stated your contrary view, before 2004. The New York Times alone would be a reliable source, which you alone cannot by a baseless denial make "controversial". And of course there are many more such sources. The claim is not controversial, much less false. Bramlet Abercrombie 20:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I dispute it makes it, at the very least, controversial. Multiple media sources cover the controversy, and the majority of publicatiouns refer to me as the founder, not cofounder. Shall we add 5 references to those, as well? It is, in addition, false.--Jimbo Wales 15:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you dispute it makes it original research for anyone here to take your word for it that there is a dispute. Maybe call the New York Times, ask them to explore the controversy and then we can cite a neutral, reputable publication's findings, although they might not concur with what you want reported. Or you could reconsider your views on what comprises "original research." If you have any social capital left in this project, your review of the policy could start a cascade that leads to a policy revision. If can you learn to work with the community, you might find that Wikipedia is a very accommodating place. I can't believe how nice to jerks we usually are around here. Moo Go Gai Pan 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you dispute it is meaningless to the issue itself, though noteworthy in articles about you, or those that deal in detail with Wikipedia history. But when the issue is not directly under discussion, it is just fine to refer to you as co-founder. You don't have a personal veto on reality. It's not an issue that is decided merely between you and Larry. What media sources have covered is your point of view, and Larry's, and they often leave it at that. So it can be said there's a personal dispute between you two. But it doesn't follow that there's a general dispute about the matter, because all objective evidence is validating Larry's view, none yours. The fact that media often refer to you as "the founder" does not mean they call you "sole founder". You can call a co-founder "the founder", it's just imprecise. None of the articles that specifically discuss the "controversy" validate your point of view, but there are plenty who validate Larry's by calling him and you co-founders. Let me know when you find a single media reference to you as "sole founder" or one that explicitly agrees with your claim that the co-founder view is "false". Finally I note that you still avoid answering the critical questions. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is the 5 references, and that screams something. 2 would be OK, and would mean, I am right, and I am right twice. 5 means, you are so gosh darn wrong, I am going to prove it to you. I don't think 5 references serves WP's purpose for any article, does it? Is it supposed to be a "Controversy" indicator? Nanabozho 23:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly it IS supposed to be an implicit "controversy" indicator... a confession that the author is attempting to cause Wikipedia to take a stand on something controversial. I do not ask that Wikipedia take my side on the issue, only that Wikipedia remain steadfastly neutral. In the location where this sits in the article right now, the best hope is for a rewrite to omit the question completely. There is just no reason to have it there.--Jimbo Wales 15:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's silly to have even one reference every time Wales is referred to as co-founder, but the existence of 5 was apparently needed because some people followed Wales' instigation on IRC to impose his POV ("Will someone help me by cleaning this up all over the site?" [1]). The references certainly validate the co-founder title; there are no such references validating his view of being sole founder. But yeah, they should probably be reduced to 2 at most. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all the links and reworded it to something neutral. I think it's safe to say that Jimmy was head of Wikipedia at the time the Foundation was formed to take it over? Besides, reading through the five links, three were about the controversy regarding the terms "found" and "cofounder". Only one actually referred to him as "cofounder" without relating it to the controversy...nicely balance by the fifth article which referred to him as "founder."

We want NPOV here..we shouldn't be fighting for it through references like this. All these links did was highlight the controversy. If that's notable enough for an article, fine, but it can go somewhere else. It actually has nothing to do with the Foundation. Yeesh, people. --InkSplotch 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A documented fact isn't non-neutral just because Jimbo objects to it. Referring to him as "founder" is not implying "sole founder", so it doesn't balance anything. There are plenty of references to him as co-founder and zero as sole founder. The links may be trimmed down, but there's no reason not to use the term "co-founder". Bramlet Abercrombie 22:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with InkSplotch here. Founder or co-founder aside, it's really the position of "head" that's pertinent in this context, isn't it? (Or am I missing something?) Founder/co-founder status may very well be notable, but isn't necessary for this article. Bladestorm 22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It already says in the very same sentence that he was "running" Wikipedia, so "head" is redundant. And you would hardly argue that the word co-founder "isn't necessary" in this article if Jimbo hadn't complained. Many of the words in this, and indeed any other, article are arguably "not necessary", but it is a quite pertinent information, so there is no need to remove it. Bramlet Abercrombie 22:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please do not guess as to whether or not I'd behave differently, dependent on the objections of a single editor.

Yes, 'founder' does imply 'sole founder'. But, frankly, that's beside the point. Even whether or not it's appropriate to take the general stand of whether he's the founder or co-founder (an issue on which I'm not even personally decided) is entirely beside the point. His position as head was relevant. Whether or not he was the sole founder was not. Heck, whether or not he had any role in founding wikipedia wouldn't really be directly relevant. (At least, not compared to his role as head, when it comes to the announcement)

You're right; it is said in the very same sentence that he was "running" wikipedia. However, the context of that sentence was to establish that wikipedia had previously been running from within Bomis. As such, how he was running wikipedia was to identify the connection to bomis, and his being head identifies the context of his making the announcement. Bladestorm 23:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It said he was "hitherto" running Wikipedia, hence also at the moment of the announcement. It is entirely redundant. And after all, his position after the establishment of the foundation became more ambiguous; he was no longer legally in control, only de facto through his control of the Board. So the word "head" is not very clear there; it may suggest that he is still "head", although that's a dubious description now that the Board is more democratic. Bramlet Abercrombie 23:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It says he was "running Wikipedia within his company Bomis". That last part is significant because it establishes how wikipedia was being run before that. And he was 'head' when he made the announcement (and, arguably, made the announcement as the head of wikipedia). Whether or not he still is now is immaterial. I don't know either way, and can't say I really care. :)

This is simply about establishing the proper context of the sentence to most concisely describe the situation at the time. Who came up with the wiki idea predates that by a bit, doesn't it? Controversies about wales rejecting the 'co-founder' stuff came later, right? Right at that moment, the only pertinent fact was that he, as the head of wikipedia, made the announcement. Of course, I always acknowledge that I tend to make mistakes. (And also tend to miss details that would be insanely obvious to just about anyone else) So, if I am missing something here, by all means, enlighten me. It just seems that, in this case, this is the best wording so far. That it doesn't take sides on the issue is nice, but, more importantly, it seems to acknowledge that who-founded-wikipedia isn't really important to the announcement anyways. Bladestorm 23:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict]In this sentance, "head" is the best word I have for his title that's neutral. "Running" is present as a verb that simply reinforces it. And yes, I wouldn't argue it's not necessary if Jimmy hadn't complained. More to the point, I wouldn't bother at all if the sentence fragment "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales" could stand without needing references. One or fives doesn't matter, it's disputed by both primary sources and all secondary sources are merely reporting on that dispute. It's a pretty unique problem for Wikipedia to have, both in terms of neutrality and avoiding original research. But it's not pertinent to an article about the Foundation. Wikipedia belonged to Wales, Wales established the Foundation and passed control to it. That's what the lead-in should focus on...not this controversy. --InkSplotch 23:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The personality conflict involved might create an appearance that the primary difference between Wikimedia Foundation's project being founded by one person or more than one person is strictly a matter of bragging rights. To the contrary, whether the project emerged as the brainchild of one person who inspired a larger collective, or as a result of enterprise among several persons who inspired a larger collective is an important aspect of the foundation of Foundation projects.

If rhetorically we refer to owners of tangible property and owners of industry as the owners of the ideas conceived by people they employ, we might reflect Western intellectual-property law, but we omit correct reference to the creative authority behind the projects. Omitting references to the ideological and practical differences between two people who established the project is to omit reference to how the foundation reached the place it is today. Core Foundation policies today are derived in largely unaltered form from those established by Wales and/or that other person. The very articles of faith upon which Foundation policies are built (open editing, letting secret volunteers set policy) resulted when Wales used his sole control of a project he more or less bought with profits he collected playing the volatile 1980's market to win a policy dispute with a creative ally who happened to be in an employee/employer relationship with Wales at the time. The employee invested far more hours on the clock than Wales did to grow the project, and probably brought more literary background to the community than did Wales. Wales investment that year was more about money than about contributing content or building community. It is important to keep a light on the paper trail that shows how policy decisions derived from the financial power of a certain original participant in the project.Moo Go Gai Pan 21:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

OK. Lets review.

1. It does not matter what Wales' opinion or Sanger's opinion is when citing the facts. Reason. The facts are supported by both primary as well as secondary sources.

   Wales and Sanger are the primary sources, and they are in dispute with each other, thus neither "founder" or "co-founder" are neutral. The secondary sources used so far highlight this dispute nicely...but this article isn't about the dispute, it's about a non-profit organization called the Wikimedia Foundation. The sources have no bearing on this article.

2. The facts must be written from a neutral point of view.

   Agreed.

3. What is th definition of founder. A person who established Wikipedia.
4. Two people worked togther to establish and build Wikipedia from the beginning.
5. When two people work together and start a project from the very beginning they will be both called co-founders.

   All opinion, which reflect Sanger and many other's view. Jimbo, and others, have an opposing view. I don't care either way.

6. It is well documented. In the beginning (before 2004) - various articles, Wikipedia press releases, and Wikipedia articles all described Larry as well as Jimmy as co-founders.

   Various articles and press releases written by Wikipedia volunteers. It may shock you, but I would not call us a Reliable Source about ourselves.

7. Some articles refer to Jimmy Wales as 'the' founder (starting about 2004) but do not explain the co-foundership issue at hand.
8. The revisionist years (about 2004) is a rewrite of history. Wales never disputed the facts until after Larry left the project.
9. Mr. Jimmy Wales has never given any documented evidence for his new version (since 2004) of reality (revisionism).
10. At the risk of repeating myself, Wales never disputed his co-founder position before 2004. We can't rewrite history.
11. There are a multitude of references to support the facts.
12. After Larry left the project, thats when the alteration of reality started taking place.
13. When Jimmy Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation he was still known as the co-founder (never disputed at that point in history).

    And again...it's all disputed information. Revisionist years? The very term seems as far from WP:NPOV as you can get.

14. This is useful information (co-founder) instead of a redundant word (head). I could not find any secondary sources to support the word head. There are plenty of secondary sources to support the useful term as co-founder.

    Actually, it's not. The term founder or co-founder, and dispute around them, have no bearing on the article. As for "head", I admit about I'm not crazy about it either...it's the best I could think of. You have read the larger NPOV section here, yes? Now I've time to consider it, "owner" might be a better, and more accurate term. And if it's all the same to you, I'd love to get rid of "hitherto"...it just doesn't flow with the overall writing style.

15. By the way, the appeal for the verifiability of the facts is exactly what the Wikipedia community demands in its WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT policies. It isn't my rule: it's the community's consensus based on policy.

• Cordially,  Mr.Guru  talk  02:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand these policies (I can even tell which ones are only guidelines). I don't dispute their importance...just your interpretation of how they apply here. The ultimate in neutral point of view is to avoid the entire dispute between the two primary sources which, coincidentally, are also editors themselves. Me, I don't care...it's an interesting issue that could probably be addressed best on the Wikipedia History article. Although, Sanger's own website addresses it better than anything on Wikipedia I've seen yet. Anyway, I said it before, and I'll say it again: if "co-founder Jimbo Wales" could stand on its own, uncontested and without the need for sources, it wouldn't violate WP:NPOV. My apologies for threading my response within yours, it seemed the best way. --InkSplotch 02:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

When Jimmy Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation he was known as the co-founder according to primary (official press releases approved by Jimmy Wales) and secondary sources. It was never disputed when he started the Wikipedia Foundation and head or owner is redundant and unverified (no references). The co-founder term is informative and gives the reader the facts about who started the Wikimedia Foundation. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Official press releases approved by Wales? You have cites? Because Wales is disputing it. It's not neutral, it's POV, and it's not necessary for this article. --InkSplotch 03:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ask him yourself about the press releases he has read. I like to know what he says about it. There was no dispute when Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation. Its neutral, NPOV, and adds useful text for this article. Readers would like to know who is Wales. Co-founder has reliable references and owner is not verified.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, co-founder does not have reliable references it's a disputed term. The secondary sources acknowledge this. And ownership? Wales created the Foundation to transfer ownership to a non-profit entity. It's referenced, linked (under external links to the Foundation's charter), and pointed out explicitly under section 3 - Foundation History and Growth. --InkSplotch 03:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The co-founder status has plenty of reliable references and is relevant to this article.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it relevant? How? The Foundation came into being after Wikipedia, whoever or however many people founded it. It was created by Wales, who owned the domain names and copyrights. The english Wikipedia is relatively minor in this article and bring a dispute over foundership only hurts the article. How can I make this any clearer? --InkSplotch 03:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The term co-founder gives the reader background who Jimmy is and how it all got started and thus to the creation of the Wikimedia Foundation. Owner is unverified and does not give the uniformed reader any information to the origin of Wikipedia. The word owner implies a business. Do you have any secondary sources to support the word owner? The word co-founder is informative and has plenty of secondary sources. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  04:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly taking a position on a controversial matter to call me "co-founder," a claim which is false, and which I have protested about many times. There are reliable sources for the existence of the controversy, and reliable sources which call the matter in either direction. I protest this article going into it at all, since this article is about the Wikimedia Foundation, which Larry absolutely without a doubt had absolutely nothing to do with at all. Some people have an axe to grind here: they are POV pushers. Don't let them get away with it.--Jimbo Wales 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the co- looks like real POV pushing to me, founder is correct, while the refs strile me as an abuse of our ref system. We dont use refs to push a point, SqueakBox 20:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I'm with Wales here, not because I understand all your arguments, but because an employee can't found a for-profit business, which is what Wikipedia was before it was Wikimedia. I am an accountant, and strongly believe that an entity must be something (Am I sounding like Rand here?). Wikipedia was a for-profit before it was Wikimedia. There aren't any mushy definitions of something other than a for-profit or a non-profit. Wikipedia was owned by Wales (perhaps with Bomis), and not Sanger as I understand it. If Sanger had negotiated a future equity stake in Wikipedia, he could have been the founder, but I haven't heard that he did. Sticking to the facts and possibilities arising from those facts, Sanger can't be the co-founder in my opinion.

As far as relying on sources, that policy while part of Wikipedia, fails the article. Someone writing for MSNBC or whoever, that doesn't understand that an employee can't found a for-profit company, that an entity must be either for or non profit, and who hasn't spent a lot of time with the issue, isn't worth citing.

Someone above had mentioned something about implies a business. If it wasn't a business, then what for goodness sakes was it? Up until the day it got Florida's non-profit status, it was a for-profit. I think it's rellevant that when the time came to give stuff (domain names, etc.) to the just born Wikimedia, it was Wales doing it, while Sanger was doing whatever Wikipedia says he was doing that day.

I blogged on this subject a few months ago. So as not to be accused of spamming links, you'll have to go to my user page, click on my blog, and then find on page: "founded", and then add me to your watch list as a subversive. Thank you. Nanabozho 19:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

What pray tell is this article about then? Founded what? What Wikimedia is, is the easier question. It's a 501(c)(3) non-profit. But I think the question is, who founded Wikipedia? In the context of founding something, we usually have a thing. A thing that lawyers and accountants can see and assign legal words and financial numbers to. I think you are saying whatever the thing was, this cultural entity, pre-Wikimedia did not exist as tangible assets. It was like a cloud hovering over certain spots of the world. It was beyond the reach of lawyers and accountants. I'll buy that for the sake of the argument. But I am trying to focus things, to look at the elements of the situation, to ask who paid the bills? I think to call it a cultural entity, a new phrase to me, is to blur things. What lawyers and accountants usually deal in, is real, and can be serious. Just as Wikimedia stands front and center, ready to take financial hits from disgruntled people and their lawyers, I'd say, Wales and company stood, pre-Wikimedia. Owners stand there. I admit, this only a point of view, not encompassing all aspects of the universe of the situation, but looking at it from one way. Nanabozho 06:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Out of Date

this artical seems really out-of date because it does not contain information about anything after 2005. (as I can see) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.195.39 (talk) 08:06, July 30, 2007

I just scanned it again, and it looks fairly current. The History and Growth section is current up to Mike Godwin's appoint as Legal Counsel in July of this year...I'm pretty sure someone updated for the recent Board elections too. Is there a particular bit you feel is out of date? --InkSplotch 14:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)