Changes

{{toc right}}

{{toc right}}

Every year the [[Directory:Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]] asks for financial contributions from unsuspecting donors, so every year we publicize this list of the '''Top 10 Reasons Not to Donate to Wikipedia'''.  Your comments are welcome on the [[Talk:Top 10 Reasons Not to Donate to Wikipedia|discussion page]].

Every year the [[Directory:Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]] asks for financial contributions from unsuspecting donors who don't realize that 54 cents of every dollar they contribute will be wasted on ledger items that are ''not'' the program services that the Wikimedia 501(c)(3) is obligated to uphold.  So, every year we publicize this list of the '''Top 10 Reasons Not to Donate to Wikipedia''', in hopes that more people will become educated about what's really going on behind Wikipedia.  Your comments are welcome on the [[Talk:Top 10 Reasons Not to Donate to Wikipedia|discussion page]] here, or you may e-mail ResearchBiz@gmail.com for more discreet dialog.

==Wikimedia Foundation finances are suspect.==

==Wikimedia Foundation finances are suspect.==

===Budget===

===Budget===

In 2010, the Wikimedia Foundation called for a budget of $10.4 million.  However, industry analysts contend that Wikipedia and all its sister projects 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 over 99% 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 had been hired in just the previous 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?  And look out, Wikimedia director Sue Gardner is [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/wikipedia-foundation-plans-expansion/ calling for] a twice-larger budget of $20 million for 2011!  This will include a 12%+ pay raise for herself, even amidst a severe economic downturn.

In 2011, the Wikimedia Foundation called for a budget of approximately $20 million.  However, industry analysts contend that Wikipedia and all its sister projects 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 over 99% 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 had been hired in just the previous two years).  Even this KPMG expense summary would dictate that $2.1 million would be sufficient for the Wikimedia Foundation, so why do they call for a budget nearly '''ten times''' what's actually needed?  And look out, Wikimedia director Sue Gardner is [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2011-2012_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers#What.27s_the_revenue_target_for_2011-12.2C_and_how_does_it_compare_to_previous_years.3F calling for] a 50%-larger budget of $29.5 million for 2012!  Last year, she tallied up a 12% pay raise for herself, even amidst a severe economic downturn.

===Governance===

===Governance===

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, Brad Patrick, 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 990s 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], having suddenly realized that a majority vote of citizen-members could unseat a corrupt Board of Trustees and demand line-by-line financial accountability.  The Foundation's insiders didn't want that possibility to threaten them, so they insulated themselves from a voting membership by remaining a non-member organization.  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.  Indeed, the former Chief Operating Officer of the Foundation ([[Directory:Carolyn Doran|Carolyn Doran]]) was a wanted multi-count felon.  The Foundation's former executive director and head legal counsel, Brad Patrick, 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.

===Salaries===

===Salaries===

The current Executive Director and Deputy Director had a [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/41/FY_2008_09_Annual_Plan.PDF reported compensation budget] of $472,000, which was excessive for an organization of its size.  At the same time as the above report, publicly-funded '''KUHT-TV''' in Houston had 71 employees, revenue of $11.5 million, and CEO John Hesse made $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, then.

The current Executive Director and Deputy Director had a [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/41/FY_2008_09_Annual_Plan.PDF reported compensation budget] of $472,000, which was excessive for an organization of its size in 2008.  At the same time as the above report, publicly-funded '''Earth Island Institute''' had revenue of about $6.5 million, 15 employees (practically the same size as the Wikimedia Foundation at the time, and headquarters in the very same city of San Francisco), but the CEO earned only $67,423.  The Northern California chapter of the '''Arthritis Foundation''' had revenue of $5.1 million, but the CEO was paid only $45,050.  '''Child Family Health International''' in San Francisco had revenue of $4.0 million and 11 employees, but the CEO earned only $82,000.  Embarrassingly, when audited by Charity Navigator, for years the Wikimedia Foundation received only 1 star out of a possible four in the important category of ''Organizational Efficiency''.  When you get right down to it, the money that people donate to the Wikimedia Foundation is more likely to be spent on an item that doesn't address the charitable mission of the organization than to be spent on something that does.

 

'''Earth Island Institute''' at the time of the report had revenue of about $6.5 million, 15 employees (practically the same size as the Wikimedia Foundation at the time, and headquarters in the very same city of San Francisco), but the CEO made only $67,423.  The Northern California chapter of the '''Arthritis Foundation''' had revenue of $5.1 million, but the CEO was paid only $45,050.  '''Child Family Health International''' in San Francisco had revenue of $4.0 million and apparently 11 employees, but the CEO earned 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 1 star] out of a possible four in Charity Navigator's ''Organizational Efficiency'' category.  The money that people donate to the Wikimedia Foundation is almost 1.5 times more likely to be spent on an item that doesn't address the charitable mission of the organization than to be spent on something that does.

===Growth===

===Growth===

Ask yourself, how is Wikipedia inherently different now than it was in 2005? Other than an abortive attempt by Jimmy Wales to [http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/ purge the site] of some images that could be construed as child pornography, there has been no major transformation at the site. Just some server volume growth -- a terribly cheap commodity to manage.  

Ask yourself, how is Wikipedia inherently different now than it was in 2005? Other than an abortive attempt by Jimmy Wales to [http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/ purge the site] of some images that could be construed as child pornography, there has been no major transformation at the site. Just some server volume growth -- a terribly cheap commodity to manage.  

::'''Question''': Why have the gross receipts escalated from $361,000 to a requested 2011 budget of $20 million?  

::'''Question''': Why have the gross receipts escalated from $361,000 to a requested 2012 budget of $29.5 million?  

:::'''Answer''': Compensation for people not really doing anything besides watch the servers, enjoy global jet-setting, and run damage control for Jimbo's dalliances.

:::'''Answer''': Compensation for people not really doing anything besides watch the servers, enjoy global jet-setting, and run damage control for Jimbo's dalliances.

==Wikipedia has too much power.==

==Wikipedia has too much power.==

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.

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.  Wikipedia creates a monoculture of knowledge that is little different than a farmer who would make the mistake of planting just one type of crop, year after year.

<br>

<br>

{{GKAdBrite}}

{{GKAdBrite}}

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

==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 October 2011, there are over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=25000&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.wikia.com 29,000 external links] from Wikipedia to Wales' Wikia.com sites, which are funded by Google AdSense revenues and custom advertising deals.  These links are still being added to Wikipedia 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!

When Wales isn't enjoying all the link traffic to his for-profit site, he's actually actively in the process of self-dealing the volunteer community's labor into an exclusive content package for his own site.  How?  Well, take for example the fact that there was a Klingon language wiki hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.  Wales ordered it to be [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-August/023607.html shut down].  Where did it spring up again?  On Wikia, Inc. servers, of course!

When Wales isn't enjoying all the link traffic to his for-profit site, he's actually actively in the process of self-dealing the volunteer community's labor into an exclusive content package for his own site.  How?  Well, take for example the fact that there was a Klingon language wiki hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.  Wales ordered it to be [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-August/023607.html shut down].  Where did it spring up again?  On Wikia, Inc. servers, of course!