Changes

In 2010, the Wikimedia Foundation called for a budget of $10.4 million.  However, industry analysts contend that Wikipedia and all its sister project could probably [http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091221141604AAEUCsW operate on a budget] of $1.6 million (including salaries for several IT developers), because 99.5% of the actual work being done is accomplished by unpaid volunteers.  A [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/FINAL_08_09From_KPMG.pdf KPMG audit] reported that in 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation spent only $822,405 on Internet hosting fees, plus $1,259,161 in "operating" costs (which includes many of the unnecessary staff who have been hired in just the past two years).  Even this KPMG expense summary would dictate that $2.1 million would be sufficient for the Wikimedia Foundation, so why the call for a budget nearly '''five times''' what's needed?

In 2010, the Wikimedia Foundation called for a budget of $10.4 million.  However, industry analysts contend that Wikipedia and all its sister project could probably [http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091221141604AAEUCsW operate on a budget] of $1.6 million (including salaries for several IT developers), because 99.5% of the actual work being done is accomplished by unpaid volunteers.  A [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/FINAL_08_09From_KPMG.pdf KPMG audit] reported that in 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation spent only $822,405 on Internet hosting fees, plus $1,259,161 in "operating" costs (which includes many of the unnecessary staff who have been hired in just the past two years).  Even this KPMG expense summary would dictate that $2.1 million would be sufficient for the Wikimedia Foundation, so why the call for a budget nearly '''five times''' what's needed?

The Wikimedia Foundation has a history of unclear, tardy, and misleading financial statements.  The early Form 990's filed by the Foundation stated that there was "no business relationship" between any of the Board members, even though 60% of the Board were simultaneously employed by the for-profit commercial enterprise, Wikia, Inc.  Early on, the Wikimedia Foundation asked an attorney to design the organization as a membership body, but after his work was nearly complete, they [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex756 scrapped the idea], realizing that a majority vote of members could unseat a corrupt Board of Trustees and demand line-by-line financial accountability.  They didn't want '''that''' possibility to threaten them.  Multiple top staff and former officers have privately expressed concern over [http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/10/business/fi-wikipedia10 financial wrongdoing] by certain board members.  The former Chief Operating Officer of the Foundation ([[Directory:Carolyn Doran|Carolyn Doran]]) was a wanted felon.  The former executive director and head legal counsel resigned due to problems the organization had with him.  The Foundation lacks a Board of Trustees with a wide base of civic and social stakeholders.  Almost to a person, they are cronies and insiders who were incubated within Wikipedia. The Foundation is by design narrow and weak, reflecting only the interests of a dysfunctional social networking community.

The Wikimedia Foundation has a history of unclear, tardy, and misleading financial statements.  The early Form 990's filed by the Foundation stated that there was "no business relationship" between any of the Board members, even though 60% of the Board were simultaneously employed by the for-profit commercial enterprise, [[Directory:Wikia|Wikia, Inc.]] Early on, the Wikimedia Foundation asked an attorney to design the organization as a membership body, but after his work was nearly complete, they [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex756 scrapped the idea], realizing that a majority vote of members could unseat a corrupt Board of Trustees and demand line-by-line financial accountability.  They didn't want '''that''' possibility to threaten them.  Multiple top staff and former officers have privately expressed concern over [http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/10/business/fi-wikipedia10 financial wrongdoing] by certain board members.  The former Chief Operating Officer of the Foundation ([[Directory:Carolyn Doran|Carolyn Doran]]) was a wanted felon.  The former executive director and head legal counsel resigned due to problems the organization had with him.  The Foundation lacks a Board of Trustees with a wide base of civic and social stakeholders.  Almost to a person, they are cronies and insiders who were incubated within Wikipedia. The Foundation is by design narrow and weak, reflecting only the interests of a dysfunctional social networking community.

The current Executive Director and Deputy Director have a [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/41/FY_2008_09_Annual_Plan.PDF reported compensation budget] of $472,000, which is excessive for an organization of this size.  Publicly-funded '''KUHT-TV''' in Houston has 71 employees, revenue of $11.5 million, and CEO John Hesse makes $158,628 in salary, benefits, and compensation.  Wikipediots might protest, "But, but, but Houston has such a lower cost of living than San Francisco!"  Okay, let's look at San Francisco.  

The current Executive Director and Deputy Director have a [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/41/FY_2008_09_Annual_Plan.PDF reported compensation budget] of $472,000, which is excessive for an organization of this size.  Publicly-funded '''KUHT-TV''' in Houston has 71 employees, revenue of $11.5 million, and CEO John Hesse makes $158,628 in salary, benefits, and compensation.  Wikipediots might protest, "But, but, but Houston has such a lower cost of living than San Francisco!"  Okay, let's look at San Francisco.