Five reasons you should not donate to Wikipedia, ...preemptive anti-fund drive Options

We all know that come December or January, the WMF is going to put up the banner ads and donation "thermometer" in order to scrounge up another million bucks from donors who don't realize the monster they're feeding.

I think Wikipedia Review could get a lot of media attention if we prepare a page (probably on the new blog) that would list "Five reasons you should not donate money to Wikipedia". The list should be simple, not foaming at the mouth, and objective in its tone. Can we come up with 5 really good reasons, then wait until the WMF fund drive starts, then spring the blog page on Digg and Reddit and Slashdot?

I would start with the following ideas:

1. Your non-profit donation will ultimately line the for-profit pockets of Jimmy Wales, Amazon, Google, the Bessemer Partners, and other corporate beneficiaries. How? Wikipedia is used as a commercial traffic engine, with 4,000+ external links to Wales' Google AdSense-supported Wikia sites, plus 25,000+ links to Amazon product stores. Clearly, others are making millions from the success of Wikipedia. Do you want to further endorse their profiteering?

2. 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?

Will you please help keep this thread going with additional ideas? What have you ever seen happen on Wikipedia that makes you say, "Ugh, why would anyone ever give their hard-earned money to that project?"

Possible other ideas:

3. Citizendium is a new encyclopedia project founded by a co-founder of Wikipedia. There, the editors do disclose who they are in real life. You probably donated to Wikipedia last year, so why not spread the wealth to new projects like Citizendium this year?

4. Do you live in Brazil, Israel, or Saudi Arabia? Wikipedia has gone to painstaking detail to host articles about how your countries allegedly practice apartheid. If that's how you want your country described for the rest of the world, get out your checkbook.

5. Do you want your grade-school children looking at graphically-described, photo-rich pages about nipple piercings, anilingus, labia piercings, child modeling (erotic), frenum rings, strappado bondage, erotic spanking, incest pornography, smotherboxes, and Courtney Cummz and her directorial debut 'Face Invaders'? Send them to Wikipedia, while you make a donation to support the hosting of this and other material that would be shocking to most adults, housed on servers that make no attempt to filter what even pre-pubescent children can access.

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser:

Excellent idea. However, these need to be re-written in words that are catchy and entertaining. People won't read it all as it is now: dull.

The second one is really ranty. It sounds more like you've got a personal vendetta than a valid complaint. Definitely needs rewriting.

We need a catchy number of them, two. It must be either 7 or 10 reasons and that's it. Not 8. Not 9. 7 or 10. 12 if you really want to push it as 12 is slightly catchy.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar:

5 is a good number, its a catchy number, but the reasons need to be 1 line each.

Ironically, this thread will demonstrate the real trouble with collaborative writing: it's much harder for a comittee to write punchilly than a single writer.

That's right. At some point, you need to make an executive decision. Get all of the ideas in there, and then one person write it.

Realistically, all articles need to be owned, with one person controlling what all of the others (experts, proof-readers etc) all have to say.

That's right. At some point, you need to make an executive decision. Get all of the ideas in there, and then one person write it.

Realistically, all articles need to be owned, with one person controlling what all of the others (experts, proof-readers etc) all have to say.

I vote for "the top ten reasons why you should not donate to WP", since that's the usual way these things are phrased...and don't you usually start with no. 10 and work your way back to the number one, like on those top 40 countdown shows?

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

Yup Top 10 is catchy.

Okay so let's think of 1 line versions of the top 10, perhaps using The Kohser's original ideas. Everyone think of 1, or perhaps more.

I'll re-word The Kohser's 5 in to 1 liners for easier and catchier reading.

1. Your donation, via Google Adsense, will fund Wikia, which is not a charity.
2. Wikipedia is really a roleplaying game, with no accountability.
3. Why not donate to Citizendium instead, as they have real life details.
4. Wikipedia alleges that Brazil, Israel and Saudi Arabia practise apartheid.
5. Grade-school children can read Wikipedia's pornographic articles about such things as anilingus.

My five points would be under these headings:

Wikipedia has too much power

Googlerank; Ability to set the 'truth'; Page ownerships; Cabals

Wikipedia is in a legally precarious position

Section 230; Libel; Oversight; Katefan; Seigenthaler

Wikipedia's leadership is corrupt and inept

Jimbo Wales; Anthere; Essjay; Angela; Arbcom; Our favourite admins

Wikipedia is unpredictable, inaccurate and unmangeable

Vandalism; Snowspiller; Zoe; that wrestler chap; Plenty more admin/cabal/clique stories; Serious errors in articles; Fortune 500 companies missing

Wikipedia is dead

Citizendium; Answers; Ability of anyone to fork

We need to do it like a Tonight Show Top 10 list really.

They stopped publishing their financial statements. They stripped all users of their membership. In fact, according to the lawyer who wrote the original bylaws (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex756), they stripped all users of their membership in part because of a fear that members would demand financial statements.

Multiple top officials/former officials have privately expressed concern over financial wrongdoing by certain board members. At least one former staff member has publicly accused the current board chair of embezzlement. The executive director and head legal council resigned due to problems he had with the organization.

I really like the "Top 10" idea.

I would never consider making a financial contribution to a non-profit organization that lacks, as WMF lacks, a Board of Trustee with a wide base of civic and social stakeholders. WMF is by design narrow and weak reflecting only the interests of a dysfunctional social networking community.

I have started a wiki-based effort to compile the "Top 10" list, over at Centiare. Since I put it in Centiare Main Space, anyone is welcome to collectively edit this list constructively, though you must have an account on Centiare to edit, which means signing up with a non-throwaway e-mail address that can be verified by you. If you're not inclined to join Centiare to help with this list, feel free to keep adding info here, and I'll try to include your thoughts over there.

Greg

Your donation has your name on it, and becomes a permanent record. In case of lawsuits or other trouble, you have no anonymity.

I will go through them

thekohser....

1. Shorter version "Wikipedia is actually so Jimbo Wales and others can make a profit by sending people to Wikia and getting Amazon.com referals". Problems are I am unsure Wikia is making that much off ads and may be getting most of its money through selling stock. Also is it confirmed that when wikipedia links to an amazon book and someone buys it that Wikipedia takes a cut of the profit?

Also I asked people at Wikia. They say "Wikimedia and Wikia are completely unconnected. There is no financial, legal, or any other connection between the two..."

So #1 is not that good of a reason.

2. Good reason, need to shorten and make it catchy

3. Maybe. It's not that strong.

4. It's okay for a reason

5. Who exactly is donating mostly? This may have no effect at all as they may not care. Only prudes would care and if you mention where wikipedia has CP, it would encourage some people to donate.


blissyu2's rewording

1. good rewording, but this is probably untrue and these should be true
2. It should be more on the articles innacurate and it lost focus

3,4,5 -- decent shortenings.


Unrepentant Vandal's ones....

1. Very good.
2. Weak evidence. Need more dirt.
3. Should focus more on more than Jimbo as management being corrupt
4. Too unfocused and maybe even vague
5. No it's not dead. It's a monster that won't stop.



Okay getting back to it... Does anyone know WHO are the ones who mainly donate? Who is doing the bulk of donations? We need to target this list for the audience that donates. Until we know, our list will be lacking.

Also I asked people at Wikia. They say "Wikimedia and Wikia are completely unconnected. There is no financial, legal, or any other connection between the two..."

So #1 is not that good of a reason.

That's like asking the Bush Administration if there is a connection between Big Oil's influence on the administration and the decision to go to war in Iraq. I'm pretty sure you'll be told "there's no financial, legal, or any other connection between the oil industry and the Commander In Chief".

I'm not even going to get into the staffing "connections", but you may want to look into the roles of Jimmy Wales, Angela Beesley, Michael E. Davis, and (until he was discovered to be lying about his credentials) Ryan Jordan, vis-a-vis Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation. Each of these holds (or held) prominent positions in both entities. In the real world, this usually generates some measure of separation to avoid perceived or actual "conflict of interest", but how well is it actually being done over there? Gil Penchina (CEO of Wikia) was in attendance at Wikimania 2007. Why is that, if he's "completely unconnected"?

I would say having 9,460 outbound links from Wikipedia to Wikia is most certainly not "completely unconnected" -- especially considering that when Jimmy Wales authorized "nofollow", many of the links to Wikia were exempt from that Google-dampening measure.

I would say Amazon being the sole investor in Wikia's second round of capital generation, coupled with 27,568 outbound links from Wikipedia to Amazon, not to mention the 119,699 outbound links from Wikipedia to IMDB.com, which is owned by -- guess who? -- Amazon, is most certainly not "completely unconnected". Guess what is on virtually every page of IMDB.com? That's right -- glitzy images and links to buy products from Amazon, even in German or French.

Come on, Lamont -- I expect better critical analysis from you. Millions of dollars aren't being "donated" to Jimmy Wales' commercial project, without some form of kickback expected or appreciated. The only place where Wales has influence that has the traffic and size to be meaningful to Amazon as a revenue source is Wikipedia (not Wikia). Why is it so important for an "encyclopedia" to include convenient links to stores to buy titles? Is the average Wikipedia user so addle-brained that they need one-click-shopping from their neighborhood encyclopedia, too? Why so many links specifically to Amazon properties, and not "free" sites or "competitor" sites? Sounds to me that Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia emphatically draw the line at paid editing and corporate PR editing, but a little linky-linky, winky-winky -- that's perfectly encouraged.

I want to let everyone in on a secret. I was contacted a few months ago by someone who was exploiting Wikipedia to drive traffic to Amazon products being sold on an Associates basis. He documented to me his 32 external links successfully placed on Wikipedia. Granted, they were for movie and book products that are best-sellers, not obscure titles as are many of the Wikipedia links to Amazon products, but just run with me here for a second. He showed me his past 10 days of Amazon associates revenues -- these represent 4% of all the sales made on Amazon after a click-through from one of his links. He had made $27.13 from 32 links in 10 days. That equates to $30.95 per link per year -- and that's just his 4% cut from Amazon! That means Amazon is selling $773.75 worth of merchandise from each of his links, per year.

Let me repeat -- Amazon (and IMDB) enjoy nearly 150,000 outbound links from Wikipedia. Even if our secret exploiter's return on investment is TWENTY TIMES that of the average outbound link, we can still deduce that Amazon is turning revenues of $5.8 million per year from Wikipedia. Assume a 15% profit margin, and we conclude that Amazon is clearing $870,000 annual profit from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia Review cleared less than $1,000 for directly editing Wikipedia, yet it generated a flap of at least 180 mainstream media mentions, and tens of thousands of words on Wikipedia discussion pages and lists. Amazon clears $870,000 per year for having direct connections from Wikipedia, and where is the flap? Why haven't Steve Rubel or Brian Bergstein or Seth Finkelstein written about this scam? Maybe because even intelligent readers like Lamont would dismiss it anyway.

Will the Wikipedia Review community please wake up?

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser:

Also I asked people at Wikia. They say "Wikimedia and Wikia are completely unconnected. There is no financial, legal, or any other connection between the two..."

So #1 is not that good of a reason.

That's like asking the Bush Administration if there is a connection between Big Oil's influence on the administration and the decision to go to war in Iraq. I'm pretty sure you'll be told "there's no financial, legal, or any other connection between the oil industry and the Commander In Chief".

I'm not even going to get into the staffing "connections", but you may want to look into the roles of Jimmy Wales, Angela Beesley, Michael E. Davis, and (until he was discovered to be lying about his credentials) Ryan Jordan, vis-a-vis Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation. Each of these holds (or held) prominent positions in both entities. In the real world, this usually generates some measure of separation to avoid perceived or actual "conflict of interest", but how well is it actually being done over there? Gil Penchina (CEO of Wikia) was in attendance at Wikimania 2007. Why is that, if he's "completely unconnected"?

I would say having 9,460 outbound links from Wikipedia to Wikia is most certainly not "completely unconnected" -- especially considering that when Jimmy Wales authorized "nofollow", many of the links to Wikia were exempt from that Google-dampening measure.

I would say Amazon being the sole investor in Wikia's second round of capital generation, coupled with 27,568 outbound links from Wikipedia to Amazon, not to mention the 119,699 outbound links from Wikipedia to IMDB.com, which is owned by -- guess who? -- Amazon, is most certainly not "completely unconnected". Guess what is on virtually every page of IMDB.com? That's right -- glitzy images and links to buy products from Amazon, even in German or French.

Come on, Lamont -- I expect better critical analysis from you. Millions of dollars aren't being "donated" to Jimmy Wales' commercial project, without some form of kickback expected or appreciated. The only place where Wales has influence that has the traffic and size to be meaningful to Amazon as a revenue source is Wikipedia (not Wikia). Why is it so important for an "encyclopedia" to include convenient links to stores to buy titles? Is the average Wikipedia user so addle-brained that they need one-click-shopping from their neighborhood encyclopedia, too? Why so many links specifically to Amazon properties, and not "free" sites or "competitor" sites? Sounds to me that Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia emphatically draw the line at paid editing and corporate PR editing, but a little linky-linky, winky-winky -- that's perfectly encouraged.

I want to let everyone in on a secret. I was contacted a few months ago by someone who was exploiting Wikipedia to drive traffic to Amazon products being sold on an Associates basis. He documented to me his 32 external links successfully placed on Wikipedia. Granted, they were for movie and book products that are best-sellers, not obscure titles as are many of the Wikipedia links to Amazon products, but just run with me here for a second. He showed me his past 10 days of Amazon associates revenues -- these represent 4% of all the sales made on Amazon after a click-through from one of his links. He had made $27.13 from 32 links in 10 days. That equates to $30.95 per link per year -- and that's just his 4% cut from Amazon! That means Amazon is selling $773.75 worth of merchandise from each of his links, per year.

Let me repeat -- Amazon (and IMDB) enjoy nearly 150,000 outbound links from Wikipedia. Even if our secret exploiter's return on investment is TWENTY TIMES that of the average outbound link, we can still deduce that Amazon is turning revenues of $5.8 million per year from Wikipedia. Assume a 15% profit margin, and we conclude that Amazon is clearing $870,000 annual profit from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia Review cleared less than $1,000 for directly editing Wikipedia, yet it generated a flap of at least 180 mainstream media mentions, and tens of thousands of words on Wikipedia discussion pages and lists. Amazon clears $870,000 per year for having direct connections from Wikipedia, and where is the flap? Why haven't Steve Rubel or Brian Bergstein or Seth Finkelstein written about this scam? Maybe because even intelligent readers like Lamont would dismiss it anyway.

Will the Wikipedia Review community please wake up?

Greg

Damn !!! To think I wasted all my days throwing nuts to squirrels on the Banks o'th' Red Cedar and learning useless subjects, when I should've been taking Accounting and Business and squirreling away my nuts in more financially sound Banks.

No, Greg, I think that all of this is over the head o'th' cognitive overhead of even some of our more fully caffeinated Revue Artistes — y'know, H&R.Heads like me who have to get professional help on a recurring annual basis just to keep the Infernal Revenue Artistes away from our doors.

⊥ Line. Maybe you should write up a "WikiPhinance 4 Compleat WikiPediots" editorial on the blog, and 'splain all this bizz to us, like, real slow. I think that would be a public service, and not jes Wikipublic, either.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

Maybe you should write up a "WikiPhinance 4 Compleat WikiPediots" editorial on the blog, and 'splain all this bizz to us, like, real slow. I think that would be a public service, and not jes Wikipublic, either.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

I've just blogged it on the blog, but I don't see how I could make it any more simple to understand.

Also I asked people at Wikia. They say "Wikimedia and Wikia are completely unconnected. There is no financial, legal, or any other connection between the two..."

So #1 is not that good of a reason.

That's like asking the Bush Administration if there is a connection between Big Oil's influence on the administration and the decision to go to war in Iraq. I'm pretty sure you'll be told "there's no financial, legal, or any other connection between the oil industry and the Commander In Chief".

I'm not even going to get into the staffing "connections", but you may want to look into the roles of Jimmy Wales, Angela Beesley, Michael E. Davis, and (until he was discovered to be lying about his credentials) Ryan Jordan, vis-a-vis Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation. Each of these holds (or held) prominent positions in both entities. In the real world, this usually generates some measure of separation to avoid perceived or actual "conflict of interest", but how well is it actually being done over there? Gil Penchina (CEO of Wikia) was in attendance at Wikimania 2007. Why is that, if he's "completely unconnected"?

I would say having 9,460 outbound links from Wikipedia to Wikia is most certainly not "completely unconnected" -- especially considering that when Jimmy Wales authorized "nofollow", many of the links to Wikia were exempt from that Google-dampening measure.

I would say Amazon being the sole investor in Wikia's second round of capital generation, coupled with 27,568 outbound links from Wikipedia to Amazon, not to mention the 119,699 outbound links from Wikipedia to IMDB.com, which is owned by -- guess who? -- Amazon, is most certainly not "completely unconnected". Guess what is on virtually every page of IMDB.com? That's right -- glitzy images and links to buy products from Amazon, even in German or French.

Come on, Lamont -- I expect better critical analysis from you. Millions of dollars aren't being "donated" to Jimmy Wales' commercial project, without some form of kickback expected or appreciated. The only place where Wales has influence that has the traffic and size to be meaningful to Amazon as a revenue source is Wikipedia (not Wikia). Why is it so important for an "encyclopedia" to include convenient links to stores to buy titles? Is the average Wikipedia user so addle-brained that they need one-click-shopping from their neighborhood encyclopedia, too? Why so many links specifically to Amazon properties, and not "free" sites or "competitor" sites? Sounds to me that Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia emphatically draw the line at paid editing and corporate PR editing, but a little linky-linky, winky-winky -- that's perfectly encouraged.

I want to let everyone in on a secret. I was contacted a few months ago by someone who was exploiting Wikipedia to drive traffic to Amazon products being sold on an Associates basis. He documented to me his 32 external links successfully placed on Wikipedia. Granted, they were for movie and book products that are best-sellers, not obscure titles as are many of the Wikipedia links to Amazon products, but just run with me here for a second. He showed me his past 10 days of Amazon associates revenues -- these represent 4% of all the sales made on Amazon after a click-through from one of his links. He had made $27.13 from 32 links in 10 days. That equates to $30.95 per link per year -- and that's just his 4% cut from Amazon! That means Amazon is selling $773.75 worth of merchandise from each of his links, per year.

Let me repeat -- Amazon (and IMDB) enjoy nearly 150,000 outbound links from Wikipedia. Even if our secret exploiter's return on investment is TWENTY TIMES that of the average outbound link, we can still deduce that Amazon is turning revenues of $5.8 million per year from Wikipedia. Assume a 15% profit margin, and we conclude that Amazon is clearing $870,000 annual profit from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia Review cleared less than $1,000 for directly editing Wikipedia, yet it generated a flap of at least 180 mainstream media mentions, and tens of thousands of words on Wikipedia discussion pages and lists. Amazon clears $870,000 per year for having direct connections from Wikipedia, and where is the flap? Why haven't Steve Rubel or Brian Bergstein or Seth Finkelstein written about this scam? Maybe because even intelligent readers like Lamont would dismiss it anyway.

Will the Wikipedia Review community please wake up?

Greg

Well first I've not seen any clear evidence mentioned that the wikimedia foundation is directly sending donations to Wikia. If they're not then, that's out.

What I think would be good to mention in the list is just saying that the wikimedia foundation is driving traffic to amazon.com and IMDB in mass, above all other sites, so that these two sites are giving wikipedia massive donations because of it as kickbacks. This might be some tax evasion or SEC violation. This right here would be good to get people from donating and maybe get the government involved. Another thing is that this also means that we should find somethings to include in our top ten that would discourage amazon.com and IMDB from donating.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar:

I've just blogged it on the blog, but I don't see how I could make it any more simple to understand.

Imagine Amazon is a real brick and mortar store, located on a busy highway. Wikipedia is the clown standing out front waving to passing cars.

So far the clown is doing a great job. He's getting a lot of attention, and he's so much fun that he's attracted an army of volunteers to help him in his clowning.

Of course when the clown no longer amuses us, the store will hire a guy in a chicken suit or something.

Wikipedia is unpredictable, inaccurate and unmangeable

Best one in my opinion.

I've just blogged it on the blog, but I don't see how I could make it any more simple to understand.

Imagine Amazon is a real brick and mortar store, located on a busy highway. Wikipedia is the clown standing out front waving to passing cars.

So far the clown is doing a great job. He's getting a lot of attention, and he's so much fun that he's attracted an army of volunteers to help him in his clowning.

Of course when the clown no longer amuses us, the store will hire a guy in a chicken suit or something.

By George — speaking o' clowns — I think I got it.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Another reason...

Wikipedia bans links to what it considers, attack sites, but Wikipedia fits its own definitions of an attack site. More information in the thread at http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...=0&gopid=42797&


Is the reason good?

Okay thought these up. Some might be duplicates of previous stuff.


It takes over google. Then it fills the place with misinformation

The people there are just awful.

It hurts real encyclopedias and tries to make them go out of business.

Because it gives free wiki software out, it enables attack sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica that otherwise would be a blog or something. Their software also by design causes sites to jump high in google ranking.

Wikipedia even itself is somewhat of an attack site in its articles and its writings about users they banned.

People deep in their site's organization and their large corporate funders go around trying to intimidate serious, respectable complaint sites into shutting down.

What gets on wikis is determined not by what is right, but by the people who have enough time to edit war and work up the ranks to adminship.

Administrators are anonymous and obviously some people would secretly have more than one admin account.

Jimbo doesn't manage the wiki properly



We need to finalize a good big list so we can pass it out.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar:

We need to finalize a good big list so we can pass it out.

See thekosher's wiki for that. Ironically, given how much time I seem to be currently devoting to this website, I don't really have the time to add to it yet, but I will be contributing further in the near future.

Okay thought these up. Some might be duplicates of previous stuff.


It takes over google. Then it fills the place with misinformation

The people there are just awful.

It hurts real encyclopedias and tries to make them go out of business.

Because it gives free wiki software out, it enables attack sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica that otherwise would be a blog or something. Their software also by design causes sites to jump high in google ranking.

Wikipedia even itself is somewhat of an attack site in its articles and its writings about users they banned.

People deep in their site's organization and their large corporate funders go around trying to intimidate serious, respectable complaint sites into shutting down.

What gets on wikis is determined not by what is right, but by the people who have enough time to edit war and work up the ranks to adminship.

Administrators are anonymous and obviously some people would secretly have more than one admin account.

Jimbo doesn't manage the wiki properly



We need to finalize a good big list so we can pass it out.

Yes, those are valid reasons. But they won't stop institutions from giving money.

Why? Because it's all about what you get for your donation.

Right now, foundations can say (or rather could have said, pre-ESSJAY) "we're on this cutting edge Web 2.0 thing which is giving power back to the individual". They think that this is "empowering" for people.

What they need to see that it's the window-dressing of a "for profit" operation which has direct ties to corporate big business which creates an inherent conflict of interest and that the power structure is set up so that only those who fit into the site's demographics (white, male, christian, european, college-educated etc) or those who are willing to play by those rules will have influence on the site's content.

What we think is wrong about Wikipedia is beside the point. It's what the institutions think that they're going to get for their money. That's what is going to stop donations.

And the donations are the bottom line here. Unless, of course, Jimbo was planning on investing all of that "venture capital" that he got from Amazon for Wikia back into Wikipedia....hmm, Jimbo???

We need to finalize a good big list so we can pass it out.

See thekosher's wiki for that.

I eat bacon-wrapped scallops, and I'd even try a bit of kangaroo cheese. I'm definitely not kosher.

But, if you're interested in using a wiki to clean up the reasons not to donate to the big, bad wiki, Vandal is right -- please use my wiki for that.

Greg

And the donations are the bottom line here. Unless, of course, Jimbo was planning on investing all of that "venture capital" that he got from Amazon for Wikia back into Wikipedia....hmm, Jimbo???

I disagree completely. Venture capital directed to Wikia is money rendered with a view towards making a profit. Wikipedia donations are charity. If Wikia gave that money to Wikipedia, they'd be contravening the agreement to use the money to develop the famous secret searchengine.DOT.COM that Wikia is going to magically invent (eyeroll). VC is supposed to make money for the investors, eventually. It isnt a donation. It is an investment (hence venture capital funding). They want a profit.

As for the window dressing thing, US regulatory authorities won't react to this. Its a so-what point. Both are wikis, and now they are making money, so that's good, from the American POV. This would tick Europeans off, but to Americans, they'd congratulate you on your brillance.

I think you guys are missing the point that the no follow policy is equal to money. LOTS of money. Given the favoritism shown to Wikia, that's not only a clear conflict of interest, it is a solid financial contribution from Wikipedia to Wikia, and no one else gets it. Not even Amazon. Effectively, Wikipedia is donating thousands to Wikia. Through free advertising. That's the thing you can nail them on.

As for the denigration of encyclopedias, banning of important articles (or innocent people, or nice people) or nasty people editing or admining... no one cares about that. Maybe in Europe, you can get sway with it, but in the U.S., they just don't care. You need fo find a way that they are violating some statute.

I'm sure that the no follow policy is the best route.

This post has been edited by Nathan:

*changed a word*. Carry on, nothing to see here.

I'm sure that the no follow policy is the best route.

Fact is, though, most of the inter-wikied links that were immune to "nofollow" have been painstakingly purged or re-rendered as standard links to Wikia, thanks to (I presume) a couple of months' manual labor by a few honorable Wikipedians who recognized them as an unfair avenue to Jimbo's pocket.

I've looked -- most of the inter-wiki variety seem to be gone now.

Still, that leaves behind a massive load of standard HTTP Wikia links (nearly 10,000), as well as Amazon and IMDB links (nearly 150,000). These aren't so much a conflict of interest as they are convenient arrangement. Still, I question the culture that fosters so many commercial links within a "free" and "open" community that typically pounces on commercial links like a pack of hyenas.

As an experiment, try deleting a few links to stagnant Wikia wikis, and see how long it takes for the foamers to restore them. Try changing some links to Amazon to an equivalent BooksAMillion.com page link, and see if there are any repercussions. Better yet, modify the Amazon link so that it goes through a nearly-identical Amazon Associates affiliate page, and watch how quickly it gets reverted back.

The Wikipediots would rather see Amazon get the full cut of link traffic sales, than to have a Wikipedia editor get a 4% commission on it. That, you see, would be a gross conflict of interest.

Nevermind that WP:LINKS policy states:

Links normally to be avoided
Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

...
Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

Sounds like Amazon to me, how about you?

...
Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

How many of the Wikia links point to a site with a stable history and lots of editors? I've looked. A lot of them don't.

Very few Wikipediots see the conflict of interest in Amazon investing $10 million in Wikia, which pays a Treasurer who also watches the books for the Foundation which hosts a Top 10 site with more than 150,000 outbound links to Amazon properties.

I see it. But then I'm an expert at being on the receiving end of conflict of interest accusations.

Greg

We need to finalize a good big list so we can pass it out.

See thekosher's wiki for that.

I eat bacon-wrapped scallops, and I'd even try a bit of kangaroo cheese. I'm definitely not kosher.

But, if you're interested in using a wiki to clean up the reasons not to donate to the big, bad wiki, Vandal is right -- please use my wiki for that.

Greg

I don't know the URL to kosher's site but I assume that's it... I'll quote:

Your donation, via Google Adsense, will fund Wikia, which is not a charity. Your non-profit donation will ultimately line the for-profit pockets of Jimmy Wales, Amazon, Google, the Bessemer Partners, and other corporate beneficiaries. How? Wikipedia is used as a commercial traffic engine, with 4,000+ external links to Wales' Google AdSense-supported Wikia sites, plus 25,000+ links to Amazon product stores. Clearly, others are making millions from the success of Wikipedia. Do you want to further endorse their profiteering?
Wikipedia is really a roleplaying game, with no accountability. 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?
Why not donate to Citizendium instead, as they have real life details. Citizendium is a new encyclopedia project founded by a co-founder of Wikipedia. There, the editors do disclose who they are in real life. You probably donated to Wikipedia last year, so why not spread the wealth to new projects like Citizendium this year?
Wikipedia alleges that Brazil, Israel and Saudi Arabia practice apartheid. Do you live in Brazil, Israel, or Saudi Arabia? Wikipedia has gone to painstaking detail to host articles about how your countries allegedly practice apartheid. If that's how you want your country described for the rest of the world, get out your checkbook.
Think of the children! Perhaps you're philisophically opposed to censorship and think this is a daft point. Can you be sure that your shareholders and customers feel the same way? Wikipedia contains graphic material that would be illegal in most countries - even in the West. This includes images depicting nipple piercings, anilingus, labia piercings, child pornographymodeling (erotic), frenum rings, strappado bondage, erotic spanking, incest pornography, smotherboxes, and Courtney Cummz and her directorial debut 'Face Invaders'.
Wikipedia has too much power. Google rank; Ability to set the 'truth'; Page ownerships; Cabals
Wikipedia is in a legally precarious position. Section 230; Libel; Oversight; Katefan; Seigenthaler
Wikipedia's leadership may be corrupt and inept. Jimbo Wales (hiring liars, then telling the press it's not a problem); Anthere (babysitting stipend); Essjay (a liar handed highest rank); Angela (edits Wikia article against policy); Arbcom; Our favorite admins. They stopped publishing their financial statements. They stripped all users of their membership. In fact, according to the lawyer who wrote the original bylaws (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex756), they stripped all users of their membership in part because of a fear that members would demand financial statements. Multiple top officials/former officials have privately expressed concern over financial wrongdoing by certain board members. At least one former staff member has publicly accused the current board chair of embezzlement. The executive director and head legal council resigned due to problems he had with the organization. Wikipedia lacks a Board of Trustee with a wide base of civic and social stakeholders. WMF is by design narrow and weak, reflecting only the interests of a dysfunctional social networking community.
Wikipedia is unpredictable, inaccurate and unmanageable. Vandalism; Snowspinner; Zoe; that wrestler chap; Plenty more admin/cabal/clique stories; Serious errors in articles; Fortune 1000 companies missing.
Wikipedia is dead. Citizendium; Answers; Ability of anyone to fork.

I still think these need to be tuned up some more with everything here. I don't feel they're persuasive enough.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar:

Lamont: You keep misspelling "thekohser" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
The wiki is: centiare.com

What is this "vuser" category for users there and who is this Garret who is the only one there?

(IMG:http://centiare.com/images/f/f0/GarrettMinks.jpg)

If the image doesn't come up, see http://centiare.com/Image:GarrettMinks.jpg

Is he a pimp? (This is meant as a compliment)


This post has been edited by LamontStormstar:

Is he a pimp? (This is meant as a compliment)

Judging from his userpage, he would appear to be a teenager.

Is he a pimp? (This is meant as a compliment)

Judging from his userpage, he would appear to be a teenager.

But a pimp, though.

What is this "vuser" category for users there and who is this Garret who is the only one there?

(IMG:http://centiare.com/images/f/f0/GarrettMinks.jpg)

If the image doesn't come up, see http://centiare.com/Image:GarrettMinks.jpg

Is he a pimp? (This is meant as a compliment)

Garrett is the PimpDaddyMinks, recently graduated from high school and moving on to college now. He is a "vuser", meaning "verified user", which confers just a notch higher editing privileges (he can edit other users' Directory pages) than a standard user. We did this for Garrett since he was providing Directory-editing services for payment for a multitude of clients, plus he was one of the first to get the Centiare religion of ad-supported, semantically-tagged, SEO-optimized wikitude.

Garrett's main fault (if one were to ask me) is that he can be a little too gung-ho with our concept. I really appreciate his enthusiasm, but the other co-developer and I are both coming to the conclusion that Centiare (for whatever reason) lacks the "popular appeal" factor that brought thousands of editors to Wikipedia.

We're definitely keeping Centiare up and running, though, in hopes that some larger organization will one day realize its potential to serve as a dynamic, semi-protected, semantic database. (As I've said before, imagine an annually-archived directory of all Little League teams in the United States, with player rosters, statistics, and game summaries -- all searchable on multiple semantic dimensions; e.g., "find all left-handed pitchers in Ohio with at least 5 wins in 2006 and less than 3.50 ERA".) Those kinds of database searches are not only fairly easy to construct on Centiare, they return results in a split-second. The tough nut to crack is finding people who are willing to enter all of that data -- in a semantically-tagged fashion -- into the database.

Bots are also a possible solution to content-generation, as the other co-developer experimented with his own Sarbanes-Oxley directory data. Over the course of a few days, this bot was able to insert about 24,000 new article pages into Centiare. They simply provide a location map, telephone contact, stock quote window, SEC filings, and RSS news feed about every company. (Plus Google ads and a link back to Karl's Sarbanes service page -- which is one way to monetize Centiare.)

Sorry if I've hijacked this thread. DON'T DONATE MONEY TO WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION! There, we're back on topic.

Greg

DON'T DONATE MONEY TO WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION!

And forgive me for making this point if it's in error, but if you were going to donate to Wikipedia, you can invest in Centiare, which (even if it is a tech startup) at least brings the possibility of some kind of return on your money. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Okay I've worked on this and so far I have 22 that I think are quick to read for each, hopefully not boring, and many are in a good order together. I know I said 10 or just 7 might be good and sure if they were really powerful, but maybe a whole bunch of short, snappy ones if it's a large amount also can be persuasive. This can always be improved, though......................


......................


Why not to donate to Wikipedia:


[edit: scroll down for my 50]

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: