Changes

==1. Your donation will fund Wikia, Inc., which is not a charity.==

 

==Wikimedia Foundation finances are suspect.==

 

 

'''Earth Island Institute''' has revenue of about $6.5 million, 15 employees, (practically the same size as the Wikimedia Foundation, and headquarters in the very same San Francisco) but the CEO makes only $67,423.  The Northern California chapter of the '''Arthritis Foundation''' has revenue of $5.1 million, but the CEO makes only $45,050.  '''Child Family Health International''' in San Francisco has revenue of $4.0 million, it appears to have 11 employees, but the CEO makes only $82,000.  Embarrassingly, when audited by a neutral party, the Wikimedia Foundation receives only [http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212 2 stars] out of a possible four in Charity Navigator's ''Organizational Efficiency'' category.

 

 

 

Wikipedia smothers out more authoritative, but less-linked-to sites in Google and other search engine rankings. Microsoft [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/microsoft-encarta-dies-after-long-battle-with-wikipedia/?hp closed down Encarta], mainly due to the Wikipedia effect. Wikipedia has garnered an ability to set the 'truth' in mainstream media and blogs that consult it every day, without digging deeper to verify facts from independent sources.  Controversial Wikipedia pages suffer from "ownership" by content bullies who drive off independent editors, all supported by administrator cabals who follow one another around, supporting reverted edits and editor blocks and bans.

 

==Your donation will indirectly fund Wikia, Inc., which is not a charity.==

Your non-profit donation will ultimately line the for-profit pockets of Jimmy Wales, Amazon, Google, the Bessemer Partners, and other corporate beneficiaries. How? Wikipedia is a commercial traffic engine.  As of December 2009, there are over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=20000&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.wikia.com 21,300 external links] from Wikipedia to Wales' Wikia.com sites, which are funded by Google AdSense revenues.  These links are being added at the rate of over 500 per month.  Did you know that Amazon invested $10,000,000 in the for-profit Wikia venture?  It's therefore rather interesting that Wikipedia tolerates [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=50000&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.amazon.com over 52,750 links] to Amazon's retail site from the supposedly non-profit, no-advertising, anti-spam Wikipedia site.  Isn't it?  Meanwhile, did you know that the popular movie site IMDB.com is owned by Amazon, and you can buy Amazon products directly from IMDB pages?  Well, surprise surprise -- there are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=215000&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.IMDB.com over 217,600 links to Amazon's IMDB site] from Wikipedia.  No wonder Amazon particularly wished to invest in Wikia, Inc.  Its co-founder makes sure that the external linking environment on Wikipedia is hospitable for the Amazon link spamming machine!  

Your non-profit donation will ultimately line the for-profit pockets of Jimmy Wales, Amazon, Google, the Bessemer Partners, and other corporate beneficiaries. How? Wikipedia is a commercial traffic engine.  As of December 2009, there are over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=20000&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.wikia.com 21,300 external links] from Wikipedia to Wales' Wikia.com sites, which are funded by Google AdSense revenues.  These links are being added at the rate of over 500 per month.  Did you know that Amazon invested $10,000,000 in the for-profit Wikia venture?  It's therefore rather interesting that Wikipedia tolerates [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=50000&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.amazon.com over 52,750 links] to Amazon's retail site from the supposedly non-profit, no-advertising, anti-spam Wikipedia site.  Isn't it?  Meanwhile, did you know that the popular movie site IMDB.com is owned by Amazon, and you can buy Amazon products directly from IMDB pages?  Well, surprise surprise -- there are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=215000&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.IMDB.com over 217,600 links to Amazon's IMDB site] from Wikipedia.  No wonder Amazon particularly wished to invest in Wikia, Inc.  Its co-founder makes sure that the external linking environment on Wikipedia is hospitable for the Amazon link spamming machine!  

In August 2009, Matt Halprin, [http://www.omidyar.com/team/matt-halprin  Partner of the Omidyar Network], was asked to join the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees.  Halprin is charged with an Omidyar team that "pursues investments in Social Media", and Omidyar invested part of $4 million into Wikia, Inc. in 2006.  So, he's almost undoubtedly on top of the Wikia return on investment.  It looks very fishy to have a new WMF board member who's a partner at a firm that invested some portion of $4 million into the $14-million privately-held firm of the "Emeritus Chair" of the WMF.  In fact, you'd be hard pressed to explain how this is just a "coincidence", being that there were probably more than a thousand other equally-qualified stars of social media who could have been selected, who have not a single tie back to funding Wikia, Inc.  What are the odds?

In August 2009, Matt Halprin, [http://www.omidyar.com/team/matt-halprin  Partner of the Omidyar Network], was asked to join the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees.  Halprin is charged with an Omidyar team that "pursues investments in Social Media", and Omidyar invested part of $4 million into Wikia, Inc. in 2006.  So, he's almost undoubtedly on top of the Wikia return on investment.  It looks very fishy to have a new WMF board member who's a partner at a firm that invested some portion of $4 million into the $14-million privately-held firm of the "Emeritus Chair" of the WMF.  In fact, you'd be hard pressed to explain how this is just a "coincidence", being that there were probably more than a thousand other equally-qualified stars of social media who could have been selected, who have not a single tie back to funding Wikia, Inc.  What are the odds?

==2. Wikipedia has too much power.==

==The Wikimedia Foundation's leadership leaves much to be desired.==

* Jimbo Wales (hiring a liar "Essjay", then telling the press he "didn't really have a problem with it", not to mention [[Criticism of Jimmy Wales|other transgressions]])

 

* Angela Beesley (routinely edits the Wikipedia article about Wikia, the company she co-founded with Wales, and adds external links to Wikia, all against Wikipedia community guidelines)

==3. The Wikimedia Foundation's leadership may be corrupt and inept.==

* Mike Godwin (edits Wikipedia anonymously, again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=260671486#Mike_Godwin_editing_Wikipedia_with_a_COI against community guidelines] that discourage self-promotion).

Jimbo Wales (hiring a liar "Essjay", then telling the press he "didn't really have a problem with it", not to mention [[Criticism of Jimmy Wales|other transgressions]]); Florence Devouard (now retired from the WMF, but noted for the infamous babysitting stipend she demanded); Angela Beesley (routinely edits the Wikipedia article about her company, Wikia, and adds external links to Wikia, all against Wikipedia community guidelines); Mike Godwin (edits Wikipedia anonymously, again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=260671486#Mike_Godwin_editing_Wikipedia_with_a_COI against community guidelines] that discourage self-promotion).

<br><br>

<br><br>

<center>

<center>

</center>

</center>

==5. Wikipedia is more a roleplaying game than an encyclopedia.==

==Wikipedia is more a roleplaying game than an encyclopedia.==

While Wikipedia is disguised as an encyclopedia, it is actually nothing more than a fluid forum where ultimate editorial control belongs to a corps of administrators, most of whom act without real-world accountability because they don't reveal their real names, locations, and potential conflicts of interest -- even though they will not hesitate, through "complex investigations", to "out" the real names, locations, and perceived conflicts of interest of other, non-administrative editors. Why give your real-world dollars to a virtual-world multi-player forum? Have you made your donation to Second Life, too?

While Wikipedia is disguised as an encyclopedia, it is actually nothing more than a fluid forum where ultimate editorial control belongs to a corps of administrators, most of whom act without real-world accountability because they don't reveal their real names, locations, and potential conflicts of interest -- even though they will not hesitate, through "complex investigations", to "out" the real names, locations, and perceived conflicts of interest of other, non-administrative editors. Why give your real-world dollars to a virtual-world multi-player forum? Have you made your donation to Second Life, too?

==6. Small donations make Wikipedia irresponsible==  

==Small donations make Wikipedia irresponsible==  

Having over 100,000 small donors funding more than 60% of a non-profit's income actually reduces accountability to the donors.  Because the donations are very small (about $30, on average), no one has sufficient influence over the Wikimedia Foundation to reach a threshold of accountability.  On the other hand, large institutional giving, large gifts by wealthy individual donors, and government grants all facilitate accountability. Embarrassing scandals, vandalism to biographies about living persons, and lack of proper concern for children can be shaken off like water off a duck's back when raised by micro-donors. Not so when a foundational grant, ultra-affluent person, or government agency have a larger stake on the line.  So, if you plan to contribute less than $5,000 to the Wikimedia Foundation, you would better encourage more accountability by donating that money instead to another organization, and let them determine if the Wikimedia Foundation is an ethical investment or not.  Do you want to be the next Fritz Thyssen, Albert Vögler, or Emil Kirdorf?

Having over 100,000 small donors funding more than 60% of a non-profit's income actually reduces accountability to the donors.  Because the donations are very small (about $30, on average), no one has sufficient influence over the Wikimedia Foundation to reach a threshold of accountability.  On the other hand, large institutional giving, large gifts by wealthy individual donors, and government grants all facilitate accountability. Embarrassing scandals, vandalism to biographies about living persons, and lack of proper concern for children can be shaken off like water off a duck's back when raised by micro-donors. Not so when a foundational grant, ultra-affluent person, or government agency have a larger stake on the line.  So, if you plan to contribute less than $5,000 to the Wikimedia Foundation, you would better encourage more accountability by donating that money instead to another organization, and let them determine if the Wikimedia Foundation is an ethical investment or not.  Do you want to be the next Fritz Thyssen, Albert Vögler, or Emil Kirdorf?

==7. They don't get the jobs done==

==They don't get the job done==

There have been a number of Wikipedia projects or initiatives that have been launched with at least some fanfare and/or promise that they are important and that they will be carried out.

There have been a number of Wikipedia projects or initiatives that have been launched with at least some fanfare and/or promise that they are important and that they will be carried out.

* A WikiProject of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists_of_topics topic lists] has existed since November 2007, but it is still half unfinished.

* A WikiProject of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists_of_topics topic lists] has existed since November 2007, but it is still half unfinished.

==8. Wikipedia pollutes the minds of children.==

==Wikipedia pollutes the minds of children.==

[[Image:Our_favorite_Wikipedia_image.jpg|thumb|175px|Jimmy Wales trying to extract another donation]] Perhaps you're philosophically opposed to censorship and think this is a daft point. Can you be sure that your shareholders and customers feel the same way? Wikipedia contains graphic material that might be morally contemptible in many countries -- even in the West. This includes images and articles depicting [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_piercing nipple piercings], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anilingus anilingus], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing labia piercings], child <s>pornography</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_erotica erotica], various [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing forms] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafada_piercing piercing] the penis, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strappado_bondage strappado bondage], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_spanking erotic spanking], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography incest pornography], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox smotherboxes], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtney_Cummz Courtney Cummz] and her directorial debut 'Face Invaders'.  (For more examples of Wikipedia trash, see [[Worst of Wikipedia]].)

[[Image:Our_favorite_Wikipedia_image.jpg|thumb|175px|Jimmy Wales trying to extract another donation]] Perhaps you're philosophically opposed to censorship and think this is a daft point. Can you be sure that your shareholders and customers feel the same way? Wikipedia contains graphic material that might be morally contemptible in many countries -- even in the West. This includes images and articles depicting [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple_piercing nipple piercings], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anilingus anilingus], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_piercing labia piercings], child <s>pornography</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_erotica erotica], various [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenum_piercing forms] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafada_piercing piercing] the penis, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strappado_bondage strappado bondage], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_spanking erotic spanking], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_pornography incest pornography], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smotherbox smotherboxes], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtney_Cummz Courtney Cummz] and her directorial debut 'Face Invaders'.  (For more examples of Wikipedia trash, see [[Worst of Wikipedia]].)

So, if you wish to support young boys administering pornography on a non-profit website, get out your checkbook and send $69 to the Wikimedia Foundation.  Hey, what do you expect from an organization that hired as its Deputy Director a young man who promoted the notion during a [http://mashable.com/2008/05/08/erik-moeller-pedophilia/ scandalized] lecture [http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/4/4158/1.html about child pornography] that in the context of children, non-violent porn does no harm ("Gewaltfreie Pornographie schadet nicht")?

So, if you wish to support young boys administering pornography on a non-profit website, get out your checkbook and send $69 to the Wikimedia Foundation.  Hey, what do you expect from an organization that hired as its Deputy Director a young man who promoted the notion during a [http://mashable.com/2008/05/08/erik-moeller-pedophilia/ scandalized] lecture [http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/4/4158/1.html about child pornography] that in the context of children, non-violent porn does no harm ("Gewaltfreie Pornographie schadet nicht")?

==9. Wikipedia is in a legally precarious position.==

==Wikipedia is in a legally precarious position.==

[[Section 230]] was designed to protect Internet service providers from libelous content generated by customers and re-distributed by the ISP.  The Wikimedia Foundation has hidden behind this protection by claiming that it, too, is an "interactive computer service".  We all know it's not, and one day, libel published on Wikipedia is going to lead to a courtroom test.  Unaccountable administrators are given the "Oversight" capability to make problematic content literally "disappear", and the Foundation hopes that the warrant of these administrators is never traced back to their offices.  For more on the history of noteworthy libel against innocent parties on Wikipedia, please look up the cases of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigenthaler_incident John Seigenthaler], of [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-caught-in-the-deadly-web-of-the-internet-445561.html Taner Akcam], and of [http://www.itwire.com/content/view/9913/53/ Fuzzy Zoeller].

[[Section 230]] was designed to protect Internet service providers from libelous content generated by customers and re-distributed by the ISP.  The Wikimedia Foundation has hidden behind this protection by claiming that it, too, is an "interactive computer service".  We all know it's not, and one day, libel published on Wikipedia is going to lead to a courtroom test.  Unaccountable administrators are given the "Oversight" capability to make problematic content literally "disappear", and the Foundation hopes that the warrant of these administrators is never traced back to their offices.  For more on the history of noteworthy libel against innocent parties on Wikipedia, please look up the cases of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigenthaler_incident John Seigenthaler], of [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-caught-in-the-deadly-web-of-the-internet-445561.html Taner Akcam], and of [http://www.itwire.com/content/view/9913/53/ Fuzzy Zoeller].

==10. Wikipedia is unpredictable, inaccurate, and unmanageable.==

==Wikipedia is unpredictable, inaccurate, and unmanageable.==

Wikipedians have leaned on a so-called study by ''Nature'' magazine that supposedly proved Wikipedia's accuracy rivaled that of Encyclopedia Britannica.  Even though the study was [http://news.cnet.com/Belatedly,-Britannica-lambastes-Wikipedia-findings/2100-1025_3-6053754.html faulty to the core], it still showed if you look only at scientific topics, and if you ignore the structure and clarity of the writing, and if you treat all inaccuracies as equivalent, then you would still conclude that Wikipedia is [http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/02/community_and_h.php about 32% less accurate] than Encyclopedia Britannica.   

Wikipedians have leaned on a so-called study by ''Nature'' magazine that supposedly proved Wikipedia's accuracy rivaled that of Encyclopedia Britannica.  Even though the study was [http://news.cnet.com/Belatedly,-Britannica-lambastes-Wikipedia-findings/2100-1025_3-6053754.html faulty to the core], it still showed if you look only at scientific topics, and if you ignore the structure and clarity of the writing, and if you treat all inaccuracies as equivalent, then you would still conclude that Wikipedia is [http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/02/community_and_h.php about 32% less accurate] than Encyclopedia Britannica.