Changes

# '''Wikipedia has too much power.''' Wikipedia smothers out more authoritative, but less-linked-to sites in Google and other search engine rankings.  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 adminstrator cabals who follow one another around, supporting reverted edits and editor blocks and bans. <br><br>

# '''Wikipedia has too much power.''' Wikipedia smothers out more authoritative, but less-linked-to sites in Google and other search engine rankings.  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 adminstrator cabals who follow one another around, supporting reverted edits and editor blocks and bans. <br><br>

# '''Wikipedia is in a legally precarious position.'''  [[Section 230]] was designed to protect Internet service providers from libelous content generated by customers and re-distributed by the ISP.  The Wikimedia Foundation has hidden behind this protection by claiming that it, too, is an "interactive computer service".  We all know it's not, and one day, libel published on Wikipedia is going to lead to a courtroom test.  Unaccountable administrators are given the "Oversight" capability to make problematic content literally "disappear", and the Foundation hopes that the warrant of these administrators is never traced back to their offices.  For more on the history of noteworthy libel against innocent parties on Wikipedia, please look up the cases of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigenthaler_incident John Seigenthaler], of [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-caught-in-the-deadly-web-of-the-internet-445561.html Taner Akcam], and of [http://www.itwire.com/content/view/9913/53/ Fuzzy Zoeller]. <br><br>

# '''Wikipedia is in a legally precarious position.'''  [[Section 230]] was designed to protect Internet service providers from libelous content generated by customers and re-distributed by the ISP.  The Wikimedia Foundation has hidden behind this protection by claiming that it, too, is an "interactive computer service".  We all know it's not, and one day, libel published on Wikipedia is going to lead to a courtroom test.  Unaccountable administrators are given the "Oversight" capability to make problematic content literally "disappear", and the Foundation hopes that the warrant of these administrators is never traced back to their offices.  For more on the history of noteworthy libel against innocent parties on Wikipedia, please look up the cases of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigenthaler_incident John Seigenthaler], of [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-caught-in-the-deadly-web-of-the-internet-445561.html Taner Akcam], and of [http://www.itwire.com/content/view/9913/53/ Fuzzy Zoeller]. <br><br>

# '''The Wikimedia Foundation's leadership may be corrupt and inept.''' Jimbo Wales (hiring a liar "Essjay", then telling the press he "didn't really have a problem with it", not to mention [[Criticism of Jimmy Wales|other transgressions]]); Florence Devouard (now retired from the WMF, but noted for the infamous babysitting stipend she demanded); Angela Beesley (routinely edits the Wikipedia article about her company, Wikia, and adds external links to Wikia, all against Wikipedia community guidelines); Mike Godwin (edits Wikipedia anonymously, again [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.  <br><br>

# '''The Wikimedia Foundation's leadership may be corrupt and inept.''' Jimbo Wales (hiring a liar "Essjay", then telling the press he "didn't really have a problem with it", not to mention [[Criticism of Jimmy Wales|other transgressions]]); Florence Devouard (now retired from the WMF, but noted for the infamous babysitting stipend she demanded); Angela Beesley (routinely edits the Wikipedia article about her company, Wikia, and adds external links to Wikia, all against Wikipedia community guidelines); Mike Godwin (edits Wikipedia anonymously, again [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).  <br><br>

# '''Wikipedia is unpredictable, inaccurate, and unmanageable.'''  Wikipedians have leaned on a so-called study by ''Nature'' magazine that supposedly proved Wikipedia's accuracy rivaled that of Encyclopedia Britannica.  The study was [http://news.cnet.com/Belatedly,-Britannica-lambastes-Wikipedia-findings/2100-1025_3-6053754.html faulty to the core].  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]. <br><br>

# '''Wikipedia is unpredictable, inaccurate, and unmanageable.'''  Wikipedians have leaned on a so-called study by ''Nature'' magazine that supposedly proved Wikipedia's accuracy rivaled that of Encyclopedia Britannica.  The study was [http://news.cnet.com/Belatedly,-Britannica-lambastes-Wikipedia-findings/2100-1025_3-6053754.html faulty to the core].  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]. <br><br>

# '''Wikimedia Foundation finances are suspect.'''  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 employed by the for-profit 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 (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.  They are all 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. <br><br> 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. '''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. <br><br> '''Earth Island Institute''' has revenue of about $6.5 million, 15 employees, (practically the same size as the Wikimedia Foundation, and headquarters in the very same San Francisco) but the CEO makes only $67,423.  The Northern California chapter of the '''Arthritis Foundation''' has revenue of $5.1 million, but the CEO makes only $45,050.  '''Child Family Health International''' in San Francisco has revenue of $4.0 million, it appears to have 11 employees, but the CEO makes only $82,000.  All of this information comes from ''Charity Navigator''. The Wikimedia Foundation hasn't been reviewed by this watchdog group yet... but do you think the WMF would get the coveted "4-star rating"? HIGHLY doubtful. <br><br> Ask yourself, how is Wikipedia inherently different now than it was in 2005? Honestly, there has been no major transformation there at the site. Just some server volume growth -- a terribly cheap commodity to manage. So, why have the gross receipts gone from $361,000 to over $6 million? <br><br> '''Answer''':  Compensation for people not really doing anything besides watch the servers, enjoy global jet-setting,  and run damage control for Jimbo's dalliances. <br><br>

# '''Wikimedia Foundation finances are suspect.'''  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 employed by the for-profit 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 (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.  They are all 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. <br><br> 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. '''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. <br><br> '''Earth Island Institute''' has revenue of about $6.5 million, 15 employees, (practically the same size as the Wikimedia Foundation, and headquarters in the very same San Francisco) but the CEO makes only $67,423.  The Northern California chapter of the '''Arthritis Foundation''' has revenue of $5.1 million, but the CEO makes only $45,050.  '''Child Family Health International''' in San Francisco has revenue of $4.0 million, it appears to have 11 employees, but the CEO makes only $82,000.  All of this information comes from ''Charity Navigator''. The Wikimedia Foundation hasn't been reviewed by this watchdog group yet... but do you think the WMF would get the coveted "4-star rating"? HIGHLY doubtful. <br><br> Ask yourself, how is Wikipedia inherently different now than it was in 2005? Honestly, there has been no major transformation there at the site. Just some server volume growth -- a terribly cheap commodity to manage. So, why have the gross receipts gone from $361,000 to over $6 million? <br><br> '''Answer''':  Compensation for people not really doing anything besides watch the servers, enjoy global jet-setting,  and run damage control for Jimbo's dalliances. <br><br>