Changes

During the Wikimedia Foundation fundraising season, more than 1,000 people a day view this page.  Thanks to excellent search engine rankings for the page, it is hoped that at least some of the readers who visit will be dissuaded from adding their donation to the Wikimedia Foundation's wasteful spending spree.

During the Wikimedia Foundation fundraising season, more than 1,000 people a day view this page.  Thanks to excellent search engine rankings for the page, it is hoped that at least some of the readers who visit will be dissuaded from adding their donation to the Wikimedia Foundation's wasteful spending spree.

==Wikimedia Foundation finances are suspect.==

==Wikimedia Foundation finances are suspect.==

===Budget===

===Budget===

In 2011, the Wikimedia Foundation called for a budget of approximately $20 million.  However, one assessment contends 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.

In 2011, the Wikimedia Foundation called for a budget of approximately $20 million.  However, one assessment contends 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 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 as key principals 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.  Patrick's replacement as General Counsel would also have a short term in office, disappearing under a [http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-s-top-attorney-says-goodbye shroud of mystery].  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, or who have invested money in for-profit satellite projects of 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 as key principals 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.  Patrick's replacement as General Counsel would also have a short term in office, disappearing under a [http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-s-top-attorney-says-goodbye shroud of mystery].  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, or who have invested money in for-profit satellite projects of 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, Deputy Director, and their personal assistant had a [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/41/FY_2008_09_Annual_Plan.PDF reported compensation budget] and other expenses 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.

The current Executive Director, Deputy Director, and their personal assistant had a [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/41/FY_2008_09_Annual_Plan.PDF reported compensation budget] and other expenses 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.

===Growth===

===Growth===

:::'''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.==

<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.==

Meanwhile 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, his company succeeds if Wikia makes a nice return on investment.  It looks very fishy to have a new Wikimedia Foundation board member who's a partner at a firm that invested some portion of $4 million into the privately-held firm of the "Emeritus Chair" of the Foundation.  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?  At the Wikimedia Foundation, the double-dealing simply defies the laws of probability.

Meanwhile 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, his company succeeds if Wikia makes a nice return on investment.  It looks very fishy to have a new Wikimedia Foundation board member who's a partner at a firm that invested some portion of $4 million into the privately-held firm of the "Emeritus Chair" of the Foundation.  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?  At the Wikimedia Foundation, the double-dealing simply defies the laws of probability.

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

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

* '''Angela Beesley''', ''Chair of the Advisory Board'' - 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.

* '''Angela Beesley''', ''Chair of the Advisory Board'' - 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.

* '''Mike Godwin''', ''former lead counsel'' - Before mysteriously [http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikipedia-s-top-attorney-says-goodbye disappearing from] the WMF, Godwin attempted to edit Wikipedia anonymously, [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.

* '''Mike Godwin''', ''former lead counsel'' - Before mysteriously [http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikipedia-s-top-attorney-says-goodbye disappearing from] the WMF, Godwin attempted to edit Wikipedia anonymously, [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.

==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?

==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.==

The money doesn't help Wikipedia improve.  At all.

The money doesn't help Wikipedia improve.  At all.

==Wikipedia is a NSFW site lacking child-protection standards.==

==Wikipedia is a NSFW site lacking child-protection standards.==

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")?

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

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

{{GKAdBrite}}

{{GKAdBrite}}

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

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

In other research, the 100 articles about the hundred United States Senators [[Wikipedia Vandalism Study|have been shown]] to render erroneous, if not libelous, information about '''6.8% of the time'''.  The Wikipedia leadership have been promising for over two years that a systematic fix for this kind of garbage (called "flagged revisions") is always just around the corner.  It is time to [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22057&hl= call the Wikipedia leadership on their obfuscation].

In other research, the 100 articles about the hundred United States Senators [[Wikipedia Vandalism Study|have been shown]] to render erroneous, if not libelous, information about '''6.8% of the time'''.  The Wikipedia leadership have been promising for over two years that a systematic fix for this kind of garbage (called "flagged revisions") is always just around the corner.  It is time to [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22057&hl= call the Wikipedia leadership on their obfuscation].

== See also ==

== See also ==

* [[Nationalistic Editing on Wikipedia]]

* [[Nationalistic Editing on Wikipedia]]

* [[Directory:Josip Broz Tito and Wikipedia| Wikipedia's bias towards Dictator Josip Broz Tito and Communist Yugoslavia]]

* [[Directory:Josip Broz Tito and Wikipedia| Wikipedia's bias towards Dictator Josip Broz Tito and Communist Yugoslavia]]

==External links==

==External links==

* [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22070 Jimbo Wales Unilaterally Cashiers WMF's Section 230 Immunity, Declares Course Materials in Applied Ethics "Beyond Scope" of Project] by Moulton of Wikipedia Review

* [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22070 Jimbo Wales Unilaterally Cashiers WMF's Section 230 Immunity, Declares Course Materials in Applied Ethics "Beyond Scope" of Project] by Moulton of Wikipedia Review

* [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080229/sam-vaknin-wikipedias-six-cardinal-sins Wikipedia’s Six Cardinal Sins] by Sam Vaknin

* [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080229/sam-vaknin-wikipedias-six-cardinal-sins Wikipedia’s Six Cardinal Sins] by Sam Vaknin

==Notes==

==Notes==

<br>

<br>

[[Category:Wikipedia]]

[[Category:Wikipedia]]