Changes

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.

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 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 ... downturn.

===Governance===

===Governance===

===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===

Ask yourself, how is Wikipedia inherently different now than it was in 2005? Other than an abortive attempt by Jimmy Wales to [http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-commons-cannot-control-teen-pornography 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.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-commons-cannot-control-teen-pornography 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.