Gadgets & Tech

Rain (AM and PM) 3° London Hi 10°C / Lo 3°C

So is Wikipedia cracking up?

It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Wikipedia is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web? Stephen Foley reports

It felt like half a nation was pumping the air and singing along to "Born To Run" as the old rabble-rouser Bruce Springsteen blew through his half-time set at Superbowl XLIII on Sunday night. For a tech-savvy younger generation, curious as to why someone who looked like their dad had just jumped on to a piano, an obvious response would have been to reach for the computer and head to Wikipedia.

Except that they'd have drawn a blank.

"Bruce Springsteen. This guy kinda sucks." That was it. A superstar's entire history and discography had been wiped, an encyclopedia page replaced with a blogger's venting. Perhaps it was a Janet Jackson fan who hadn't got over the sanitising of the Superbowl show since that famous wardrobe malfunction.

Later visitors to the page were given a little more to go on. "Bruce Frederick Joseph Springsteen (born September 23, 1949), nicknamed 'The Boss', is a FAG," according to one unhelpful edit.

Hit refresh, and suddenly the entire entry appeared to be in Japanese.

Things righted themselves, of course, and quickly. Before the final bars of "Glory Days", one of Wikipedia's grown-ups had locked anonymous users out of the editing process and The Boss had returned to form.

This has been Wikipedia's organising principle. Like the old barb that BBC staff used to use about Sky News, it is "never wrong for long". Wikipedia was a half-crazed vision when it was launched in January 2001. At a time when internet sages were discussing how much Britannica could get away with charging for a digital version of its dusty tome, here was an attempt to create an even bigger repository for human knowledge, all of it written and edited – from scratch – by absolutely anyone with a bit of time to spare.

Now it is one of the 10 most-visited sites on the web (there are different measures of this list, but Wikipedia itself has agreed that it is the eighth most-visited). Should you need to settle a bar-room row about the scorer of the equaliser in the 1993 FA Cup final, it is to Wikipedia that you instinctively turn. Increasingly, when you want to find out the latest facts on a developing news story, Wikipedians are updating the site in real time for you, too.

As long as you have a critical eye, it cannot be beaten for the bare-bones facts on any subject you can think of – and several million more you can't. As a result, it is a godsend for stressed researchers and idle students. One New York University professor shakes his head and tells The Independent that he has given up trying to prevent his charges from citing Wikipedia as a source in their essays. Instead, he now spends some time each week checking the accuracy of its entries on the subjects he teaches.

The site has more than justified its founders' faith in the wisdom of crowds. But it has also shown that every crowd has its share of fools and knaves. Vandalism and error are endemic, and it has often driven users to the conclusion that the only way to increase accuracy is to reduce access. The tensions are not new, but they are growing. Events in recent weeks have seemed to bring Wikipedia to another crossroads. Importantly, the direction it chooses will help shape a long-term financial future for the organisation, which is only now starting to be debated.

That battle over Bruce Springsteen, played out over five minutes on one of Wikipedia's 12 million articles, was hardly unique. At any given moment, there are hundreds of these skirmishes going on. A dip into the methodically kept records of recent edits shows that a kind-hearted Celebrity Big Brother fan had amended Ulrika Jonsson's entry to congratulate her ("You rock my odd socks!" was briefly scrawled on her entry); for a short period recently, Dolly Parton's breasts were matter-of-factly described as "monster-sized"; Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was, for a minute or two, "nothing but a fat cunt".

Hardly a week goes by without one of the more creative or subversive additions taking flight, adding greatly to the gaiety of the nation. Most recently, Alan Titchmarsh – not-very-proud recipient of the Bad Sex Award for embarrassing passages in fiction – was said by his Wikipedia page to be penning a new Kama Sutra. Robbie Williams was once declared to have made his pre-Take That living "by eating domestic pets in pubs in and around Stoke". For a month and a half, a Wikipedia page was reporting that Margaret Thatcher was fictitious.

For celebrities, you know you've arrived when you have a Wikipedia page created about you. But you also know that you only hit the very top when you die in Wikiworld. Miley Cyrus, Oprah Winfrey, the Apple founder Steve Jobs and the British presenter Vernon Kay have all been declared dead by hoaxers in the past year. All are still alive, most of them kicking.

Barack Obama's inauguration day was the day two senior senators, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, sparked a flurry of concern about their health when they left the inauguration lunch on Capitol Hill – in Kennedy's case, in an ambulance after a seizure. Anyone who reached for Wikipedia for the latest facts found that someone had prematurely filled in 20 January 2009 as the date of their deaths. Whether the editors were motivated by malice or whether they were taking what journalists might call "a flyer" in the hope of being first with the news, the incidents prompted another round of unforgiving headlines about Wikipedia's tendency to err.

Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s founder and visionary-in-chief, is following the lead of the embattled TV bosses who agreed, after the revelation of Janet Jackson's nipple during the 2004 Superbowl, to put a time delay on the broadcast. From now on, he proposes, editing the biography of a living person will be a two-stage process; anyone can still make a revision, but it will have to be flagged as "approved" by someone higher up the Wikipedian food-chain before it goes live on the site. "This sort of nonsense would have been 100 per cent prevented by flagged revisions," Wales thundered after the Kennedy-Byrd embarrassment, and he ordered a trial of the new restrictions.

But the very suggestion has stoked a monster of a controversy among the faithful, even by the standards of a group of obsessive-compulsives for whom controversy is a permanent state. Wikipedia is, after all, the encyclopedia written by the people, for the people. Wikipedians are engaged in a constant fight to rid it not just of vandalism, but of all opinion and contentious material, of anything that cannot be described as fact and supported by a link to a recognised source.

To click "edit" to muck in on an entry, or "history" just to examine the palimpsest on which it has been created, is like lopping off the top of an anthill, revealing the extraordinary industry inside. It looks anarchic, but it is governed by a vast array of rules and conventions and manipulated by a hierarchy of editors and administrators, elected to their posts on the basis of their work. They wield significant power to delete revisions and whole articles, and to block users. Every single change to every single article is recorded and can be debated. "Edit wars" between contributors who are pushing competing revisions are common. Many are tedious – the debate about whether JK Rowling is pronounced "rolling" or with an "ow" sound ran for months – but participants console themselves with the knowledge that they are working towards a more perfect union of Wikipedia and the world it describes.

The new plan for flagged revisions only extends a current policy that denies editing rights to anonymous users on the pages of major political figures – a policy introduced during the constant war against vandalism to the pages of Tony Blair and George Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Its detractors argue that a similar clampdown on the German-language version of Wikipedia has meant it can now take three weeks to see an edit appear there. In Germany, since last summer, all edits to all pages have had to go through flagging. "This will drive away newcomers, create a backlog of massive approval queues, cause an exodus of editors opposed to oversight by the WikiBureaucracy of their edits, cause umpteen edit conflicts, create a system of prior restraint, and place a chilling effect on the development of Wikipedia and the greater Project," user Katana0182 wrote in response to Wales. "This is like assuming bad faith on a massive scale."

How big is the problem really? Reid Priedhorsky, who studies Wikipedia and similar social projects at the University of Minnesota, estimated in a recent paper that the chances of any one visitor seeing a damaged Wikipedia page are about one in 140, as the average time it takes to repair damage is less than three minutes, and even less for heavily tracked pages. However, vandalism appears to be on the increase and it is impossible fully to measure the scale of the problem.

"It's the monster in the closet. You know that it has not grown bigger than the closet and busted down the door, but you don't know exactly how big it is in there," Priedhorsky said. However, the most startling fact about Wikipedia remains how accurate it is, not how inaccurate.

"As a researcher, I'm baffled that it works, but Wikipedia is one of the wonderful things that has happened in the 21st century. Many hands make light work. There are millions of people who edit Wikipedia, and many of them track changes to the pages they are interested in. I have 43 pages on my watchlist, for example, covering subjects I know things about. Any controversial edit is likely to be quickly seen by many people."

What opponents fear most from the new "flagged revisions" rule is that it could put off a new generation of writers and editors, slamming this extraordinary global phenomenon into reverse. It's not something that seems to worry Wales, a bookish, bearded guy who presents a Steve Jobs-style face to the world on behalf of the community he founded. He describes himself as "pathologically optimistic".

Wales recalls his wonderment as a child at the World Book that was his first encyclopedia, bought for him from the travelling salesman who showed up at the family home in Huntsville, Alabama, one of the scientific hubs of the US space programme. Born in 1966 to a private-school teacher and a grocery store manager, young "Jimbo" Wales excelled at maths and made a beeline for a lucrative career in finance where, as an options trader in Chicago, he made enough of a fortune to support himself for the rest of his life. He headed to Silicon Valley and alighted on the idea of creating an online encyclopedia.

Typically, the facts are contentious, as a glance at the interminable history of the Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia will attest. Wales shares the credit with Larry Sanger, a website editor who also has an interest in philosophy – but he shares it reluctantly. The two have been involved in a long-running dispute over exactly who came up with the idea for creating a Wikipedia community. Wales sniffily highlights how Sanger was in fact only a hired help, employed to work on a professional online encyclopedia called Nupedia, built on the traditional model of editing by experts. Wikipedia was conceived as a way of quickly building Nupedia content – "wiki" is Hawaiian for quick.

Sanger was firmly planted on the accuracy side of Wikipedia's accuracy vs access debate, and he has made it a mission to prove to the world that there is a better way. These days, he is the man behind Citizendium, a new Nupedia that's edited by a cadre of academics expert in their subjects, which he launched with fanfare and not a few digs at Wales. But it has failed to take off, and has fewer than 10,000 articles almost two years after launch.

A more credible challenger is Google, whose own effort, Google Knol ("knol" means "a unit of knowledge", the company has decided), is still most useful at the moment as fodder for Silicon Valley jokes. The search engine giant professes itself satisfied with Knol's first six months, however, and it has grown to 100,000 articles in less time than Wikipedia managed.

In an effort to pull itself into contention, Citizendium is trying to muster its users into a "global write-a-thon" tomorrow, while Google Knol is offering a $1,000 cash prize for the best new article written before March.

Even with these efforts, it seems difficult to conceive of any of these other projects eclipsing Wikipedia in the popular imagination, unless the market leader goes into some sort of self-induced meltdown, which is why Jimmy Wales remains a pivotal figure. As a kind of philosopher-in-chief, he continues to dominate the organisation, to steer its debates, to calm its collective neuroses.

The once-ramshackle Wikimedia Foundation, the charity charged with guarding this great public resource, is edging towards a more professional structure under its ferocious executive director, a former Canadian journalist called Sue Gardner, who has been in situ since 2007.

At the very least, Gardner is trying to impose order on an extraordinary bureaucracy and to put the foundation on a firmer footing so that it doesn't require seat-of-the-pants fundraising efforts from Wales, who fronted an appeal to "keep Wikipedia free" in December that brought in $6m (£4.3m). The aim is to keep Wikipedia free of adverts, even though the costs of its hunger for bandwidth are rising exponentially as the site continues to grow and the records of changes lengthen. The foundation's finances are the biggest single threat to Wikipedia, according to Reid Priedhorsky. "A successful community artefact like Wikipedia requires strong buy-in from the community, which I'd wager is much harder to achieve under a for-profit model," he said.

Instead of the nine-person staff crammed into an office in St Petersburg, Florida, which Gardner inherited in 2007, she now employs 23 people in the heart of Silicon Valley. They include lawyers, professional fundraisers and advisers keen to exploit Wikipedia's brand with lucrative new ventures such as real-life book publishing. The latest development has been to appoint Roger McNamee, a veteran from the tech industry who currently runs the venture capital outfit Elevation Partners along with U2 front-man Bono, to bring more business savvy to the foundation's advisory board.

And, while the Wikimedia Foundation has no formal role in deciding policies within the Wikipedia community, it is watching closely and with trepidation. At today's crossroads, the signposts marked "accuracy" and "access" lead down very different paths. The near-death experiences of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd do more than confuse the public and distress their loved ones. They tarnish the Wikipedia brand. In monetary terms, "never wrong" is more valuable than "never wrong for long".

Wikipedia: Just what is...?

Big Bird is a full-body Muppet, featured on the children's television show Sesame Street, which airs on PBS. He is sometimes referred to as "Bird" by his friends.[2]

A Zeppelin is a type of rigid airship pioneered by the German Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin in the early 20th century, based on designs he had outlined in 1874,[1] designs he had detailed in 1893,[2] and that were reviewed by committee in 1894,[2] which he later patented in 1895.[3]

Coronation Street (colloquially known as Corrie) is an award-winning soap opera created by Tony Warren. It is one of the longest-running television programmes in the United Kingdom, first broadcast on 9 December 1960, made by Granada Television (Granada Productions) and broadcast in all regions of ITV almost throughout its existence.[1] The 7000th episode was broadcast on 28 January 2009.

Battersea Power Station is a defunct coal-fired power station in Battersea, London, that was the first in a series of large coal-fired electrical generating facilities set up in England as part of the introduction of the National Grid power distribution system. The first part of the structure was built in 1939, and the station ceased electricity generation in 1983.

Galoshes (from French: galoches), also known as gumshoes, dickersons, or overshoes, are a type of rubber boot that is slipped over shoes to keep them from getting muddy or wet.

Vincent Willem van Gogh (30 March 1853 – 29 July 1890) was a Dutch Post-Impressionist artist.

Arbroath Victoria (commonly known as Arbroath Vics) are a Scottish junior football club based in Arbroath. They are one of the oldest junior clubs in Scotland, having been formed in 1882.

In the broadest sense, cold fusion is any type of nuclear fusion accomplished without the high temperatures (millions of degrees Celsius) required for thermonuclear fusion. In common usage, "cold fusion" refers more narrowly to a postulated fusion process of unknown mechanism offered to explain a group of experimental results first reported by electrochemists Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton.

Stuff White People Like is a blog satirizing the interests of North American "left-leaning, city-dwelling white folk".[1] The WordPress blog was created in January 2008 by white Canadian Christian Lander, and coauthored with his Filipino Canadian friend Myles Valentin,[2][3][4][5] after Valentin teased Lander about his watching the television series, The Wire.[6]

The Klingon Hamlet (full title: The Tragedy of Khamlet, Son of the Emperor of Qo'nos) was a project to translate William Shakespeare's play Hamlet into the invented language Klingon of the television series Star Trek.

Fex Urbis Lex Orbis is a quotation in Latin. It means 'Scum of the city, law of the world.' It was first said by St. Jerome though is often attributed to Victor Hugo as he quotes it with approval in Les Misérables. The desires and needs of the lowest class of citizens actually determine how the world works by the sheer force of their numbers. The similar words Urbis and Orbis also appear in the phrase Urbi et Orbi.

The Chinstrap Penguin (Pygoscelis antarcticus) is a species of penguin which is found in the South Sandwich Islands, Antarctica, the South Orkneys, South Shetland, South Georgia, Bouvet Island, Balleny and Peter Island. Their name derives from the narrow black band under their heads which makes it appear as if they are wearing black helmets, making them one of the most easily identified types of penguin.

Pierluigi Collina (born 13 February 1960) is an Italian former football referee. He is still involved in football as non-paid consultant to the Italian Football Referees Association (AIA), and is a member of the UEFA Referees Committee. He is regarded as one of the best referees in the world. [citation needed]

Wikipedia (pronunciation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sound-icon.svg_) is a free,[5] multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the word "wiki" (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian "wiki", meaning "fast") and "encyclopedia". Its 12 million articles (2.7 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers worldwide, and almost all can be edited by anyone who can access the website.[6] Launched in January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[7] it is currently the most popular[3] general reference work on the net.

Yangshupu Road is the name of a station on Shanghai Metro Line 4. It is located at Yangshupu Road and Dalian Road, in the Yangpu District of Shanghai.

The economy of the Republic of the Congo is a mixture of village agriculture and handicrafts, an industrial sector based largely on petroleum extraction, support services, and a government characterized by budget problems and overstaffing. The Congo's growing petroleum sector is by far the country's major revenue earner. In the early 1980s, rapidly rising oil revenues enabled the government to finance large-scale development projects with GDP growth averaging 5% annually, one of the highest rates in Africa.

Christopher Anton Rea (Ree-ah) (born 4 March 1951) is a singer-songwriter from Middlesbrough, England, instantly recognisable for his distinctive, raspy voice.[1] Rea has sold over 30 million albums worldwide.[2]

Yoko! Jakamoko! Toto! was a 52-episode animated television series, produced by Collingwood O'Hare and HIT Entertainment, aired from 2003 to 2005, and was part of Cartoon Network's Tickle-U preschool TV programming block in the United States. It is about a bird of paradise named Yoko, an armadillo named Jakamoko, and a monkey named Toto who communicate only by use of each other's names.

Barium oxalate, a barium salt of oxalic acid, is a white odorless powder sometimes used as a green pyrotechnic colorant generally in specialized pyrotechnic compositions containing magnesium.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

National Express.
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 12:25 am (UTC)
Often it boils down to who is the editor of a particular page.Some are partisan to say the least.
Weak reporting
[info]jayawalsh wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 05:38 am (UTC)
While it's clear that Mr. Foley has consulted a number of individuals in preparation for the above story, it's unfortunate he did not take the time to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly for any information or comment. A number of the facts in the story are blatantly false, and further details are sloppily reported or incorrect. In several cases he is simply echoing poor reporting from other sources.

It is a sad reflection on The Independent when it devotes an entire feature to rumor mongering, selective research, and sniping quotes.

It does not come as a surprise that a tremendously popular and complex knowledge project is subject to fair criticism, but it is a disservice to the millions of people who access Wikipedia every day, and a further insult to the work of tens of thousands of volunteer editors from around the world to blindly report on matters without inquiring at the source.

The Wikimedia Foundation prides itself on an open and transparent operation. We answer the phone and we respond to inquiries. We would have, and continue to welcome, the chance to shed light on the extraordinary aspects of our projects that Foley has so casually overlooked.

Sincerely,

Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.org
Re: Weak reporting
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 01:52 pm (UTC)
Check out Teresa Knott "Wednesday Island" et Monsiuer Hobday.
Re: Weak reporting
[info]laralove23 wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 05:02 am (UTC)
As one of the volunteers, having spent two years on the project, more than one of which as an admin, I can attest that this article is refreshingly accurate and covers a great many issues. Clearly, as Mr. Walsh noted, Foley consulted a number of individuals in preparation for this story and I'm of the opinion that those individuals gave him good information. I would, however, be interested to know what specifically Mr. Walsh finds to be "blatantly false".

I don't think we need anymore of the Foundation "shedding light" on the "extraordinary aspects" of their various projects.
Re: Wik Reporting
[info]jonawbrey wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 08:14 pm (UTC)
"it's unfortunate [Mr. Foley] did not take the time to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly for any information or comment."

Wow, Jay, what a novel idea! -- contacting the subjects of articles before rushing into print! -- it's a wonder that no one has ever thought of that before! Who knows? Maybe someday all journalists will try making a simple phone call to the subject of an obituary, oh, I don't know, perhaps by way of de-x-aggerating the rumors of his or her demise. Naaah ...

"It is a sad reflection on The Independent when it devotes an entire feature to rumor mongering, selective research, and sniping quotes."

Now where's that ironicon when I really need it?

Many Regards,

Jon Awbrey
Re: Wik Reporting
[info]jonawbrey wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 01:42 pm (UTC)
The irony, of course, is that the WMF Head of Communications knows exactly what a publication should be doing if it wants to be regarded as accurate, balanced, complete, diligent, ethical, fair, reliable, responsible, and all that other good stuff. And he expects his interests to be treated that way in the press. Of course he does, we all do. We have a right to expect it because that is the way a civil society, a responsibly free press, and a scholarship dedicated to truth have to operate if they seek to deliver the goods. But the WMF Head of Communications will then do a little song and dance -- he will try to tell you that Wikipedia is not really a publication, that the WMF is not really a publisher, that his army of pseuds and psocks is exempt from all the things that normal society expects of a responsible publication.

Let us pray that we have more sense than to buy that.

Jon Awbrey
Re: Weak reporting
[info]jonawbrey wrote:
Monday, 9 February 2009 at 10:50 pm (UTC)
Re: Jay Walsh, "The Wikimedia Foundation prides itself on an open and transparent operation."

Readers who want to see just how "transparent" Wikipedia procedures really are might want to follow the developments at this blog -- http://arbitrary-notions.blogspot.com/ -- where a former Wikipedia insider is casting some sunlight on the smoke-filled back parlours where a lot Wikipedia's behind-the-scenes stagecraft is fashioned.

Jon Awbrey
Wikipedia Accuracy
[info]jamiejamesgimpo wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 08:27 am (UTC)
They were spot on about Alistair Darling, one cannot help but think.
Wikipedia
[info]acrossinto wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 08:52 am (UTC)
If you want to see Zionism at its plain nastiest, Wikipedia is a convenient place to find it. Like the airbrushing of the two Qana massacres. Or someone tries to find out who are the members of the 'Friends of Israel' parliamentary groups, is told by them that information is not disclosed, (s)he tries to post this answer, it is censored as 'original research' !

It was a nice idea, Wikipedia, and I do use it for subjects I want to look up in a passing kind of way, but it's a bit of a poisoned well.
Wikipedia is remarkable good.
[info]frank598 wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 09:31 am (UTC)
The good thing about Wikipedia is that it accepts that error is possible and that interpretations vary- something totally absent from the traditional, bound encyclopedia (many of which are riddled with errors, glaring omissions and biases).

Given this, what is surprising is quite how WELL Wikipedia functions, and how efficient it is at dealing with contentious subjects and the many revisions that articles on controversial subects necessarily demand.

This article is therefore extremely ungenerous.

And I found nothing wong with their Bruce Springsteen article.

A shambles.
[info]the_kegs wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 09:42 am (UTC)
Wikipedia is no more than an online gossip mag, written by ignoramuses for people who want to read an idealist's view of what might have happened, irrespective of the actual truth of the matter. It should carry a warning to this effect on every page.
Re: A shambles.
[info]londonstatto wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 02:44 am (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer is linked from every page.

That might not meet your desires, but your position is not grounded in reality.
Accuracy
[info]jhnplmr wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 09:46 am (UTC)
I use Wiki on an almost daily basis, it's the most valuable resource on the web. Any inaccuracies are quickly picked up because it is so widely used. They can be quickly corrected. This is more than you can say for other reference works.

It is a shame about the mindless vandals, personally I have never come across their work, perhaps I'm not interested in the subjects they vandalise.

Keep up the good work, ignore the critics and keep open access editing. It has it's drawbacks but it's advantages outweigh it's disadvantages.
Erratum
[info]zaphod_es wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 10:39 am (UTC)
Quote
a project to translate William Shakespeare's play Hamlet into the invented language Klingon of the television series Star Trek.
Unquote
No, the project it to translate Hamlet back into the original Klingon. See the Klingon Shakespeare Restoration Project.
Wikipedia is brilliant - with caution
[info]frwilliams wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 11:35 am (UTC)
Wikipedia is brilliant but it is a good idea to check the references to make sure that the source of a particular item of info is authoritative. This is usually very easy and any statement of fact on a controversial subject that is not referenced should be treated with caution. I believe the editors usually insert a comment to the effect that a reference is needed.
[info]alanoxford wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 11:44 am (UTC)
Google Knol?

I knew his father, Grassy.
[info]king_fuzzyfelt wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 11:58 am (UTC)
This article is right good. And I concur; the edits on Springsteen and Darling should have stood. If you can say it all in a line maybe you should leave it at that. Someone with more time and html prowess than myself needs to set up a spoof for edits like these. Call it Wiki-seedier or something.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page
[info]firehott wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 02:01 pm (UTC)
There already is a spoof wikipedia.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page
Well I like Wiki
[info]edwin23 wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 12:01 pm (UTC)
I was a reference editor for 18 years and find Wikipedia very useful indeed - Britannica, remember, used to print government figures as if they were fact, so you would get, for example, in the USSR entry, a note on tractor prodcution soaring and so on - all bollocks and known to be bollocks yet presented as fact.

Wiki needs to tighten the straps a bit of course - more power to the project!
Easily reverted
[info]sublibellous wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 12:07 pm (UTC)
Vandalism on Wikipaedia is always obvious. It may be easy to do, but pages can be reverted to their original state just as easily.
who are the vandals?
[info]kooliusbeezer wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 01:09 pm (UTC)
Encyclopedias usually start out as revolutionary projects: see Diderot. So that the latest and greatest has its knockers is no surprise. Qui bono? Who profits from wikipedia's reputation for unreliability? Who is poisoning the well?

Let's just say old style paper encyclopedias hoping to transition online can't be too happy with wikipedia's success, and traditional publishers of newspapers, journals and books aren't far behind. A certain type of small-minded teacher is against it too. Then there are the nationalists and religious bigots whose worldview cannot survive the harsh sunlight of objective knowledge.

Everyone a potential vandal, a sneering egotist who would tear down the pinnacle of our civilisation.
Well, let's hope the good guys win, eh?
Really?
[info]petesloth wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 07:55 pm (UTC)
The fact that the article was vandalized for literally ONE MINUTE during the Super Bowl is enough to cast doubt on the entire project?

Really??!!
Wikipedia Vandalism Study
[info]jonawbrey wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 08:50 pm (UTC)
For a systematic study of Wikipedia vandalism on the bios of U.S. Senators, see:

http://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study
I congratulate this reporter
[info]vampwillow wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 11:51 pm (UTC)
I'd be pushed to recall a more biased piece of reporting against something, but I really must congratulate the writer of this article - I would do so by name but see no byeline - in that they create the lead three paragraphs based on the state of the Bruce Springsteen article which lasted less than 60 seconds at 01:11 in the morning of 2 February 2009. That they searched for the article at that very minute and, clearly surprised by the lack of information content failed to press [F5] to refresh the page (which would have returned the article to full visibility) they instead sat down and wrote this article. Clearly, a tour de force of timing.

Oh, by the way, I do believe that all those extracts from Wikipedia at the end of the article require the correct attribution per their copyright and licencing. It is linked from the bottom of every page so I'm sure you can find the right information.
[info]general_tekno wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 11:57 pm (UTC)
While Wikipedia may be free of ads, Wikimedia wikis are not.

Feel free to ask the crew managing the Transformers wiki (www.tfwiki.net), who split from Wikia, what they think about how Wikia was treating them.

They've gone on the record about it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/31/wikipedia?gusrc=rss&feed=technology
[info]vampwillow wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 12:08 am (UTC)
Wikia is not part of Wikimedia nor vice-versa. They are both built on the same - free and open source - software so may look similar in many ways, but that is as far as it goes.
Terrible writing
[info]roonast wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 11:59 pm (UTC)
Okay first off, well done for copying the image and not knowing to rescale it to prevent artifacts on the image

yeah real great job with that distraction that bugs my periferols so much I want to stab them out with a tooth pick

and further(ly) whatever, this is the worst written article (next to my entry :P but im high, whats your excuse?) you should go work for FOX or the Daily Mail, scumbag cant even use google to research true facts, or how about ACTUALLY visiting the wikipedia website and looking at how much they actually DO, rather than write a terribly biased piece of trash that belongs on a false-propaganda website like the BBC


slime
Invalid Statistics
[info]rodullandemu wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 12:28 am (UTC)
Easy, isn't it, to single out a handful of the 2,700,000 articles Wikipedia has for vandalism? Hardly representative. As a WP Admin, I have nearly 800 articles on my watchlist, and it's the same ones that get vandalised over and over again; and when they do, we block editing for a while until people get the message. Serial and insidious vandals get blocked indefinitely. As for sources, the theory is that unsourced or poorly-sourced material is either deleted or tagged for sourcing; readers should be aware of this, as they should be when reading tendentious journalism.
Jealous?
[info]demonschnnauzer wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 12:31 am (UTC)
According to Alexa.Com, traffic report for independent.co.uk:
Yesterday: 1,723 1 week average: 1,388

Trafic report for wikipedia.org:
Yesterday: 1 1 week average: 7

That bit about being a footnote in the history of the Internet looks like a typo. You were referring to your own publication, weren't you?
Wikipedia seems loaded with cry-babies
[info]thekohser wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 03:15 am (UTC)
It's now a familiar scene. A reporter will come out with a story that actually discusses some of the facts about Wikipedia and its leadership (e.g., the University of Minnesota study that showed Wikipedia's accuracy is getting worse, not better; or, the fact that Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales tried to expense a massage parlor visit through his non-profit foundation). Then, the Wikipediots come out of the woodwork to defend their project by attacking the author and his employer. Even Jay Walsh chimed in to label this journalism as "weak", but I'm no clearer having read this supposed "communications" expert's note, on what exactly was wrong with this piece.

Good gravy, Foley didn't even mention the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation's old chief operating officer was a convicted felon, and that the current deputy director was hired (straight off the Board of Trustees!) without so much as a job posting or a competitive search. They don't seem to mind that Erik Moeller once lectured to a German audience that "nonviolent child pornography does no harm". (Where else would such a guy even have a job?) Foley also left out the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation is now paying monthly rent to Wikia, Inc. -- Jimbo Wales' for-profit effort to milk this phenomenon for some cash. I wonder how many donors to the WMF understood that their tax-deductible gift would be going to help out pornographer-turned-landlord Jimmy Wales?

I am going to give you two facts about Wikipedia, and if they don't help make up your mind, then you may be beyond assistance from adults.

Taner Akcam. Have you ever heard of him? He is an author and professor who teaches about Turkey's role in Armenia. He has political opponents around the world who hold more nationalistic views of Turkey. One day, Akcam was flying from Minnesota to Montreal, to deliver a lecture at a university there. He missed the lecture because he was detained for 4 hours in the airport. Why? Airport security looked him up on Wikipedia and they read that Taner Akcam was involved with terrorist organizations. Even though this was false information maliciously entered into Wikipedia, Akcam's civil rights were nonetheless violated.

Here's another fact. The Wikipedia article about Jackson, Michigan recently corrected a piece of misinformation about Abraham Lincoln. The article had said that Lincoln attended the first convention of the Republican Party, in Jackson. The thing is, Lincoln only ever visited Michigan once in his life, on a trip to Kalamazoo that had nothing to do with the convention in Jackson. Guess how long this error persisted in Wikipedia? A few minutes? A day or two? A week?

No, the error was in place for 600 days, folks. Yet, we keep hearing Wikipediots who can't discern the difference between "its" and "it's", or "there" and "their", telling us that virtually every error on Wikipedia is fixed in less than a minute. That link above given by Jon Awbrey, regarding vandalism to articles about U.S. senators, proved that the average length of an error's duration (at least in this corner of Wikipedia) was exactly 24 hours. Not a minute or two, but 1,440 minutes. The 100 articles about the hundred senators -- articles that we should believe are "closely monitored" -- were wrong 6.8% of the time. This is not a track record to be boasting about.

That's why you are a fool if you think Wikipedia should be considered a credible source for anything but the most casual of hobby-related trivia.

Re: Wikipedia seems loaded with cry-babies
[info]thekohser wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 03:35 am (UTC)
Another thing...

Wikimedia Communications Head, Jay Walsh, said:

"The Wikimedia Foundation prides itself on an open and transparent operation. We answer the phone and we respond to inquiries."

Hey, Jay. Show us how open and transparent you and your operation are. Tell the world the street address of the Wikimedia Foundation's headquarters in San Francisco. That's something your team has pro-actively hidden from public view. Why? What is it about the Wikimedia Foundation that causes it to hide so many things, even its location?
Re: Wikipedia seems loaded with cry-babies
[info]laralove23 wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 02:02 pm (UTC)
You mean 39 Stillman Street, San Francisco, CA 94107? As found here: http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C3093316

Yea, I don't think they'll post it.
Re: Wikipedia seems loaded with cry-babies
[info]wikipediauser wrote:
Thursday, 5 February 2009 at 06:08 am (UTC)
One obvious reason not to publish the address is to avoid people like you showing up randomly. While you seem like a harmless crank, the same can probably not be said about everyone else who's ever been banned from Wikipedia for doing something stupid.
Re: Wikipedia seems loaded with cry-babies
[info]wikipediauser wrote:
Thursday, 5 February 2009 at 05:49 am (UTC)
It's obviously true that Wikipedia is undergoing a necessary transformation, and it's clear that important discussions are happening, and people who could be expected to show leadership, like Jimmy Wales, are doing so. So far, so good.

It's pretty lame to use this as an excuse to once again question Wikipedia's charity model, which has carried it through eight years already. Their last fundraiser was the most successful one they've ever had, so on what basis is there a need for a new business model? But it turns from lame to just bizarre when the author repeats idiotic gossip from the likes of Gawker's Valleywag, while the Independent is publishing a separate piece quite clearly explaining how these smear merchants operate:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/prophet--loss-how-the-webs-hottest-gossip-empire-lost-its-mojo-1231791.html

It's to Wikipedia's credit that its most vociferous critics are either smear blogs spreading lies for ad cash or lone crusaders peddling failed business ideas.

Which brings me to Gregory Kohs. Kohs was banned from Wikipedia, where he operated under the username MyWikiBiz. [1] MyWikiBiz offered companies to create Wikipedia profiles in return for cash. This was seen to be against Wikipedia policy, as there would be an inherent conflict of interest biasing the writer to exclude criticism or write favorably about the company in question. This was explained in detail to Kohs. He kept lobbying for paid editing for a while, but now is a full-time crusader against the evils of all things Wikipedia.

He has posted inane comments like the ones he posted here in literally hundreds of blogs and forums: Whenever there's a story about Wikipedia, Kohs will not be far to throw as much mud as he can, hoping that some of it will stick. In most of these threads, he or someone else will post conspicuous links to to MyWikiBiz.com. What's MyWikiBiz? It's his relaunched wiki site (using the software developed by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is apparently not tainted by their evil ways) to help companies to spam search engines. In a video posted on the frontpage, Kohs gives a true used car salesman pitch on how creating a low quality page (yes, he explicitly remarks on how the page is of low quality) on MyWikiBiz will result in higher search engine rankings than valuable content.

Of course, MyWikiBiz is a failure as its Alexa traffic rank of 126,009 demonstrates, but the attempt to commercialize wikis is consistent with the behavior of other so-called critics. Daniel Wool, who originated the claims about Jimmy visiting "massage parlors" without ever producing a shred of evidence [2], and who has made similarly outrageous claims about virtually everyone else involved in the organization, also operates VeroPedia.com, a for-profit, ad-supported attempt to monetize "quality approved" Wikipedia articles. Jason Calacanis, a token critic of Wikipedia in many media stories, operates Mahalo.com, another attempt to monetize "user-generated content," which also uses a bastardized version of Wikipedia's open source software.

What of Kohs' claims? There are only two claims he's making that are defensible. One, yes, vandalism especially of biographies on Wikipedia is a serious problem, and both the community and the organization need to deal with it. But as noted above, everyone acknowledges that, the process is running its course, and it has already been successfully completed in some language versions. Two, yes, the organization was a poorly run shop two years ago. It did hire a convicted felon without a background check, and it did hire people like Daniel Wool. None of these people work for the organization anymore, for good reason.

Beyond that, Kohs is spewing plenty of actionable libel as part of his never-ending personal crusade. It's not worth responding to it point-by-point, but as a Wikipedian who has experienced some of the drama over the last few years, I'm happy to make myself available to try to answer any questions other people may have about it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:MyWikiBiz

[2] It's worth noting that even Wool never claimed that any questionable expenses were actually reimbursed.
Re: Wikipedia seems loaded with cry-babies
[info]thekohser wrote:
Thursday, 5 February 2009 at 06:22 am (UTC)
"Actionable libel"? If Danny Wool's claims about Jimmy Wales' massage parlor receipt were false, don't you think we'd have seen THAT acted upon as libel, long before anything I've said before or after was deemed "actionable libel"?

You see, folks, we have here in a nutshell the problem with Wikipedia. Above, we see "Gregory Kohs" being called out for "spewing plenty of actionable libel", even though Kohs has never been sued, for anything, ever. So, who brings these charges against Mr. Kohs?

Oh, it would be none other than "wikipediauser". You know, that "wikipediauser" person who lives on Bogus Street, in Fantasyville? He works for XYZ Corp. You know the guy. Right?

And thus, "wikipediauser" has demonstrated why Wikipedia is society's problem. Anonymous cowards have complete authority to malign the reputations of real-world, real-named individuals (like Taner Akcam, as I described above). And those who complain about this sad state of affairs? Their reputations, too, shall be called into question by the anonymous cowards. Until there are no more complaints. Until there is nobody left who dares question the authority of Wikipedia.

"wikipediauser", could you tell us about how the people CURRENTLY working for the Wikimedia Foundation are making the site any different or better than it was two years ago?

"wikipediauser", could you tell us how the director hired the deputy director without a job description, without a job posting, without a competitive search, straight off the board of trustees, and how now the two of them are budgeted for compensation north of $470,000?

"wikipediauser", could you tell us why the Foundation selected Wikia, Inc. as their landlord for extra office space, using tax-advantaged dollars to reward for-profit Wikia, Inc. for NOT having submitted the lowest bid?

"wikipediauser", could you tell us why Wikia, Inc. servers were used to host secret mailing lists for Wikipedia administrators to privately plan counter-attacks against Wikipedia editors who fell outside their good graces?

"wikipediauser", could you tell us why the Foundation only spent $900,000 on servers/bandwidth last year, when they asked for over $2.5 million for that need? Where did the leftover $1.6 million go?

"wikipediauser", could you tell us your name?

Or, are you only full of "answers" pertaining to real-world people who dare challenge your Wikipedia's credibility and legitimacy?
Re: Wikipedia seems loaded with cry-babies
[info]wikipediauser wrote:
Thursday, 5 February 2009 at 06:54 am (UTC)
No, I don't think it's surprising that the organization didn't sue for libel. I'm sure there were internal discussions, but the conclusion was that suing would only allow Wool to portray himself as a free speech martyr fighting against the libeling Wikipedia hypocrites, assuring continuing visibility as the case drags on. The same goes for you: As it is, you're little more than a constant pest spending your life in the comment areas of any site writing about Wikipedia; I can understand why the organization doesn't want to give you fame and visibility that you don't deserve. Your comments are incoherent, rambling and largely idiotic, most people won't bother to take you seriously. For the few that do, there'll hopefully always be enough people in the high profile forums taking the time to refute your rubbish.

I've done so further below. As for a direct dialog, I'm going to stick to the maxim: "Never wrestle a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it." As I've said in my original comment though, if anyone else has serious questions about any of the claims Kohs is making, I will do my best to try to answer them.
Re: Wikipedia seems loaded with cry-babies
[info]thekohser wrote:
Thursday, 5 February 2009 at 07:13 am (UTC)
My comments are purportedly "incoherent, rambling and largely idiotic", but they seem to have drawn a step-by-step attempt at refuting them by the anonymous "wikipediauser".

Thus fulfilling my prediction, that anonymous Wikipediots will come out of the woodwork to defend their project, even if it means casting ad hominem attacks against critics.

MyWikiBiz is a hobby of mine. This hobby site is among the top 1% most-visited domains on the Internet, according to "wikipediauser's" own citation of Alexa statistics (Alexa follows at least 5 million different domains). Yet, "wikipediauser" attempts to cast this as some sort of "failure" on my part.

Ad hominem, all the way down.
Re: Wikipedia seems loaded with cry-babies
[info]dannyisme2 wrote:
Thursday, 5 February 2009 at 02:56 pm (UTC)
Just for the sake of clarity, I have claimed that Jimmy Wales made two payments to the foundation to reimburse unwarranted expenses. I don't remember the exact amounts right now, but it was a few thousand dollars (my gut says 6 and 7 thousand in two separate checks, but I don't care that much at this time to look it up).

Oh, and just for the record, as a result of my claims, I have been called a disgruntled former employee and probably worse. On the other hand, no one has really denied their substance.

As for claiming that Wikipedia's success is reflected in its fundraising efforts, I would suggest an interesting parallel: Bernie Madoff's success as a businessman is reflected by the amount of money he raised.

As for this article, I think it is actually a rather good piece. There are, however, one or two slight facts with which I disagree. For instance, in this sentence: "Born in 1966 to a private-school teacher and a grocery store manager, young "Jimbo" Wales excelled at maths and made a beeline for a lucrative career in finance where, as an options trader in Chicago, he made enough of a fortune to support himself for the rest of his life. " To the best of my knowledge, Wales's mother is a pharmacist who started a private school for her children, and Wales himself did not make enough of a fortune to support himself for the rest of his life. That is simply part of the mythos that he has created around himself. Nevertheless, all in all, it is a good article that delves into some of the problems Wikipedia faces.

Danny Wool
(Signed using my real name. If you are going to challenge someone, at least have the integrity to do it to their face, instead of obscuring your identity behind a pseudonym.)
Nature of the Beast?
[info]andreauka wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 02:52 pm (UTC)
It's a bit like communism, isn't it? Marvellous in theory but not so easy in practice.

I'm a fairly lowly Wikipedian (approx 10 full articles and quite a few edits, mainly correcting grammar, punctuation etc) and I've had the odd run-in with over-zealous, trigger-happy admins who (it seemed to me), liked nothing better than to slap templates about this and that on my articles for no discernible reason (that I could see). Needless to say I let off steam loudly, so did they, I calmed down, so did they, I ended up seeing the point and so did they. All disputes were sorted out amicably in the end, and 99% of the time I got my way. A little shrewdness, coupled with a dollop of civility, can work wonders...

Having said all that I, too, am amazed at how quickly the vandalism is reversed. Wiki, to me, is merely an enjoyable pastime (I run an indie publishing house and a writers' website, so time is short) and a bit of fun - I wouldn't really care if they decided to wipe the lot (MY lot, that is) - if I felt like continuing, I'd defect to Sanger :-). Kudos, then, to all those guys who keep it running relatively smoothly and vandal-free and to who it seems to represent their life-blood and raison d-etre.

Shame though that, as usual, the enjoyment and diligence of the many is compromised by the idiocy of the few. As I said, the nature of the beast, alas. 'Twas ever thus and forever will be as long as man stalks the earth.
Why the WMF was not consulted
[info]thekohser wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 03:16 pm (UTC)
Perhaps The Independent didn't consult Jay Walsh or other higher-ups in the Wikimedia Foundation is because of their track record when consulted by media in the past. Reporters don't appreciate being lied to, or having the truth obfuscated.

When it was clear that Jimmy Wales had monkeyed around with expense receipts submitted for reimbursement by the WMF, there was CNET trying to get to the bottom of it, with Sue Gardner. (http://news.cnet.com/1606-2-6233396.html) Sue first checked to see if the reporter personally knew Jimmy Wales. When it was clear he did not, that was her chance to spread on the poppycock, extra thick. She actually tries to assure CNET that "Jimmy has never done anything wrong"! Jay, is this the type of verification of facts that you would like reporters to exercise directly with WMF officials?

When it was clear that Jimmy Wales had hired an academic fraud to a position at Wikia, then a month later appointed the same fraud to the highest body of adjudication on Wikipedia, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Stacy Schiff contacted Jimmy Wales to get his side of the story. Wales said of the invented persona, "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don?t really have a problem with it." (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote) Then about a week later, after public outrage had built up, Wales changed his tune and fired Ryan Jordan from his position at Wikia, Inc. and stripped him of his positions of trust on Wikipedia. If Stacy Schiff and the rest of the world had just accepted at face value the "official" WMF position on this scandal, we were supposed to believe that we shouldn't "really have a problem with it".

Jay Walsh, if these are the sorts of insights that reporters are supposed to gain by contacting the WMF directly before running stories, you might be wise to be careful what you ask for. It seems to me that when the WMF gives its side of a story, the careful reporter and their readers will come away with only a more jaundiced view of the suspicious activity of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Re: Why the WMF was not consulted
[info]wikipediauser wrote:
Thursday, 5 February 2009 at 07:26 am (UTC)
As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, no evidence for any of these claims was ever produced. They were skillfully dissected at the time here:

http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/3/is_wikipedia_s_jimmy_wales_really_an_embezzler_

The man who made the allegations, Daniel Wool, is a guy who will start a blog post like this:

"I always thought that Sue Gardner was a stupid choice for ED of Wikipedia. In fact, the only person who reminds me of Sue is Sarah Palin, except that Sarah Palin has more class. In other words, they are both fuck ups of the first degree. Go kill some moose, instead of human knowledge."

"I also thought that Mike Godwin is a babbling idiot with attitude."

"And, of course, Erik Moeller is a first class asshole with a chip on his shoulders." [1]

There's hardly anyone Wool hasn't accused of something or other (if only of being evil and lusting for power), insulted or atttacked, and asked to resign. I have no doubt based on what's been said that the early Wikimedia years were messy (after all, Wool was one of the office workers at the time), but it's also clear that Wool's claims about what actually happened don't have any credibility on their own. They require evidence. Without it, it's just gossip spread by someone who clearly has an axe to grind. The obsessive interest of the media in Wikipedia which has caused them to repeat this stuff doesn't change that. In fact, even if Wool's claims were 100% true and not exaggerated at all (fat chance!), he claims that frivolous expenses were submitted but not reimbursed years ago.

[1] allswool.blogspot.com/2008/10/wikipedia-fucks-up.html
Re: Why the WMF was not consulted
[info]thekohser wrote:
Thursday, 5 February 2009 at 07:29 am (UTC)
Ah, yes. Sue Gardner, is that YOU? We have here the "Jimmy has never done anything wrong" defense. Bonus points for the "What we have here is a disgruntled ex-employee..." routine. Thank you, "wikipediauser". Your reputation and credibility are unassailable.
[info]chriswol wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 05:52 pm (UTC)
The fact that there are these problems - is part of life. History is always written by the Victors - etc., Such problems are performed - mostly publically - basically at up to ligh speed.

Wikipedia is a brilliant invention - and the guy who invented it should have accolades - not just access to the 'Google Jet."

Wikipedia should also be given grants etc., from the UN - It underlines the whole ethos of the net
Grants from the United Nations?
[info]thekohser wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 07:49 pm (UTC)
Chriswol, before the Wikimedia Foundation takes in any more money (they have jumped in just 3 years from $400,000 in revenues to $6,200,000), don't you think it would be prudent to have an independent audit of the Foundation's spending, such as from CharityNavigator.org? As it stands now, the WMF has only ever submitted two years of full Form 990 information to the IRS. CharityNavigator requires four consecutive years of data before assessing an organization's efficiency.

As it stands now, money from the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund that was given to the Wikimedia Foundation is being directly remitted to the for-profit Wikia, Inc. for rent -- even though the Wikia office space bid was not the lowest one tendered. Don't you find it curious that the for-profit enterprise launched by a Wikimedia board trustee JUST SO HAPPENED to be the winning bid for this landlord/tenant relationship?

Why would you want to throw even MORE money at an organization that not only doesn't need it, but is doing fishy things with the money they've already got? Do you feel that over $470,000 really needed to be allocated to director Sue Gardner and deputy director Erik Moeller, to ensure that Wikipedia keeps running? What are the 23 employees doing now that makes Wikipedia any better than it was 18 months ago, when there were perhaps 10 employees?

Personally, I find your monetary suggestion to be an imprudent one. Oh, and... guess who "invented" Wikipedia? Dr. Larry Sanger is the one who brought the wiki software to the encyclopedia's table, he coined the "Wikipedia" name, and he served as "editor in chief" for the first important and formative year of operation. Is Dr. Sanger who you were referring to when you talked about "accolades"?
Re: Grants from the United Nations?
[info]wikipediauser wrote:
Thursday, 5 February 2009 at 06:40 am (UTC)
Predictably, more mud-slinging from Kohs. Regarding the office sub-lease, Wikia, probably to be close to Wikimedia (the two organizations work on the same open source software, which Kohs himself uses), has office space two blocks away, so sharing some space at a fair market rate was an obvious thing to do. When Kohs unsuccessfully tried to raise a stink about the issue, Wikimedia reps explained that Jimmy Wales, the only link between the organizations, was not involved in the decision on either side, and documented the process for the space selection in great detail. I have yet to see a similar degree of responsiveness and clarity from any non-profit organization.

The second idiotic insinuation in Kohs' post, one which he keeps repeating almost everywhere he goes, is the one about executive compensation. It's a particularly shameful lie because it's been pointed out to him many times. The Wikimedia Foundation has published its budget here:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:FY_2008_09_Annual_Plan.PDF

And a detailed FAQ here:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2008-2009_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers

In the FAQ it is explained that the ED/DD budget includes other costs, "including travel, some fundraising expenses, the costs of the two annual all-staff meetings and some other staff development costs, and a budget for consultants and contractors". It's a departmental budget, not the sum of two salaries. Kohs knows this. In fact, where he has previously referred to it as salaries, in the post above, he carefully avoids using that phrase while omitting this key fact in yet another attempt to mislead people. The most recent ED salary published in the organization's last form 990 was around $150K. We'll have to wait for this year's 990 to see the current compensation of the ED, but I would bet that it is around the same. That is hardly outrageous given that she used to run the CBC website, not exactly a small scale operation.
Re: Grants from the United Nations?
[info]thekohser wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 07:06 am (UTC)
Ah, yes... the much-awaited Form 990. The Foundation's fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. It's now into February 2009, and we still haven't seen a Form 990. Must be a lot of fudging taking place, eh, "wikipediauser"?

In the meantime, while we wait for the Foundation to cook the books, could you provide a link and a line-item reference to a Form 990 that cited Sue Gardner's full-year salary to be "around $150K", as you noted above? I would be very interested to see such evidence.
solution: CONTENT OWNERS...
[info]digital_joe01 wrote:
Thursday, 5 February 2009 at 04:50 pm (UTC)
the problem is that the content OWNER (eg. Bruce Springstein, or rather his PR group) should manage this for him. What are regular PEOPLE going to know that the source, Bruce Springstein, doesn't. Most of the 'slander' is a few stupid people trying to 'comment' on wikipedia.

Then other topics should be built by specific communities. For example, I want to read an entry on wikipedia on particle physics by a group collaboration of those specialists. Then that group manages their content, and further, each others' actions. Further, other people can make 'suggestions' and add information, but it would need approval by the content group.
Independent issues an apology to Jimmy Wales
[info]thekohser wrote:
Wednesday, 18 February 2009 at 06:17 pm (UTC)
The Independent has issued an apology:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/corrections/jimmy-wales-1624615.html

Though, the follow-up itself has already spawned a number of questions about what within the original article was "wrong" about Jimmy Wales.
Article censored
[info]thekohser wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 04:45 pm (UTC)
And, lo and behold, the article above has been craftily censored so that the parts about Jimmy Wales that upset his charisma are now gone. Why doesn't "The Independent" just change its name to "The Submissive"?

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date