Changes

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?

==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?

==They don't get the job 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.