Talk:Wikimedia Foundation

Template:SFBAProject

New Executive Director

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)

Talk:Carolyn Doran

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)

Oh, hm. I get why that link was there now.Dookama (talk) 07:47, 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)

Humm, re-reading what I wrote above, it's hasty and not very good really. I understand the reason for the redirect, at this point in time at least. And the Register article is also inappropriate for linking while it remains the sole (unopposed by the people named in it) source.

However.. At present the main article doesn't even make Carolyn's current status vv. the foundation clear. A few sentences in it now will do far more good for Wikipedia's reputation with the public at large than any amount of discussion on her talk page.. EasyTarget (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Carolyn is the former COO and has no 'current status' with the Foundation, it is therefore irrelevant to the article. --AlisonW (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, she does indeed have a current status. Her current status is that she is a former employee. My ignorance of US employment law is probably only superseded by my ignorance of what is in a Wikipedia Foundation employment contracts; but this may well mean that there are still some contractual obligations running both ways. For instance are there non-disclosure or non-compete clauses? This could affect how the foundation has to behave in this instance.

Of course, if you believe that this is totally irrelevant and should not be discussed here, then please reconcile that to the fact that her name redirects to the Foundation page. EasyTarget (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be equating black and white here; current .. is .. former?? hardly reasonable. The article on myself doesn't mention that I used to work for Cares, or Harrods, or lots of other organisations for exactly the same reason as here; they do not make a 'notable' (per WP:BLP) fact. --AlisonW (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your point about there being out of date information in this article has been addressed by another editor, who has made some updates and added some references. Doran's departure is included. While I do understand you have questions about her employment contract, specific employment contracts with individual employees aren't normally part of an article on any non-profit or other business. The reason her article redirects here is that the only way in which she is notable is by her prior association with the Foundation, and even that is somewhat uncertain at this time. Does this help a bit? Risker (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for chipping in here again, but I actually care about Wikipedia, it's necesscary in a world full of overtly political media giants. But I have no time for lamer aspects of the wiki bureaucracy, especially when trying to engage in a silly form of committee based damage limitation. Take your fingers out of your ears and stop whistling please, this now moving up the journalistic food chain. At some point I guess it might become 'Notable'.

Risker: Apparently there IS a confidentiality agreement with Carolyn (as I would have expected), I expect foundation staff members will be very cautious on how they respond.

EasyTarget (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, EasyTarget, there is a confidentiality agreement. They're pretty standard in all kinds of businesses, and they aren't noteworthy. "Damage limitation" as you call it isn't actually focused on this event, it's more focused on the fact that we are now operating under much more stringent requirements in theBiography of Living Persons policy than we were in the past. The article on Doran has already been deleted and cannot be reinstated unless there is a successful deletion review; the likelihood of success is miniscule as of this writing because there aren't enough reputable sources reporting on this yet. Nobody is blocking their ears and saying "I can't hear you." Right now, there isn't enough information to write a proper article; this could well change in the next 24-48 hours, or it may never change. People went to bat to at least keep the Talk:Carolyn Doran page accessible for fact gathering in the absence of an article; that's hardly trying to keep this all a secret. Risker (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[unindented for clarity]

Thankyou for the clear explanation of the rationale of the steps taken up to now, It can be quite hard to follow what is happening to people who are not well versed the acronyms and policies round here.

However this is only a rationale for the steps taken over the page for Caroline (this is fine, WP:BLP is a very necessary policy, I wish every journalist was bound by one!) these same steps however, happen to stop mention of the very real 'governance' issues involved in her tenure and departure. Without a central (article space) point for this the accusation of damage limitation will linger. Since people know that 'anyone' can edit wikipedia and will therefore wonder why 'someone' has stopped them. EasyTarget (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to express your thoughts on the 'governance' issue on User talk:Jimbo Wales, where several others have expressed their opinion and Jimmy Wales has been responding. Risker (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is that page redirecting here? It makes no sense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume it is because others believe that she is only notable for her previous employer, hence the redirect. Cbrown1023 talk 04:08, 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)

That becomes especially important now that the decision has been taken on WP to redirect Carolyn Doran to this page. David in DC (talk) 04:13, 27 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)

• Here are some sources for this besides the original Register article: Washington Post, Tampa Tribune, Associated Press by Canada East. 75.175.14.34 (talk) 07:51, 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)

There's a simple solution to there being too little information on the affair in this article -- write a paragraph or two and put it in. Dookama (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The solution is not so simple. Adding information about this affair will be removed as being off-topic, since it isn't really about the Wikimedia Foundation, but about how Wikipedia handled the Carolyn Doran article in response to the controversy. However, we all know that you can't recreate the Carolyn Doran article, so we're back at square one. --Fandyllic (talk) 10:57 AM PST 6 Jan 2008

Founder

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)

The refs are not obscure, they are definitive, because they are from the relevant time. That Wales has since 2004 quite successfully been pushing his alternate history in which he is sole founder cannot change the facts. We describe what he is according to the best available sources, not what he is known as by lazy journalists who simply repeat what he tells them. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:01, 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)

Here are 2 potential refs that he is known as the founder [2] [3] and refs that are certainly neutral and not merely pro-Jimbo articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:15, 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)

No-one is saying sole founder, what is unacceptable is co-founder and this is clearly not POV pushing whereas your insistence on taking Sanger's side against what Jimbo states is clearly partial and hence POV. What is wrong with founder when that is what he is known as. I doubt if 1 in 10,000 people in the UK, for example, have ever heard of Sanger but everyone knows Wales as the founder of wikipedia, its common usage and it is thus NPOV. Doubtless we will keep going through this until it gets sorted as when people re-insert co- they are just inflaming a dispute, and for no good reason. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If he's not a co-founder, he is the sole founder, and that's precisely the impression you want to give in an underhanded way by insisting on "founder". Clearly when journalists speak of founder, they're simply sloppy, because no journalist has ever explicitly took Jimbo's position - even though there has been explicit reporting about the "dispute". As has been said before, the co-foundership is backed up by sources, it's not merely "Sanger's side". Jimbo's position is baseless, not backed by a single source, and thus entirely irrelevant. Therefore supporting it is POV, going against it is not. An encyclopedia isn't parroting inexact "common usage" - it won't say "America" for the United States or "Holland" for the Netherlands, etc. That may be quite true what you say about fewer people having heard of Sanger, but how is that at all relevant? Whether Wales was actually founder or co-founder back in 2001 is the only thing that matters, anything that transpired later cannot possibly have any influence on that. Wales could take any fancy title he likes like God-King etc., but he can't "promote" himself from co-founder to founder after the fact, because that's not a job position but a reference to an immutable historic event. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 23:15, 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)

That would be a reasonable compromise - if there were a real-world dispute about the matter, with multiple proponents on each side. However, there is no reliable source or notable person who maintains that Wales was sole founder except Wales himself. Thus there is no reason at all to avoid the factual term "co-founder". Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no real dispute in the wider world means we must call him founder, not co-founder or sole founder, we are certainly not calling him the sole founder right now nor am I proposing we do so. Why would calling him the founder mean we were calling him the sole founder or even imply such a fact? It doesn't, it is nice and simple and neutral and doesn't take a side on the Wales-Sanger dispute. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How does it follow we must call him founder? Calling him founder would tend to lead uninformed readers to the default assumption that he is the sole founder, so it is needlessly imprecise. And I don't see how co-founder is not "nice" or "simple" enough. And it is neutral, since there isn't a general dispute about it. If there are two persons in a "dispute" over the result of 2+2, one saying 4 and the other 5, that doesn't mean we can't take a side in the matter, if no reliable source or notable group of people says 5. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said Brad, I have no objections to the dispute being discussed in the bulk of the article in an NPOV way, what I object to is the co- in the opening, nor would I support a sole in the opening. I have no doubts that he is commonly known as the founder of wikipedia, and there are no lack of refs to back this, and this is therefore what deserves to go in the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, is he a co-founder, THE founder, or just A founder? I think the distinction is important. Just calling him THE founder of Wikipedia certainly implies a SOLE founder to me. If it doesn't then I agree that it is at least imprecise and should be changed to A founder. --Fandyllic (talk) 1:20 AM PST 23 Dec 2007

SqueakBox, if you don't want to call him sole-founder, because he wasn't the sole founder, isnt' he therefore a co-founder? To answer your question above "Why would calling him the founder mean we were calling him the sole founder or even imply such a fact?" - because using the term "the founder" means it's singular (much like the word "sole"), as opposed to "a founder" which means he founded it with others (much like the prefix "co-"). If you need more info, wikipedia has a pretty good article on the definite article the --Ptanham (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Board Reduction

{{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)

Done. I may be missing it, but I notice the article makes no mention of Danny Wool's previous resignation, before the last board elections. Not sure if we need to, but should probably find a good ref (would foundation-l count?). – Luna Santin (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Board expansion.

{{editprotected}}

11 members maximum: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/036560.html -- Jeandré, 2007-12-23t07:56z

This page is no longer protected so you can make the necessary changes yourself. Tra (Talk) 12:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit removed regarding activity on the now-deleted Carolyn Doran article

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)

Very dissapointed with Wikipedia's choice of ethics here

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)

I do understand where you are coming from. Certainly Druyun, whose improper behaviour took advantage of the United States government, one of the largest employers in the US, and involved millions of dollars, is a very serious matter. Compare Doran - tiny employer, no national affiliation, and the entire budget of the WMF is less than a lot of local churches. We wouldn't have an article about a former church secretary who was found to have had convictions after she left the job. Doran has not been found (or even accused) of acting improperly on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation or of having improperly carried out her financial responsibilities while an employee. It isn't a big coverup. Having an article about Doran is simply assigning undue weight to her personal life because the Foundation was her short-term employer. Risker (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I found this hilarious too, claiming to be the 'sum of all human knowledge' yet being totally biased or censored on some subjects. How about giving kids in third world countries an established Encyclopedia that doesn't have 15 thousand trolls, 30 thousand people with an agenda, and 2 million people who don't know what they are talking about? Stupid people can be very, very determined. Bomblol (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

References screwed up

• "Wikimedia Foundation mailing list message" does not point to Erik Moller election
• another one is syntax-broken.

Please fix. `'Míkka>t 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Neutrality?

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, SutjoSutjo-18005 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Wikimedia projects

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)

Just a note that I have proposed that part of the article Wikipedia (terminology) also be merged here. Vl'hurg ^talk 14:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, List of Wikimedia Projects is redundant in the same mode as the above. --Wikiacc (¶) 22:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

References

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)

Employees section

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)

• Further, I've just removed an external link linking to a project space page which contains a list of teh employees. Unless we start adding links to lists of employees to every article about an organisation, it violates our NPOV policy to do it here. Hiding T 18:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree. And even if you are right IAR might apply. It is a helpful link to our readers. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Then readers who are actually interested in such minutiae - which aren't a part of an *encyclopaedia* but maybe of a business directory - are welcome to visit the website of the organisation concerned, same as they would with any other company or foundation. --AlisonW (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the website of the organisation concerned. We need to tell them where we are putting the data. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The information is interesting to experienced editors, I think, as well as being somewhat relevant to the history of the foundation. But I'd support something like Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation employees rather than having the information in mainspace. (And both a current employees and history of employees on such a page.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that reading the information was insightful; however, John's correct. It should probably go in the Wikipedia namespace or Meta. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable compromise to me. I can't see any reason we need to raise the information to meriting a link in the external links section though. I think we can reasonable assume people looking for it will be looking elsewhere first, and can't work out why we need it. I also object to the accusation of wiki-lawyering in the edit summary. Hiding T 13:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Meta's better - points to MZMcBride for noting that option. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

economic status

I have removed this for discussion:

"As of 2007, Wikimedia's growth has outpaced its ability to raise funds, and consideration was being given to placing advertisements on Wikimedia projects. However, this has historically drawn staunch opposition from the editing communities of the projects. It has been estimated that such endeavours could potentially raise hundreds of millions of dollars. (See also Wikipedia:Advertisements)."

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)

I agree that it should not be in the article. The 2006-2007 financial audit just released indicates no such thing. It does indicate (by my original research) that the 2005-2006 financial period was dominated by hardware acquisition and the 2006-2007 period dominated by employee acquisition. Makes sense to me. First we had nothing. Then we had to buy computers. Then we needed to hire people who knew what they were doing. Now the people being hired need to earn their pay by raising money. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

that's a lovely summary :-) Anthere (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedia:About

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 have removed the link. We should no be treating this article much differently than that of any other organization. A link to the official site which we have, is all that is needed. Mr.Z-man 01:34, 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)

Ad hominem, WAS. Have you got any actual arguments for keeping the link? I really would be interested to hear them. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 02:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason is the one you already know about: "The only possible reasoning for the link is to make the list of employees absolutely unmissably clear." That's what I want to do and that is what you do not want to do. It upsets you for some reason to do that. I don't know why. I don't care why. I don't care much at all about this issue. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

History of...

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)

Form 990 mistakes?

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)

The administration of WikiMedia (other than the computer technical side) has been incompetent until just recently when we had enough money to hire people who knew what they were doing (money before went to the top priority - computers and bandwidth). Why should filling out a line item in a government form be any different? Probably filled out by some boyfriend-shooting drunk anyway. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WAS, how is this relevant to the topic? Please reconsider your statement. As for the Form 990, I've see many with mistakes in my accounting years, anyone care to argue how this fact is actually notable? The WR states that they incorrectly marked two different checkboxes one in each year. Hardly a significant fact. If the IRS launches an inquiry or investigation, and this receives independent secondary coverage, then yes, we can include it in the article. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 12:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lighten up. Yes, we need a reliable published source to indicate notability before it goes into the article, but discussion trying to decide notability goes on the talk page. I am tired of people thinking they are helping an encyclopedia that aims to cover all knowledge by censoring things. Respond calmly, matter of factly, even with a little humor, and we can avoid sophomoric drama fests. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You said above, "when we had enough money to hire people". Are you yourself a stakeholder in the Wikimedia operation? -- CitationMonger (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Define "stakeholder". WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems evasive, WAS. Let's assume that CitationMonger would define stakeholder as "A person with a legitimate business or governance interest in a given enterprise." Obviously, a common editor or admin at Wikipedia is not a stakeholder in the Wikimedia Foundation, unless they are entitled to some inside consulting or management role per direction of the Board or staff of the WMF. You said "we" regarding hiring of staff. Are you a stakeholder who would have semantic need to say "we", or were you just using "we" in the sense of the "happy, loving community" form of "we"? Simple question. Why evade? -- AnswersGalore (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why evade? I was in the mood for it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By that definition, I am not a "stakeholder". WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But I do have a legitimate governance interest in WikiMedia and WikiPedia by my understanding of the concept of "legitimate", even if I don't by yours as defined above. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Both the 2004 form and the 2005 form were prepared by certified public accountants &#151; 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)

Define "incompetent". WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Unskilled, lacking normally expected degree of ability." -- AnswersGalore (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Those responsible for the accuracy of the government forms were incompetent. A hired CPA is not responsible for not being provided information. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:25, 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)

Blog

{{editprotected}} Please add a link to the newly opened foundation's blog. 16@r (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this something we'd usually do? First example of a corporate blog I could think of was Google's, and sure enough, it's linked. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected now. Anyone can make the requested edit. --- RockMFR 15:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Liability lawsuit

Would people support adding a line or so about the ongoing liability "Section 230" lawsuit ? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If this has been covered by media, yes. If the only sources are primary (e.g. court documents and press releases), then no. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been several media articles in the last month on the subject, e.g. [5] [6] [7] -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Wikimedia camera shy or something?

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)

The image has been deleted, see the log. SPQRobin (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted because "information not published"? That makes no sense. The address is public information! After all, there was a "Stillman Wiki Wall" competition not that long ago and Hoovers publishes the correct address in its entry on the Wikimedia Foundation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Deletion Review. --Random832 (contribs) 06:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have appreciated being asked about this, rather than going to Deletion Review right off the bat. Anyhow, as you probably know, the deletion review debate has been closed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. This is an OFFICE MATTER now? Well, I suppose I will wait a while and see if anyone from the Foundation comments on this issue before attempting to upload the photo again.

Also, I just remembered to point out that the Wikimedia Foundation physical address is also available from the California Secretary of State at the California Business Portal. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd ask that you don't upload it again. I'm sure that once somebody from the office is available to comment on-wiki, they will. Unfortunately, this may not be until after Wikimania. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:53, 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)

• For now, it is requested that the photo be not uploaded at this time. If you must wait a few days, the wiki will not break. I am sure, that a justification will be forthcoming. For now, please just understand, that safety is the word of the day. Random and others, thank you for your patience on this and your understanding. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If the reason given by the office (which will be given once Wikimania is up, I am sure) is deemed unsatisfactory by consensus, we can reupload. Coolcaesar, I'm sorry you got thrown into all this, and I understand your confusion. Please don't take it personally - the WMF works in weird and wonderful ways sometimes. ;-) —Giggy 11:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

    Consensus can't trump OFFICE, that's the whole point of OFFICE, it's for the staff/board to dictate things to the community when they need to, usually for legal reasons. I'm willing to wait a few days to hear a justification, but I'm dubious... Also, I really would prefer it is OFFICE actions were actually carried out by someone in the office, rather than through someone else. --Tango (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed true, that office actions should be done by somebody in the office. Office actions are done by staff, and nobody else. My deleting the image should not be misinterpreted as an office action (although it seems to be for some reason - I don't believe I've ever implied that it was), however, as stated on the closed deletion review, restoring the image (or not) seems to be an office matter, at least that is my interpretation of Morvens comment. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Tango and Random, what is occurring here is no different from what is done for other organizations, this one happens to be names "Wiki" as opposed to "Mom&Pop Grocery of Podunk". Remember, that people make up "Wiki" too. -- Avi (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Coolcæser, I think you would find it helpful to contact myself or Rjd0060 offline. Not all privacy issues relate to accessible information. -- Avi (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania is apparently over, so what's the deal? --NE2 01:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've heard from Jimmy Wales and he's given me his reasons for wanting the image gone, and while they're pretty reasonable they sound like something that should be up to the community, not the office. I'm waiting on a reply from him now (it was only sent yesterday, so let's give him a chance). --Tango (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me state that I have taken no office actions personally, and I've been asked to clarify this on this page. The one action listed as an office action was done on my behalf as a result of an email response I sent out over my cellphone to the arbitration committee; from abroad and without my having full access to the details of the exchanges on wiki. I have corresponded with OTRS regarding our concerns as well as privately to some people in this discussion, and I encourage the community to act with diligence and common sense in this matter. Cary Bass (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If the community demonstrated a consensus for the image to be included, would the office and Jimbo respect that consensus, or would they impose their own will? DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll strike out the statement that it was an office action, then. Thank you. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 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)

What now?

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)

My take: no, it doesn't, and this question of editorial value kind of got lost in the debate above. What does a quotidian office exterior add to the article? Not enough to justify its inclusion, in my opinion, especially given the concerns implied above. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sfmammamia. The Foundation doesn't work at the Googleplex, it's a non-descript office building. Not needed in the article. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The image is essentially trivia, so there's no real need to include it (as no third-part sources have had anything essential to say about the building AFAICT). But perhaps we should undelete it nevertheless (free image of building where a notable company resides; something we might need in the future). Kusma (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be uploaded to commons, really, shouldn't it? If so, we can upload it and the discussion about whether it should be kept can be had there, I don't know their policies. It's worth noting the (deleted) image here is currently protected - the reason given is that the address isn't published, which appears to be untrue (I haven't actually gone looking for it, myself), so it shouldn't be too difficult to find an admin to unprotect it. --Tango (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with it being useless; it shows one way that the foundation presents themselves to the outside world. It's not really that important, but I can see it as akin to photos of people mentioned in an article - it's nice if there's nothing else to include an image of. --NE2 23:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Providing personal identification to the Wikimedia Foundation

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)

Not quite a visit. The identification (usually a copy of a drivers license or passport) can be sent to the foundation via Fax, mail, or e-mail. The specific instructions are on Meta, here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Legally recognized photo-ID, from what I know of it. When I had to ID for checkuser, I had to provide the community liaison official (Cary) with a copy of my Irish passport picture page and my California Driver's license - Alison ^❤ 00:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)