![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Should Sue Gardner be mentioned here? She's just been made the Foundation's Executive Director; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-03/Gardner interview. That sounds like a fairly significant position to me, so it should probably be mentioned somewhere in this article. Terraxos ( talk) 21:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion of recent news reports is continuing on this page [1]. Please let's keep that discussion centralized there to reduce the need for deletions/blanking for BLP (Biography Of Living Persons) reasons in the future. Risker ( talk) 07:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot to do here people.... Just to start: Why does a search for 'Carolyn Doran' end up on the parent page here? And once the user ends up here, why does the article mantion her once and not even note that she has left? More importantly; someone (not me, Because I hate drunk drivers and cannot maintain NPOV (Neutral Point of View) in this regard) needs to link this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/ (Or at least some other article with the same info). Duck and cover folks.. EasyTarget ( talk) 09:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[unindented for clarity]
Why is that page redirecting here? It makes no sense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I have recently listed
Carolyn Doran at Deletions Review, not because I necessarily believe that she warrants an article on herself, but because a) the continued protection of the deleted page without discussion gives an incredibly bad PR impression and b) the incident itself is certainly notable and should not be brushed off. After a cursory glance I can't exactly tell why this page is under such stringent protection, but I see no reason why consensus can't be reached on the addition several sentences related to this controversy in this article.
Joshdboz (
talk)
13:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't tell you how it appears even to me, a long-time Wikipedia fan, to find the Wikimedia Foundation article not only doesn't have one mention of the embarrassing details of the Carolyn Doran episode but is also "protected" so the information can't be added. I see this and remember the countless times other organizations have tried to prevent embarrassing (but notable) information from being added to their Wikipedia entries only to be coldly blocked and made to simply "deal with it". I felt those organizations were treated correctly and the protection of this article is, IMHO, unbelievably hypocritical. Lawyer2b ( talk) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ask yourself this question: Why is there a Wikipedia article on Darleen Druyun and not on Carolyn Doran? Both held senior positions within their organizations. Both were later found out to have engaged in criminal behavior. It is clear that information censorship is taking place. The hypocrisy is astounding. One is left with the impression that information on Department of Defense scandals should be freely available, but information on Wikimedia scandals should be swept under the rug. It reminds one of the communist regimes during the cold war -- information control. Westwind273 ( talk) 07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the new material to the article. It's the right thing to do and it's correct in terms of language, length and sourcing. Wholeheartedly endorse. David in DC ( talk) 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This is similar to the Soviet Union saying there was a "minor problem" at Chernobyl. Admit only the bare minimum; restrict information as much as possible. There should be a separate article on Carolyn Doran, or more information provided in this article. Westwind273 ( talk) 14:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy is overwhelmingly and commonly known as wikipedia founder, to claim on the basis of a couple of obscure refs that he is only the co-founder, which is not the case, has no place int he article or the encyclopedia, and appears to be coming of Sanger supporters. That Abercrombie's revert made it sound like my edit was vandalism merely makes the matter worse. Now please can we discuss this rather than having an undiscussed POV pushing edit stand. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
So you are POV pushing then. I would suggest this is not the place and your aspersions towards allegedly lazy journalists (read "they don't agree with me") merely confirms it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
We've been through this before. There's not a single source explicitly confirming Jimbo's view of being sole founder. Your second source actually refers to him as co-founder and mentions the other co-founder, and speaking of "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales" is merely imprecise, but does not imply sole foundership. We, however, should be precise. The official Wikipedia press releases are definitive. And thus, if you say his being the co-founder "is not the case" it is manifestly you who is POV pushing. Bramlet Abercrombie ( talk) 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Describing Jimbo Wales as "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales" does not overtly take a position on whether Jimbo was the "sole founder" or a "co-founder." In fact, this actually strikes me as a reasonable way of not having to grapple with the sole-founder/co-founder issue in contexts where is is not essential to do so (as opposed to a construction such as "the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales", which does imply a view on this question). After all, I could be mentioned as "Wikipedia editor Newyorkbrad" without implying that there are no other editors. The issues as to whether Jimbo was "sole founder" or "co-founder" and what Larry Sanger's role was are fair game for discussion on the articles where they are most relevant, but the controversy should not spin off to include every page where Jimbo's name is mentioned. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I realize that this is currently protected, but I'd like to suggest that we go ahead and update the Board membership to note the resignations of Michael Davis and Erik Moller [4]. Dragons flight ( talk)
{{ editprotected}}
11 members maximum: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/036560.html -- Jeandré, 2007-12-23 t07:56z
Posting this information here, as I did on the talk page of User:Fandyllic:
"In answer to your edit summary, it isn't going to last very long because it is self-referential without reliable outside sources being used to support the claim. I am going to remove your edit for that reason. It is also, incidentally, completely unrelated to the subject of the article. Wikipedia editorial decisions are not directed from the Foundation. Risker (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)"
This confirms that the question inherent in the user's edit summary received a response. Risker ( talk) 09:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Westwind273's example of Boeing executive Darleen Druyun having a page, but the blatant absence of Carolyn Doran is spot on. We can't throw around altruistic claims like "summary of all human knowledge for advancment of society" etc. *and* censor data that might bruise the shiny reputation of WP in the same breath. It just doesn't hold water. Drewson99 ( talk) 18:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please fix. `' Míkka >t 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The official policy of Wikipedia prohibits promotional articles. As this article is on the non-profit charity, The Wikimedia Foundation, I propose that all members/affiliates/employees and users of this domain be prohibited from editing this article as they could be biased in favour of Wikimedia.
"Promotional article production on behalf of clients
Producing promotional articles for Wikipedia on behalf of clients is strictly prohibited."
Sincerely Speaking, Sutjo Sutjo-18005 ( talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This page seems to be redundant, and it seems that it should be merged into the "Projects" section of this article. -- Wikiacc ( °) 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, List of Wikimedia Projects is redundant in the same mode as the above. -- Wikiacc ( ¶) 22:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that the article should be left as it is. As I find it very useful.
I commented out two references that were being used to cite facts that seem completely unrelated to the references themselves. Can someone check up on them? Just search for the <!-- tag and you should find them. I'd like someone else's opinion on this. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the employees section from the article. I can't seem to find any other company or organization's article that goes into the same depth about specific employees. Please do not re-add part or all of the list until there is consensus that having the people listed on the article adds some benefit to the article as a whole. Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this for discussion:
This looks like pure WP:OR (synthesis). There was a gap between hoped for revenue and actual, but the rest looks like OR. The "outpacing" may seem like it but we have no source cited to say this; the expenses quoted may well include discretionary elements for example. Serious consideration by the WMF to place adverts on its projects as is stated, to cover this stated funding gap, is unsourced. Estimates of benefits would be relevant, if the above were sourced and reliable. FT2 ( Talk | email) 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a profoundly silly link. There is nothing on this page that is not contained on the WMF website. The only possible reasoning for the link is to make the list of employees absolutely unmissably clear. This is not a function we provide for any other organisation; apart from finding it profoundly disturbing, it is utterly redundant. All the information that is given by the Wikipedia:About page is provided in more depth by the Foundation's website. The link -- and moreover the "includes employees" or whatever formulation WAS 4.250 has come up with now -- is redundant, navel-gazing and self-obsessed. I do not plan to revert -- I have already done one partial revert on the matter and do not intend another -- but I would very much appreciate some reasoned discussion. I did bring this up with WAS 4.250 on his talk page, but he accused me of "trolling"...
So, a justification for this link would be appreciated.
Anyone?
Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad we finally have some straight talk. You found "it profoundly disturbing" so rather than face and evaluate your emotional response you attack me with your insults. It's not worth fighting over. If it upsets you that much, by all means, let's get rid of it. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 01:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The article has a lot of "history of" in it, who was employed and left when, and so on, which is way way beyond the level of detail we'd give to most other comparable articles.
Can we either remove it, or move it to History of the Wikimedia Foundation?
FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of History.. I seem to remember it mentioning on this page that Wikimedia started off as a soft core porn site.. Where has this piece of information gone? Was it not true? - Rebecca... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.175.231 ( talk) 1:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone was trying to make a point about how the WMF has filed their past two Form 990's, but then an admin deleted it. Anybody here able to comment on whether those forms were actually "incorrect" in their posted state? I could try to do some more research for sources that discuss Form 990 reporting responsibilities. If I find anything, I'll report back here. -- CitationMonger ( talk) 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Both the 2004 form and the 2005 form were prepared by certified public accountants — Michael E. Steuer of Accupay Solutions in 2004, and by M. Timothy Farrell of the accounting firm Gregory, Sharer & Stuart in 2005. While Jimmy Wales signed the 2004 form to attest that he examined it, only the 2005 form was signed by an actual boyfriend-shooter. Surely, you're not calling the professionally-licensed CPAs "incompetent", are you? -- CitationMonger ( talk) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, in my capacity as a journalist, a little while ago I asked both the CPA and the Wikimedia Foundation about the issue of the accuracy of the Form 990, with regard to Wikia's association. The CPA didn't reply, and the Wikimedia Foundation's boilerplate reply contained little information, basically saying they stand by it as accurate (this was not my question - I had asked essentially regarding the reasoning). I don't know if it's a mistake. It might not be. But neither the CPA nor the Wikipedia Foundation would elaborate. Frankly, I thought I asked them a very softball question. But I can understand why they might not want to discuss the matter at all. -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The WMF now has a FAQ which in part at last addresses this issue: "At first glance, it does seem like this question should be answered "yes." However, the IRS provides non-profits with detailed guidelines regarding what it considers a "business relationship." Whether or not there is a business relationship hinges upon the amount of direct compensation (salary) a person receives, as well as the amount of stock they own. In the case of Jimmy, Angela and Michael, none of them received sufficient compensation, nor owned sufficient stock, to qualify as having a business relationship under the IRS guidelines. Therefore, the question is properly answered no. We have reviewed this issue in detail with Wikia and with our audit firm, and we are satisfied that the question is answered accurately." -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 15:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please add a link to the newly opened foundation's blog. 16@r ( talk) 11:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Unprotected now. Anyone can make the requested edit. --- RockMFR 15:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Would people support adding a line or so about the ongoing liability " Section 230" lawsuit ? -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 03:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Something WEIRD is going on. On July 4 I uploaded a picture of the Wikimedia headquarters that I just took. Now it looks like not only the picture has disappeared, the upload disappeared from my edit history as well! But I know that picture was there in the article for at least two days before it disappeared. Anyway, I will try again in a couple of days. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Deletion Review. -- Random832 ( contribs) 06:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that WP:OFFICE says that the office doesn't get to just do whatever they want; there has to be a legitimate reason. If this is not the case maybe that policy should be edited to reflect the reality. -- Random832 ( contribs) 02:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikimania is apparently over, so what's the deal? -- NE2 01:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed a policy at Wikipedia:Obscure public information, please continue this discussion on that talk page. -- Tango ( talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no policy banning the image, there is no office decision banning the image, so what do we want to do with it? Does the image add sufficiently to the article be to worth including? -- Tango ( talk) 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, how's that work? People stroll in and hand over a driver's license/social security card to be photocopied or a credit card imprint or what? I realize that such is part of a process that doesn't involve the vast majority of Wikipedia users -- I'm just curious. Thanks. :) Banaticus ( talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, a rather convoluted path led me back here (via wikia, wikipedia review, and the shiny new 'Wikianswers' if you're interested) - and I see the image controversy of last summer was never wholly resolved. I'd like to re-instate the image, because I believe an illustrated article is a better article :-) Any objections? Privatemusings ( talk) 02:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
( edit conflict ) Peter, you're unwilling to publish even your surname, so doubtless you understand the reasons that we try not to advertise our address. My address being accessible from public records for those who dig hard enough does not mean I want to advertise it with a big neon sign. We are a small organisation with a small staff, some of whom work late hours, and we are not comfortable with giving out the location of our office, because we don't have a security team (at least, not office security). — Werdna • talk 03:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
"safety"? That's insulting to all the organizations that do stuff that actually puts them in genuine danger. I'm sorry, but an "online encyclopedia anyone can edit" is hardly a believable target for anything (other than existing online vandalism). If there are people harboring those sorts of extreme-fear views then perhaps they shouldve thought harder before working at HQ. This isn't an abortion clinic. -- 166.205.132.103 ( talk) 02:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The terms of service of the wikies mentioned should be prominently displayed. Legalese matters a whole lot. I can see a TOS link at the bottom of this page but that's only for wikipedia. Words "open" and "education" are real nice but sensible people prefer hard evidence easily available. Especially since I don't think there is anything to hide, is there? -- 193.166.137.75 ( talk) 10:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Should Sue Gardner be mentioned here? She's just been made the Foundation's Executive Director; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-03/Gardner interview. That sounds like a fairly significant position to me, so it should probably be mentioned somewhere in this article. Terraxos ( talk) 21:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion of recent news reports is continuing on this page [1]. Please let's keep that discussion centralized there to reduce the need for deletions/blanking for BLP (Biography Of Living Persons) reasons in the future. Risker ( talk) 07:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot to do here people.... Just to start: Why does a search for 'Carolyn Doran' end up on the parent page here? And once the user ends up here, why does the article mantion her once and not even note that she has left? More importantly; someone (not me, Because I hate drunk drivers and cannot maintain NPOV (Neutral Point of View) in this regard) needs to link this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/ (Or at least some other article with the same info). Duck and cover folks.. EasyTarget ( talk) 09:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[unindented for clarity]
Why is that page redirecting here? It makes no sense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I have recently listed
Carolyn Doran at Deletions Review, not because I necessarily believe that she warrants an article on herself, but because a) the continued protection of the deleted page without discussion gives an incredibly bad PR impression and b) the incident itself is certainly notable and should not be brushed off. After a cursory glance I can't exactly tell why this page is under such stringent protection, but I see no reason why consensus can't be reached on the addition several sentences related to this controversy in this article.
Joshdboz (
talk)
13:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't tell you how it appears even to me, a long-time Wikipedia fan, to find the Wikimedia Foundation article not only doesn't have one mention of the embarrassing details of the Carolyn Doran episode but is also "protected" so the information can't be added. I see this and remember the countless times other organizations have tried to prevent embarrassing (but notable) information from being added to their Wikipedia entries only to be coldly blocked and made to simply "deal with it". I felt those organizations were treated correctly and the protection of this article is, IMHO, unbelievably hypocritical. Lawyer2b ( talk) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ask yourself this question: Why is there a Wikipedia article on Darleen Druyun and not on Carolyn Doran? Both held senior positions within their organizations. Both were later found out to have engaged in criminal behavior. It is clear that information censorship is taking place. The hypocrisy is astounding. One is left with the impression that information on Department of Defense scandals should be freely available, but information on Wikimedia scandals should be swept under the rug. It reminds one of the communist regimes during the cold war -- information control. Westwind273 ( talk) 07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the new material to the article. It's the right thing to do and it's correct in terms of language, length and sourcing. Wholeheartedly endorse. David in DC ( talk) 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This is similar to the Soviet Union saying there was a "minor problem" at Chernobyl. Admit only the bare minimum; restrict information as much as possible. There should be a separate article on Carolyn Doran, or more information provided in this article. Westwind273 ( talk) 14:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy is overwhelmingly and commonly known as wikipedia founder, to claim on the basis of a couple of obscure refs that he is only the co-founder, which is not the case, has no place int he article or the encyclopedia, and appears to be coming of Sanger supporters. That Abercrombie's revert made it sound like my edit was vandalism merely makes the matter worse. Now please can we discuss this rather than having an undiscussed POV pushing edit stand. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
So you are POV pushing then. I would suggest this is not the place and your aspersions towards allegedly lazy journalists (read "they don't agree with me") merely confirms it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
We've been through this before. There's not a single source explicitly confirming Jimbo's view of being sole founder. Your second source actually refers to him as co-founder and mentions the other co-founder, and speaking of "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales" is merely imprecise, but does not imply sole foundership. We, however, should be precise. The official Wikipedia press releases are definitive. And thus, if you say his being the co-founder "is not the case" it is manifestly you who is POV pushing. Bramlet Abercrombie ( talk) 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Describing Jimbo Wales as "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales" does not overtly take a position on whether Jimbo was the "sole founder" or a "co-founder." In fact, this actually strikes me as a reasonable way of not having to grapple with the sole-founder/co-founder issue in contexts where is is not essential to do so (as opposed to a construction such as "the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales", which does imply a view on this question). After all, I could be mentioned as "Wikipedia editor Newyorkbrad" without implying that there are no other editors. The issues as to whether Jimbo was "sole founder" or "co-founder" and what Larry Sanger's role was are fair game for discussion on the articles where they are most relevant, but the controversy should not spin off to include every page where Jimbo's name is mentioned. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I realize that this is currently protected, but I'd like to suggest that we go ahead and update the Board membership to note the resignations of Michael Davis and Erik Moller [4]. Dragons flight ( talk)
{{ editprotected}}
11 members maximum: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/036560.html -- Jeandré, 2007-12-23 t07:56z
Posting this information here, as I did on the talk page of User:Fandyllic:
"In answer to your edit summary, it isn't going to last very long because it is self-referential without reliable outside sources being used to support the claim. I am going to remove your edit for that reason. It is also, incidentally, completely unrelated to the subject of the article. Wikipedia editorial decisions are not directed from the Foundation. Risker (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)"
This confirms that the question inherent in the user's edit summary received a response. Risker ( talk) 09:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Westwind273's example of Boeing executive Darleen Druyun having a page, but the blatant absence of Carolyn Doran is spot on. We can't throw around altruistic claims like "summary of all human knowledge for advancment of society" etc. *and* censor data that might bruise the shiny reputation of WP in the same breath. It just doesn't hold water. Drewson99 ( talk) 18:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please fix. `' Míkka >t 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The official policy of Wikipedia prohibits promotional articles. As this article is on the non-profit charity, The Wikimedia Foundation, I propose that all members/affiliates/employees and users of this domain be prohibited from editing this article as they could be biased in favour of Wikimedia.
"Promotional article production on behalf of clients
Producing promotional articles for Wikipedia on behalf of clients is strictly prohibited."
Sincerely Speaking, Sutjo Sutjo-18005 ( talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This page seems to be redundant, and it seems that it should be merged into the "Projects" section of this article. -- Wikiacc ( °) 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, List of Wikimedia Projects is redundant in the same mode as the above. -- Wikiacc ( ¶) 22:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that the article should be left as it is. As I find it very useful.
I commented out two references that were being used to cite facts that seem completely unrelated to the references themselves. Can someone check up on them? Just search for the <!-- tag and you should find them. I'd like someone else's opinion on this. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the employees section from the article. I can't seem to find any other company or organization's article that goes into the same depth about specific employees. Please do not re-add part or all of the list until there is consensus that having the people listed on the article adds some benefit to the article as a whole. Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this for discussion:
This looks like pure WP:OR (synthesis). There was a gap between hoped for revenue and actual, but the rest looks like OR. The "outpacing" may seem like it but we have no source cited to say this; the expenses quoted may well include discretionary elements for example. Serious consideration by the WMF to place adverts on its projects as is stated, to cover this stated funding gap, is unsourced. Estimates of benefits would be relevant, if the above were sourced and reliable. FT2 ( Talk | email) 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a profoundly silly link. There is nothing on this page that is not contained on the WMF website. The only possible reasoning for the link is to make the list of employees absolutely unmissably clear. This is not a function we provide for any other organisation; apart from finding it profoundly disturbing, it is utterly redundant. All the information that is given by the Wikipedia:About page is provided in more depth by the Foundation's website. The link -- and moreover the "includes employees" or whatever formulation WAS 4.250 has come up with now -- is redundant, navel-gazing and self-obsessed. I do not plan to revert -- I have already done one partial revert on the matter and do not intend another -- but I would very much appreciate some reasoned discussion. I did bring this up with WAS 4.250 on his talk page, but he accused me of "trolling"...
So, a justification for this link would be appreciated.
Anyone?
Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad we finally have some straight talk. You found "it profoundly disturbing" so rather than face and evaluate your emotional response you attack me with your insults. It's not worth fighting over. If it upsets you that much, by all means, let's get rid of it. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 01:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The article has a lot of "history of" in it, who was employed and left when, and so on, which is way way beyond the level of detail we'd give to most other comparable articles.
Can we either remove it, or move it to History of the Wikimedia Foundation?
FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of History.. I seem to remember it mentioning on this page that Wikimedia started off as a soft core porn site.. Where has this piece of information gone? Was it not true? - Rebecca... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.175.231 ( talk) 1:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone was trying to make a point about how the WMF has filed their past two Form 990's, but then an admin deleted it. Anybody here able to comment on whether those forms were actually "incorrect" in their posted state? I could try to do some more research for sources that discuss Form 990 reporting responsibilities. If I find anything, I'll report back here. -- CitationMonger ( talk) 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Both the 2004 form and the 2005 form were prepared by certified public accountants — Michael E. Steuer of Accupay Solutions in 2004, and by M. Timothy Farrell of the accounting firm Gregory, Sharer & Stuart in 2005. While Jimmy Wales signed the 2004 form to attest that he examined it, only the 2005 form was signed by an actual boyfriend-shooter. Surely, you're not calling the professionally-licensed CPAs "incompetent", are you? -- CitationMonger ( talk) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, in my capacity as a journalist, a little while ago I asked both the CPA and the Wikimedia Foundation about the issue of the accuracy of the Form 990, with regard to Wikia's association. The CPA didn't reply, and the Wikimedia Foundation's boilerplate reply contained little information, basically saying they stand by it as accurate (this was not my question - I had asked essentially regarding the reasoning). I don't know if it's a mistake. It might not be. But neither the CPA nor the Wikipedia Foundation would elaborate. Frankly, I thought I asked them a very softball question. But I can understand why they might not want to discuss the matter at all. -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The WMF now has a FAQ which in part at last addresses this issue: "At first glance, it does seem like this question should be answered "yes." However, the IRS provides non-profits with detailed guidelines regarding what it considers a "business relationship." Whether or not there is a business relationship hinges upon the amount of direct compensation (salary) a person receives, as well as the amount of stock they own. In the case of Jimmy, Angela and Michael, none of them received sufficient compensation, nor owned sufficient stock, to qualify as having a business relationship under the IRS guidelines. Therefore, the question is properly answered no. We have reviewed this issue in detail with Wikia and with our audit firm, and we are satisfied that the question is answered accurately." -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 15:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please add a link to the newly opened foundation's blog. 16@r ( talk) 11:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Unprotected now. Anyone can make the requested edit. --- RockMFR 15:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Would people support adding a line or so about the ongoing liability " Section 230" lawsuit ? -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 03:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Something WEIRD is going on. On July 4 I uploaded a picture of the Wikimedia headquarters that I just took. Now it looks like not only the picture has disappeared, the upload disappeared from my edit history as well! But I know that picture was there in the article for at least two days before it disappeared. Anyway, I will try again in a couple of days. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Deletion Review. -- Random832 ( contribs) 06:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that WP:OFFICE says that the office doesn't get to just do whatever they want; there has to be a legitimate reason. If this is not the case maybe that policy should be edited to reflect the reality. -- Random832 ( contribs) 02:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikimania is apparently over, so what's the deal? -- NE2 01:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed a policy at Wikipedia:Obscure public information, please continue this discussion on that talk page. -- Tango ( talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no policy banning the image, there is no office decision banning the image, so what do we want to do with it? Does the image add sufficiently to the article be to worth including? -- Tango ( talk) 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, how's that work? People stroll in and hand over a driver's license/social security card to be photocopied or a credit card imprint or what? I realize that such is part of a process that doesn't involve the vast majority of Wikipedia users -- I'm just curious. Thanks. :) Banaticus ( talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, a rather convoluted path led me back here (via wikia, wikipedia review, and the shiny new 'Wikianswers' if you're interested) - and I see the image controversy of last summer was never wholly resolved. I'd like to re-instate the image, because I believe an illustrated article is a better article :-) Any objections? Privatemusings ( talk) 02:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
( edit conflict ) Peter, you're unwilling to publish even your surname, so doubtless you understand the reasons that we try not to advertise our address. My address being accessible from public records for those who dig hard enough does not mean I want to advertise it with a big neon sign. We are a small organisation with a small staff, some of whom work late hours, and we are not comfortable with giving out the location of our office, because we don't have a security team (at least, not office security). — Werdna • talk 03:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
"safety"? That's insulting to all the organizations that do stuff that actually puts them in genuine danger. I'm sorry, but an "online encyclopedia anyone can edit" is hardly a believable target for anything (other than existing online vandalism). If there are people harboring those sorts of extreme-fear views then perhaps they shouldve thought harder before working at HQ. This isn't an abortion clinic. -- 166.205.132.103 ( talk) 02:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The terms of service of the wikies mentioned should be prominently displayed. Legalese matters a whole lot. I can see a TOS link at the bottom of this page but that's only for wikipedia. Words "open" and "education" are real nice but sensible people prefer hard evidence easily available. Especially since I don't think there is anything to hide, is there? -- 193.166.137.75 ( talk) 10:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |