Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ The Wikimedia Foundation _ Wikia is "completely separate"
Posted by: thekohser
Interesting discussion is being waged on Jimbo's Talk page. There are some concerns why Jimbo says Wikia is a "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikia_doesn.27t_seem_separate" organization from Wikipedia.
Note that User:WAS 4.250 makes some points about the Foundation needing to "know the real names of Wikipedia's admins".
Greg
Posted by: Kato
Perhaps objectors on Jimbo's talk page have been consulting the latest http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13209, where a couple of intrepid Reviewers have locked links to highlight that particular anomaly. 
I notice that college student http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Titoxd defends Der Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Titoxd:
Is that true? I mean Jimbo himself certainly gets into content disputes, just check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimbo_Wales. Some of his recent forays have been very controversial, and more than a couple continue to bite him in the ass.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
Perhaps objectors on Jimbo's talk page have been consulting the latest http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13209, where a couple of intrepid Reviewers have locked links to highlight that particular anomaly.
I notice that college student http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Titoxd defends Der Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Titoxd:
Is that true? I mean Jimbo himself certainly gets into content disputes, just check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimbo_Wales. Some of his recent forays have been very controversial, and more than a couple continue to bite him in the ass.
Not true but a key fiction in asserting Sec 230 immunity. Pushing this fiction to it's ultimate extreme you have a situation where WMF simply provides the software and bandwidth and the "community" just sort of showed up out of nowhere independent of WMF. The interesting thing about this fiction is it results in the "community" taking the form of another entity altogether. A voluntary association with "partnership" liability, vicarious liability for the actions of all members deriving from the actions any individual member and no protection of individual assets by corporate limited liability. This is a complete fucking nightmare from a liability aspect worthy of a first year exam essay in a torts class. If admins and editors grasped the indifference to their interests and well being implicit in this theory they would run away in droves.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
The idea of a separation between Wikia and Wikipedia is like saying Britney's mom should be able to "monitor" her daughter in a neutral and objective way.
I have said this many times, but I will say it again: When there are corporate projects out there bidding dollars with numbers followed by 10 zeros, the greatest divides become one with each other in the universe.
WP will be changed and wrapped up and sold with all content intact. The Foundation, which has very little money, will go along for the ride of a lifetime. Jimmy will, of course, vote with the various boards. Welcome to Google World meets MySpace meets Wikipedia meets Facebook! All one big family!
Posted by: anthony
The line Jimbo keeps using when he describes Wikia is "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia and Wikia is all the rest of the library". I thought the rest of the library was supposed to be the other WMF projects.
Posted by: KamrynMatika
Well, it's hardly surprising that Wikipedia addicts would refuse to believe that there is a conflict of interest present. Their argument seems to be along the lines of, "Oh, so members of the board aren't allowed to participate in other organisations now?!". The nice strawman hyperbole is a clever tactic, but it's pretty clear that:
- Wikia isn't just 'another organisation'
- Jimbo uses events where he is meant to be talking about Wikipedia to promote Wikia
- Angela and Jimbo actively encourage people to post content they posted on Wikipedia to Wikia
- Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of links to Wikia, even though Wikia isn't a reliable source and usually has poor substandard articles
- Wikia links are immune to nofollow
- Blah, blah etc... I don't need to repeat it
However, Wikia doesn't seem to be catching on much in the general public. Wikias are only really frequented by the people who are writing the content.. I doubt that they have much of a readership [apart from perhaps Uncyclopedia].
Posted by: Derktar
Well, it's hardly surprising that Wikipedia addicts would refuse to believe that there is a conflict of interest present. Their argument seems to be along the lines of, "Oh, so members of the board aren't allowed to participate in other organisations now?!". The nice strawman hyperbole is a clever tactic, but it's pretty clear that:
- Wikia isn't just 'another organisation'
- Jimbo uses events where he is meant to be talking about Wikipedia to promote Wikia
- Angela and Jimbo actively encourage people to post content they posted on Wikipedia to Wikia
- Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of links to Wikia, even though Wikia isn't a reliable source and usually has poor substandard articles
- Wikia links are immune to nofollow
- Blah, blah etc... I don't need to repeat it
The only Wikia site that I sometimes use is Wowwiki, and the size of the base can be mostly attributed to the large amount of WoW players that there are.
Posted by: anthony
However, Wikia doesn't seem to be catching on much in the general public.
Its traffic rank according to Alexa is 706, which is pretty high up, but then again that only means about one tenth of one percent of internet users visit the site, compared to 30% for Yahoo or Google.
I could see it going either way, if they stick with copying off Wikipedia and Geocities. If they let Jimbo waste too much of their money on pipe dreams like Openserving and Search Wikia, then dot bombhood is more likely.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
A couple of months ago I spent some time on Wikia looking for examples to bust them of overtly trading on WP's reputation, name, trademark or good faith. What I was looking for was "Based on the same technology as Wikipedia" or "lead by the sole flounder of Wikipedia." There aren't any. None. Which tells me they have seen this issue coming. Of course there is still the reality behind it all, that WP is the only reason why anyone would bother with Wikia.
Also the content was pretty lacking, other than couple exceptions, which include Uncyclopedia. Most of the wikis appear to be abandoned or barely developed.
Posted by: badlydrawnjeff
Are Wikia links still lacking nofollow?
Posted by: guy
A couple of months ago I spent some time on Wikia looking for examples to bust them of overtly trading on WP's reputation, name, trademark or good faith. What I was looking for was "Based on the same technology as Wikipedia" or "lead by the sole flounder of Wikipedia." There aren't any. None.
Where did you look?
http://www.wikia.com/wiki/About_Wikia
Posted by: KamrynMatika
http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikipedia
The Wikia creation policy states that Wikia will not be created if the content would fork the content of Wikipedia or its sister projects. However, wikis that make use of Wikipedia content in a way that Wikipedia would not allow may be permitted. Content can be shared between Wikipedia and Wikia since both are licensed under the GFDL. Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details on how to use Wikipedia's content here.
Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, which Wikia, Inc. supports by advertising its fundraising drives on Wikia.
If you would like to create an encyclopedia in a language not supported by the Wikipedia community, please see Wikia creation policy on encyclopedias.
See the Wikimedia article for an explanation of the relationship between Wikia, Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation.
Two former Wikipedia sites are now hosted by Wikia. See Toki pona encyclopedia and Klingon.
Completely seperate.
Are Wikia links still lacking nofollow?
It depends if they are being included as interwiki links or a link in the external links section. In the World of Warcraft article it appears as:
Posted by: tarantino
I like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=164334430 regarding this subject on Jimbo's talk page.
Folks, the deep reasons for the song-and-dance about never-the-twain-shall-meet are 1) avoiding "self-dealing" between a charity and for-profit corporation 2) getting people to work for free is very difficult and it's dangerous if the idea takes hold that volunteers' work is being monetized. Now, regarding "self-dealing", remember, though Jimmy Wales may present a guru-dreamer image for press interviews, he's a former options-trading firm employee and a reasonably successful Internet businessman. It is absurd to think you're going to catch him committing serious IRS law violations for a trivial amount of money. He's completely clean there. People tend to "think small", imagining bottom-feeding ways of squeezing some chump-change via tawdry tactics like spammy links or penny-ante tax tricks. That's not what it's about.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
A couple of months ago I spent some time on Wikia looking for examples to bust them of overtly trading on WP's reputation, name, trademark or good faith. What I was looking for was "Based on the same technology as Wikipedia" or "lead by the sole flounder of Wikipedia." There aren't any. None.
Where did you look?
http://www.wikia.com/wiki/About_Wikia
Wow, not everywhere apparently. That is the kind of thing I was looking for.
Posted by: thekohser
It's interesting that Jimbo has been not only utterly silent on this Talk page thread, he's been entirely missing from Wikipedia edits. I suspect he's just waiting for the thread to be safely archived, then he'll rejoin Wikipedia.
By the way, if you want a nice example of how some Wikia pages http://humanscience.wikia.com/index.php?title=Maximum_effort_%26_exponential_growth&diff=10575&oldid=8529 too carefully...
Greg
Posted by: The Joy
Wikia's got itself into some trouble with its buying out of the http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Wikia_Move. Even Gil Penchina and Jimbo tried to http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/GuildWiki_talk:Wikia_Move, but, as you can see, the community is planning an open coup d'etat and have ousted their God-King. Lawyers are in play here too with Wikia's tendency to want only GDFL licensed wikis under its power and not the CC by NC or whatever it is.
If you want to see Wikia kill a community, http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/GuildWiki_talk:Wikia_Move!
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
It's interesting that Jimbo has been not only utterly silent on this Talk page thread, he's been entirely missing from Wikipedia edits. I suspect he's just waiting for the thread to be safely archived, then he'll rejoin Wikipedia.
By the way, if you want a nice example of how some Wikia pages http://humanscience.wikia.com/index.php?title=Maximum_effort_%26_exponential_growth&diff=10575&oldid=8529 too carefully...
Greg
I didn't know the Upanishads addressed Wikipedia.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
Wikitruth is getting into this discussion with a http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Double_Bagging:
We contend, quite strongly, that the Wikimedia Foundation should have definitely contested this trademark. A wiki-providing company, with millions of dollars of investment, calling itself "Wikia", is on its very face exploiting the "Wikipedia" trademark for its own gain.
One might ask, why was Wikimedia Foundation's counsel asleep at the switch? The counsel was aggressively playing the Protector of the Wikipedia Trademark role the whole time he was employed by the Foundation, until his resignation took effect on March 31, 2007.
Oh, that's right, I forgot. Brad Patrick was hand-picked by Jimbo, and it would have been inconvenient for him to object to Wikia's trademark application.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
Wikitruth is getting into this discussion with a http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Double_Bagging:
We contend, quite strongly, that the Wikimedia Foundation should have definitely contested this trademark. A wiki-providing company, with millions of dollars of investment, calling itself "Wikia", is on its very face exploiting the "Wikipedia" trademark for its own gain.
One might ask, why was Wikimedia Foundation's counsel asleep at the switch? The counsel was aggressively playing the Protector of the Wikipedia Trademark role the whole time he was employed by the Foundation, until his resignation took effect on March 31, 2007.
Oh, that's right, I forgot. Brad Patrick was hand-picked by Jimbo, and it would have been inconvenient for him to object to Wikia's trademark application.
That is a remarkably high level of critique for Wikitruth. I am impressed with the effort. The problem is that the common origin of both words, "wiki," is not owned by WMF. Still it seems obvious that trading on the good faith and reputation of Wikipedia is the most valuable asset of Wikia, however subtle they are in accomplishing this.
Posted by: thekohser
Wikitruth is getting into this discussion with a http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Double_Bagging:
We contend, quite strongly, that the Wikimedia Foundation should have definitely contested this trademark. A wiki-providing company, with millions of dollars of investment, calling itself "Wikia", is on its very face exploiting the "Wikipedia" trademark for its own gain.
One might ask, why was Wikimedia Foundation's counsel asleep at the switch? The counsel was aggressively playing the Protector of the Wikipedia Trademark role the whole time he was employed by the Foundation, until his resignation took effect on March 31, 2007.
Oh, that's right, I forgot. Brad Patrick was hand-picked by Jimbo, and it would have been inconvenient for him to object to Wikia's trademark application.
That is a remarkably high level of critique for Wikitruth. I am impressed with the effort. The problem is that the common origin of both words, "wiki," is not owned by WMF. Still it seems obvious that trading on the good faith and reputation of Wikipedia is the most valuable asset of Wikia, however subtle they are in accomplishing this.
Speaking of trademarks, I still have the October 8th, 2006 e-mail from "Jwales@wikia.com" that told Wikipedia Review:
The nature of our website's "inappropriate" use of the trademark was to mention the word "Wikipedia" in terms of reference (that these were the types of articles we wrote), plus we used a tiny screenshot of a Wikipedia "before" and "after" page which was intended as a Sandbox demonstration of a blank article page versus one written by Wikipedia Review. The Wikipedia logo was barely visible in the low-quality reduced-size image.
Not to mention, Jimbo had been aware of our website since at least early August 2006, but he waited until a few days after I questioned him about the development of the WP:COI policy (October 5th) to issue a legal complaint against our site.
There was no mention of Wikia on the Wikipedia Review website, so I'm not sure what Jimbo meant by "our trademarks" when he e-mailed me from a Wikia.com address.
Greg
Posted by: Cedric
Speaking of trademarks, I still have the October 8th, 2006 e-mail from "Jwales@wikia.com" that told Wikipedia Review:
The nature of our website's "inappropriate" use of the trademark was to mention the word "Wikipedia" in terms of reference (that these were the types of articles we wrote), plus we used a tiny screenshot of a Wikipedia "before" and "after" page which was intended as a Sandbox demonstration of a blank article page versus one written by Wikipedia Review. The Wikipedia logo was barely visible in the low-quality reduced-size image.
Not to mention, Jimbo had been aware of our website since at least early August 2006, but he waited until a few days after I questioned him about the development of the WP:COI policy (October 5th) to issue a legal complaint against our site.
There was no mention of Wikia on the Wikipedia Review website, so I'm not sure what Jimbo meant by "our trademarks" when he e-mailed me from a Wikia.com address.
Greg
Well Greg, the two things you have remember here are: 1) Jimmy Wales is an ignorant jackass, and 2) Wales is possessed of a near pathological dislike of the fair use doctrine.
Posted by: thekohser
It's been nine days since this discussion about "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikia_doesn.27t_seem_separate" was posted on Jimbo's talk page.
Coincidentally, it has been nine days since Jimbo's last edit on Wikipedia.
I think some WP:CLOWN should put User:Jimbo Wales on the "Missing Wikipedians" list! That would be a hoot.
Greg
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
It's been nine days since this discussion about "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikia_doesn.27t_seem_separate" was posted on Jimbo's talk page.
Coincidentally, it has been nine days since Jimbo's last edit on Wikipedia.
I think some WP:CLOWN should put User:Jimbo Wales on the "Missing Wikipedians" list! That would be a hoot.
Greg
Someone should delete his userpage. WP needs the "disk space" after all.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
It's been nine days since this discussion about "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikia_doesn.27t_seem_separate" was posted on Jimbo's talk page.
Coincidentally, it has been nine days since Jimbo's last edit on Wikipedia.
I think some WP:CLOWN should put User:Jimbo Wales on the "Missing Wikipedians" list! That would be a hoot.
Greg
Someone should delete his userpage. WP needs the "disk space" after all.
Or "Dick Space", as the case may be.
Jonny
Posted by: thekohser
Jonny, I appreciate you trying to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=172639769&oldid=172635893 why Jimbo Wales lies about the management relationships between Wikia and the WMF, but you have to realize that these discussions are never long for the on-Wiki world. They've got these rugs that are so easy to lift, and these brooms that sweep things under so well, you know.
You have to actually http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf out here in the real world to get something of substance to stick.
Nice touch, with the "Earthenwareboat", son of "Earthenboat", son of "Earthboat" accounts. You are one funny man, man.
Greg
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
I almost filled out a 3949A on Mozilla Foundation 18 months ago. The recent news that their CEO, Ms. Mitchell Baker, is pulling in over $500,000 a year in salary and benefits has renewed my interest. See the bottom of http://www.scroogle.org/mozilla.html The other main person at Mozilla is Mitch Kapor, whom Jimbo identified as his hero in that NYT article the other day.
Mozilla Foundation's advance ruling period for 501c(3) ends on December 31. I'm wondering if there's a better alternative to the 3949A for them. I want the IRS to take a closer look at the Mozilla/Google relationship.
The evidence of Mozilla/Google being too close is about a thousand times more outrageous than the Wikia/Wikipedia connection. Everyone knows that the Mozilla/Google contract includes a non-disclosure section because Google always does that. But I contend that the IRS cannot make a reasonable final determination regarding 501c(3) without getting access to that contract.
Greg, are you aware of any names of people at IRS who do the 501c(3) stuff, who might be interested in a complaint letter about Mozilla Foundation. When I say "interested," I don't have a lot of faith in the IRS bureaucracy. All I want is for them to file it in the right place, so that my complaint will be read before the final determination is made on the 501c(3).
With Mozilla, about $13 million in taxes is at issue, plus their ability to solicit tax-deductible donations as a public charity. Any precedent set with Mozilla might be useful when Wikipedia's advance ruling period expires. I don't recall when Wikipedia's clock started. The advance ruling period is five years, with the first year being any portion of a year, no matter how short until the end of that year.
Posted by: thekohser
Greg, are you aware of any names of people at IRS who do the 501c(3) stuff, who might be interested in a complaint letter about Mozilla Foundation. When I say "interested," I don't have a lot of faith in the IRS bureaucracy. All I want is for them to file it in the right place, so that my complaint will be read before the final determination is made on the 501c(3).
I have no names to give you, I'm afraid. I'm more of a "send the form and hope for the best" guy.
Posted by: anthony
I almost filled out a 3949A on Mozilla Foundation 18 months ago. The recent news that their CEO, Ms. Mitchell Baker, is pulling in over $500,000 a year in salary and benefits has renewed my interest. See the bottom of http://www.scroogle.org/mozilla.html The other main person at Mozilla is Mitch Kapor, whom Jimbo identified as his hero in that NYT article the other day.
Mozilla Foundation's advance ruling period for 501c(3) ends on December 31. I'm wondering if there's a better alternative to the 3949A for them. I want the IRS to take a closer look at the Mozilla/Google relationship.
Wow. Looking at Part IV-A, line 17 (of the 2006 990), I have no idea how they can claim that the $28,000,000+ is correctly reported.
Move that figure anywhere except for line 17, and they have no hope of meeting the support test. This is true even if the income is found to be royalty income, which the auditors say has less than a 50% chance of being correct. (That's what it means to fail the "more likely than not" standard.)
Aren't royalties supposed to go on line 18? They claim on the 2005 990 that the revenue is royalties. Then they claim on the 2006 990 that it's "Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or furnishing of facilities". How can both be true?
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
I almost filled out a 3949A on Mozilla Foundation 18 months ago. The recent news that their CEO, Ms. Mitchell Baker, is pulling in over $500,000 a year in salary and benefits has renewed my interest. See the bottom of http://www.scroogle.org/mozilla.html The other main person at Mozilla is Mitch Kapor, whom Jimbo identified as his hero in that NYT article the other day.
Mozilla Foundation's advance ruling period for 501c(3) ends on December 31. I'm wondering if there's a better alternative to the 3949A for them. I want the IRS to take a closer look at the Mozilla/Google relationship.
The evidence of Mozilla/Google being too close is about a thousand times more outrageous than the Wikia/Wikipedia connection. Everyone knows that the Mozilla/Google contract includes a non-disclosure section because Google always does that. But I contend that the IRS cannot make a reasonable final determination regarding 501c(3) without getting access to that contract.
Greg, are you aware of any names of people at IRS who do the 501c(3) stuff, who might be interested in a complaint letter about Mozilla Foundation. When I say "interested," I don't have a lot of faith in the IRS bureaucracy. All I want is for them to file it in the right place, so that my complaint will be read before the final determination is made on the 501c(3).
With Mozilla, about $13 million in taxes is at issue, plus their ability to solicit tax-deductible donations as a public charity. Any precedent set with Mozilla might be useful when Wikipedia's advance ruling period expires. I don't recall when Wikipedia's clock started. The advance ruling period is five years, with the first year being any portion of a year, no matter how short until the end of that year.
A 10% finders fees is available to anyone that is so inclined as to avail themselves of such important tax information. Go for it!
The issue at Wikia and Wikipedia is so simple, in my opinion.
At this point it is such a small number that to litigate it would eat up any of the gain.
The WMF does not have the funds to litigate anything. They would require a great deal of
"donations" for the work. Possible for a future favor?
However, and this is a big however, a merger of WP with one of the big sites could be a nice
transaction for someone in my line of work. (Not the music end of my business.)
