"verifiability, not truth" is stupid, Say Foundation chair Options Rating

[Kato]

You've written:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=192927568

One group (largely likely from Wikipedia Review and just general Wiki-haters) trying to subtly put forth the [[conspiracy theory]] '''"Wikipedia = Wikia tax shelter"'''

No one has suggested that on this board. Just as no one has inferred any of the things you have attributed to the Wikipedia Review elsewhere. Regarding Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation, people have merely highlighted blatant conflicts of interest, and the hypocrisy in the way Wikipedia treats this pressing matter.

This performance is growing tired, Zenwhat.

[Zenwhat]

You've written:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=192927568

One group (largely likely from Wikipedia Review and just general Wiki-haters) trying to subtly put forth the [[conspiracy theory]] '''"Wikipedia = Wikia tax shelter"'''

No one has suggested that on this board. Just as no one has inferred any of the things you have attributed to the Wikipedia Review elsewhere. Regarding Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation, people have merely highlighted blatant conflicts of interest, and the hypocrisy in the way Wikipedia treats this pressing matter.

This performance is growing tired, Zenwhat.

Kato, there are no denying that there are definitely several folks here that buy into those conspiracy theories. Several people have openly acknowledged their belief in them.

In this case, yes, there's certainly some people that don't openly believe in this stuff but it does seem to be suggested by the page versions you're defending, by the vandalism you're LOLing about, and your taunting and baiting of Wikimedia staff. At the very least, as I said, you're trolling. All three of these actions aren't very conducive to any meaningful goal.

I agree that there's hypocrisy, yeah, which should definitely be dealt with. But then this means that the editors screwing with the Wikia article are basically disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

One of the staff pops and says, "WP:V is stupid!!!" and you guys snarl, "LOOK!! EVIDENCE!!"

This is kind of like calling someone rude and violent, then punching them in the face and, when they retaliate belligerently and violently, saying, "A-ha! You are rude and violent! See?!"

Do you believe any of the actions by the staff in the edit history, there, are totally unreasonable? Do you believe they shouldn't be able to edit the article at all, because of the COI?

[Kato]

Kato, there are no denying that there are definitely several folks here that buy into those conspiracy theories. Several people have openly acknowledged their belief in them.

What conspiracy theories? Who is buying into what now? What are you talking about?

Do you believe any of the actions by the staff in the edit history, there, are totally unreasonable? Do you believe they shouldn't be able to edit the article at all, because of the COI?

Listen, the issue is hypocrisy. Wikipedia administrators routinely ban, expose editors or even report editors to their real life workplace superiors for editing articles while having a conflict of interest. The fact that some of the same people then go and edit articles where they themselves have conflicts of interest is evidence of hypocrisy and systemic failure.

In this case, yes, there's certainly some people that don't openly believe in this stuff but it does seem to be suggested by the page versions you're defending, by the vandalism you're LOLing about, and your taunting and baiting of Wikimedia staff. At the very least, as I said, you're trolling. All three of these actions aren't very conducive to any meaningful goal.

It used to be called satire. Or just taking the piss. When did this become known as "trolling"?

[Somey]

One of the staff pops and says, "WP:V is stupid!!!" and you guys snarl, "LOOK!! EVIDENCE!!"

Of what, the fact that WP policies are considered stupid by some insiders? Or that the policies are, in and of themselves, stupid? I didn't think we needed evidence of either one of those things, personally...

This is kind of like calling someone rude and violent, then punching them in the face and, when they retaliate belligerently and violently, saying, "A-ha! You are rude and violent! See?!"

Well now, that really is a strawman argument. The people on this thread are saying that Wikians have COI issues WRT the Wikia article on Wikipedia, right? No one is saying that their defense of their own actions is a conflict of interest in itself... is anyone saying that? I suspect you're just being a bit sensitive, and using violence-rhetoric to play on peoples' emotions.

Do you believe any of the actions by the staff in the edit history, there, are totally unreasonable? Do you believe they shouldn't be able to edit the article at all, because of the COI?

Not "totally unreasonable," but no, they shouldn't be making substantive edits to the article. I doubt anyone would fault them just for correcting typos and reverting obvious vandalism, but maybe I should look at the situation a bit more closely before I make any more pronouncements.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

It used to be called satire. Or just taking the piss. When did this become known as "trolling"?

I'll bite. Was it when a bunch of semi-educated, hormone-addled manga fans appointed themselves arbiters of "the sum of all human knowledge"?

[Zenwhat]

Kato, there are no denying that there are definitely several folks here that buy into those conspiracy theories. Several people have openly acknowledged their belief in them.

What conspiracy theories? Who is buying into what now? What are you talking about?

...If you have to ask...

Do you believe any of the actions by the staff in the edit history, there, are totally unreasonable? Do you believe they shouldn't be able to edit the article at all, because of the COI?

Listen, the issue is hypocrisy. Wikipedia administrators routinely ban, expose editors or even report editors to their real life workplace superiors for editing articles while having a conflict of interest. The fact that some of the same people then go and edit articles where they themselves have conflicts of interest is evidence of hypocrisy and systemic failure.

...which is helpful to Wikipedia.

Letting Wikimedia sued because of some minor impropriety that's played up by supporters of Wikipedia Review is not helpful to Wikipedia.

In this case, yes, there's certainly some people that don't openly believe in this stuff but it does seem to be suggested by the page versions you're defending, by the vandalism you're LOLing about, and your taunting and baiting of Wikimedia staff. At the very least, as I said, you're trolling. All three of these actions aren't very conducive to any meaningful goal.

It used to be called satire. Or just taking the piss. When did this become known as "trolling"?

Wikipedia has enough idiots generating unencyclopedic content.

If those editors put in those edits, then reverted themselves, I wouldn't care (because yes, they are slightly amusing), but they left them in there which creates more work for others to deal with.

[Kato]

Letting Wikimedia sued because of some minor impropriety that's played up by supporters of Wikipedia Review is not helpful to Wikipedia.

Good grief, at no point in this thread is anyone talking about Wikimedia being sued. I'll restate this one more time.: People are highlighted blatant conflicts of interest, and the hypocrisy in the way Wikipedia treats this pressing matter. The satirical, funny IP edits were riffing on this thread here. You are simply pulling things out of your ass and heaven knows why? But it is getting to be a real drag.

[Zenwhat]

Letting Wikimedia sued because of some minor impropriety that's played up by supporters of Wikipedia Review is not helpful to Wikipedia.

Good grief, at no point in this thread is anyone talking about Wikimedia being sued. I'll restate this one more time.: People are highlighted blatant conflicts of interest, and the hypocrisy in the way Wikipedia treats this pressing matter. The satirical, funny IP edits were riffing on this thread here. You are simply pulling things out of your ass and heaven knows why? But it is getting to be a real drag.

I am sorry I am not more amusing, but you seem to be deluded and I am not stupid enough to engage in debates with those who are firmly and irrationally entrenched in their particular views.

I mentioned Wikimedia being sued because that is a possible outcome (the IRS taking them down to court) if these rumors about tax dodging are played up by you.

[thekohser]

Letting Wikimedia sued because of some minor impropriety that's played up by supporters of Wikipedia Review is not helpful to Wikipedia.

So, you're saying if the Wikimedia Foundation is doing something illegal, it is a bad thing for Wikipedia that the Foundation that manages it be corrected by legal means? You would prefer that the WMF be allowed to continue in an illegal arrangement, if hypothetically one existed?

Zenwhat, the fact that you use the words "minor impropriety" suggest that you may be the one with an irrational point of view on this matter.

[Zenwhat]

Letting Wikimedia sued because of some minor impropriety that's played up by supporters of Wikipedia Review is not helpful to Wikipedia.

So, you're saying if the Wikimedia Foundation is doing something illegal, it is a bad thing for Wikipedia that the Foundation that manages it be corrected by legal means? You would prefer that the WMF be allowed to continue in an illegal arrangement, if hypothetically one existed?

Zenwhat, the fact that you use the words "minor impropriety" suggest that you may be the one with an irrational point of view on this matter.

What have they done that is illegal?

I thought Kato just said a moment ago that you guys don't believe Wikipedia is a tax shelter for Wikia.

If they're breaking the law, of course they should face criminal penalties.

I said "minor impropriety." Impropriety meaning "inappropriateness," not criminal activity.

In order to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, Jimmy should step down from Wikipedia, Angela should not by working for the Communications committee and Advisory board, and Wikipedia and Wikia should not share any resources or costs at all, even if their resources (like equipment) are "traded" or "borrowed."

But while that is inappropriate, that isn't necessarily illegal.

This post has been edited by Zenwhat: Mon 25th February 2008, 3:45am

[WhispersOfWisdom]

As a taxpayer in the U.S.A., and a citizen therein, (at least 6 months and one day out of any given year,) and further, believing that tax avoidance is different than the unlawful counterpart, tax evasion, it is quite apparent that if the I.R.S. finds any impropriety at Wikipedia, it will, in fact, take action against that firm, forthwith.

Not being a tax attorney, and I am certainly not a tax expert, I will leave the WP tax matter to the authorities at the I.R.S.

I still think WP should be a taxable entity, for profit, and the corporation owners can set up a foundation to support various charities. That is the way Bill Gates did it.

I think Jimmy got things turned around ... at the beginning...still turned around...ass backwards!

[whatever]

I still think WP should be a taxable entity, for profit, and the corporation owners can set up a foundation to support various charities.

I'm not sure Wikipedia would have worked had it been set up "for profit". Possibly the greatest idea was in the use of a commercial re-use provision on the "free information". The issue now facing those commercially minded is how to commercially exploit the material Wikipedia produces. A lot of people often complain that google ranks Wikipedia entries so highly, but think about it this way. What does Google gain in doing that?

Wikipedia isn't a commercial company, therefore it in no way impacts on google's business. So if google eventually wants to move into the encyclopedia business, it isn't given any competitor a head start with the top ranking on its search engine, because it is currently giving that to a "not for profit" entity, one which has built up a fair amount of goodwill and therefore one which google can allow a top ranking to without too much bad-will and little questioning. Say what you like, it appears natural that Wikipedia is top of the rankings. Hell, it probably is. But that doesn't stop the mind pondering.

Now there are possibly two battles going on for control of content. There's one side, which wants to control what the content says to win the battle of minds. And then there is one which wants to control the content so that they can win the battle of the wallets by being the first to work out how to successfully exploit the knowledge commercially.

I mean, when you look at the wikia model, it is pretty much the same as the Wikipedia model, except it allows advertising. It pretty much is, as you want, "a taxable entity, for profit", although I'm not sure if the second part of what you wanted, where "the corporation owners can set up a foundation to support various charities" has come true? So who makes money from Wikia? Who has the most to gain driving content from Wikipedia to Wikia? Who has the most to gain driving contributors from Wikipedia to Wikia?

Look at the stats on some of the pages on Wikipedia using that page Badly Drawn Jeff found. Star Wars gets 206571 views in the period analysed compared to 65406 views for the article on Physics. Now building a wikia around which topic is going to generate more ad revenue? Which articles on Wikipedia are people being encouraged to transwiki? Which areas of Wikipedia are battlegrounds where editors are being pointed towards Wikia? Again, I have no hard evidence to support the ideas, but they are ideas that nag none-the-less. If you wanted to make money out of Wikipedia, how would you do it? Mirror the content or the workforce?

[Moulton]

The main reason no one will ever sue Wikimedia is because they don't have any money.

[whatever]

The main reason no one will ever sue Wikimedia is because they don't have any money.

Someone will eventually. Someone for whom it isn't the money that is the point, but the principle.

[Moulton]

It will be a Pyrrhic victory.

[whatever]

It will be a Pyrrhic victory.

In what way? In the sense that it won't stop it happening, or in the sense that it will cause the reputation of the defamed more harm?

[WhispersOfWisdom]

I still think WP should be a taxable entity, for profit, and the corporation owners can set up a foundation to support various charities.

I'm not sure Wikipedia would have worked had it been set up "for profit". Possibly the greatest idea was in the use of a commercial re-use provision on the "free information". The issue now facing those commercially minded is how to commercially exploit the material Wikipedia produces. A lot of people often complain that google ranks Wikipedia entries so highly, but think about it this way. What does Google gain in doing that?

Google gets to set up KNOL and they will capture much of the talent that Wikipedia now enjoys.
Then, Google gets use it's own resources to put KNOL at the top of the food chain. Then Wikia search will compete with Google, Microsoft, and MySpace.

[Moulton]

A Pyrrhic victory is one that comes at great cost to the victor.

[whatever]

Google gets to set up KNOL and they will capture much of the talent that Wikipedia now enjoys.
Then, Google gets use it's own resources to put KNOL at the top of the food chain. Then Wikia search will compete with Google, Microsoft, and MySpace.

You think wikia search has legs? I can't see it somehow.

[thekohser]

Letting Wikimedia sued because of some minor impropriety that's played up by supporters of Wikipedia Review is not helpful to Wikipedia.

So, you're saying if the Wikimedia Foundation is doing something illegal, it is a bad thing for Wikipedia that the Foundation that manages it be corrected by legal means? You would prefer that the WMF be allowed to continue in an illegal arrangement, if hypothetically one existed?

Zenwhat, the fact that you use the words "minor impropriety" suggest that you may be the one with an irrational point of view on this matter.

What have they done that is illegal?

I thought Kato just said a moment ago that you guys don't believe Wikipedia is a tax shelter for Wikia.

If they're breaking the law, of course they should face criminal penalties.

I said "minor impropriety." Impropriety meaning "inappropriateness," not criminal activity.

In order to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, Jimmy should step down from Wikipedia, Angela should not by working for the Communications committee and Advisory board, and Wikipedia and Wikia should not share any resources or costs at all, even if their resources (like equipment) are "traded" or "borrowed."

But while that is inappropriate, that isn't necessarily illegal.

I don't know if a particular law was broken, but I do contend that in past year(s) the Wikimedia Foundation incorrectly completed their Form 990. For example, on the 2004 form, when 60% of the Foundation's Board of Trustees had ownership interests in Wikia, Inc., the response to Line 80a was "no". The question was: "Is the organization related through common membership, governing bodies, trustees, officers, etc, to any other exempt or nonexempt organization?"

Wikicities (later Wikia) was founded in December 2004. The 2004 Form 990 covered the period July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005.

The next year, the Foundation changed their answer to this Line 80a question to "yes", which is correct and an obvious improvement.

However, they still answered the (new) Line 75b incorrectly with "no" -- the question being, "Are any officers, directors, trustees, or key employees listed in Form 990, Part V-A... related to each other through family or business relationships? If 'Yes,' attach a statement that identifies the individuals and explains the relationship(s)."

Part V-A lists, plain as day, that three of the five officers (Wales, Davis, and Beesley) were most certainly related to each other through a business relationship -- Wikia, Inc.! Beesley and Wales were co-founders of the enterprise, for heaven's sake; and Davis was (and continues to be) the chief financial executive of the operation.

If you want my opinion, the reason why the Foundation answered this question incorrectly was because the incomes earned by the related parties may have to have been reported in a separate filing with the IRS, and Jimbo didn't want his income to be public information. I suspect that the Foundation hoped that nobody in the government would ever notice this little discrepancy, or that they would cross that bridge if it ever got noticed. I have contacted the IRS about this, and I've not received comment back. Maybe a simple "mistake" on a non-profit's Form 990 is about at the bottom of their priority list, and I would agree with that as a taxpayer.

However, what would be disconcerting as a tax-deductible donor to the WMF would be any evidence that the Foundation rejects, ignores, or covers up this mistake when called upon it. With all of the "Wikia is not Wikimedia" and the "completely separate" dust-ups we've seen over the past year, I think the jury is no longer out on that question. The Foundation has indeed been less than honest about its relationships with Wikia principals, and that's why I think it stinks.

For me, it's not about the law, it's about basic business ethics and a responsibility to be truthful to donors -- and that's where the WMF has failed. You are free to call that a "minor impropriety". I choose not to.

Greg