How Jimbo gamed Wikibooks, in 2006 Options

[thekohser]

I felt obligated to raise a rather disturbing set of facts about how Jimmy Wales manipulated Wikibooks policy to his own commercial advantage.

I wonder if anyone at Wikibooks will even notice or care.

[Jon Awbrey]

I felt obligated to raise a rather disturbing set of facts about how Jimmy Wales manipulated Wikibooks policy to his own commercial advantage.

I wonder if anyone at Wikibooks will even notice or care.

One of the main things keeping a con game running is the resistance of marks to kenning they've been conned.

Jon Awbrey

[Abd]

I felt obligated to raise a rather disturbing set of facts about how Jimmy Wales manipulated Wikibooks policy to his own commercial advantage.

I wonder if anyone at Wikibooks will even notice or care.

Somebody will notice, because you raised a big red flag here and started waving it. Pardon me while I duck.

Look, there is a legitimate question there, but you raised it in the same stupid, confrontive way that you've raised many issues. What's your goal, Greg? You just want to piss them off?

You can do it. You've proven that many times. Now what?

Raise the issue of hosting video game manuals, if you care about that. No, I suspect that you don't. I suspect you are looking for mud to toss. Bad habit. It attracts retaliation.

This time, Greg, you won't have anyone to blame but yourself. Jimbo isn't going to helicopter in and zap you with his magic blockaroo, getting everyone incensed. Mike.lifeguard will be watching, laughing. Or maybe he cackles, I don't really know, not having met the fellow.

You could end up proving that Jimbo and Mike were right, as to the banning. Simply not as to how they did it.

You can still recover this. It depends on how you respond to what comes down. Disappearing for a little while would be one device. Gee, I couldn't even check my Talk page or email, I was so busy with Real Life. It's actually a great idea, sometimes. Watch the fireworks and the flying embers from a safe distance.

They won't block you for what you did, not at this point, I believe. But you may well be asked about that post, you already pushed it with your "good luck and good riddance" goodbye for Mike.lifeguard, and how you answer could determine what happens, just speak your mind, Greg, and you are likely to be dead meat, wiki speaking. Silence, they will drop it, they have the attention span of a mosquito.

Hint: if you wanted to raise this issue, besides raising it without mentioning 2006 and Jimbo directly (but you could link to how the policy was established, if it's still policy, I haven't checked that yet), you could suggest to someone else that they raise it, on their own interest. Ideally, you'd have someone who wants to write a Wikibook on a game, ideally the person has it ready to go and people can even see it in user space. And then a decision would be made with something specific to chew on.

What it will be, raised like this ("I just want to know what people think") it cannot possibly produce any change, unless it just happens that the time is right and all you need is the slightest nudge. Almost never happens, even with blatantly obvious Good Ideas.

A real book will be a much better seed crystal.

Then, when someone else brings it up, you could make a quiet comment in support. If there is nobody who would support you on this, you do know that it's purely disruptive to raise it, don't you? Basic rule for long-term success: don't fight battles you can't win.

But, really, is Wikibook the place for this? Why? Why would someone want to put a decent book on a video game on Wikibooks, if they can put it somewhere else and get a little -- or a lot -- of money for it? Wikibooks is for free books. Without even advertising.

Why not put it up on Wikipedia Review? Get the traffic, get the pennies rolling in, right? If it's really good, you could offer to pay for it, right?

[Abd]

Okay, I'll see if I can start a backfire here. There is a point to make that might consume the tinder and keep this from blowing up. Larger issues will be raised.

[Jon Awbrey]

Oh good, yet another installment from Abd-Wan Kenobi's Unsolicited Advice Column —

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Ben_Kenobi.jpg)

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

I felt obligated to raise a rather disturbing set of facts about how Jimmy Wales manipulated Wikibooks policy to his own commercial advantage.

I wonder if anyone at Wikibooks will even notice or care.

This is ironic.

Wales is being accused of trying to influence Wikibooks, when he's (allegedly) got a commercial for-profit motivation. Thus he's using his position at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business, wikia - or at least that's the alleged bad faith we're supposed to read into this.

Oh, now consider.

He's being accused by Gregory Kohs. Kohs has a dispute with Wales over Kohs's own commercial for-profit motivation for using Wikipedia. So now, Kohs is using his ability to post at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business interest, wikipediareview.

So, unless we are supposed to assume Greg's good faith, whilst attributing any perceived motivations of Wales in the worst possible simoniacal light, I call "hypocrite".

[thekohser]

This is ironic.

Wales is being accused of trying to influence Wikibooks, when he's (allegedly) got a commercial for-profit motivation. Thus he's using his position at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business, wikia - or at least that's the alleged bad faith we're supposed to read into this.

Oh, now consider.

He's being accused by Gregory Kohs. Kohs has a dispute with Wales over Kohs's own commercial for-profit motivation for using Wikipedia. So now, Kohs is using his ability to post at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business interest, wikipediareview.

So, unless we are supposed to assume Greg's good faith, whilst attributing any perceived motivations of Wales in the worst possible simoniacal light, I call "hypocrite".

How is my ability to post at Wikibooks in furtherance of my business interest (odd, this "business interest" of mine that costs me about $300 a year, net, to maintain for my friends), Wikipedia Review? (I do prefer the CamelCase, Doc.)

And I'll apologize in advance if I've somehow forgotten the $4 million venture investment in Wikipedia Review from Bessemer Partners and the $10 million second round from Amazon. I mean, if that were the case, with so much to gain by manipulating a Wikimedia wiki, sheesh, I'd have to say I really was a hypocrite.



Is anybody else here as boneheaded as Doc, that they truly believe that Wikipedia Review is my "business"?

[Jon Awbrey]

This is ironic.

Wales is being accused of trying to influence Wikibooks, when he's (allegedly) got a commercial for-profit motivation. Thus he's using his position at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business, wikia - or at least that's the alleged bad faith we're supposed to read into this.

Oh, now consider.

He's being accused by Gregory Kohs. Kohs has a dispute with Wales over Kohs's own commercial for-profit motivation for using Wikipedia. So now, Kohs is using his ability to post at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business interest, wikipediareview.

So, unless we are supposed to assume Greg's good faith, whilst attributing any perceived motivations of Wales in the worst possible simoniacal light, I call "hypocrite".

How is my ability to post at Wikibooks in furtherance of my business interest (odd, this "business interest" of mine that costs me about $300 a year, net, to maintain for my friends), Wikipedia Review? (I do prefer the CamelCase, Doc.)

And I'll apologize in advance if I've somehow forgotten the $4 million venture investment in Wikipedia Review from Bessemer Partners and the $10 million second round from Amazon. I mean, if that were the case, with so much to gain by manipulating a Wikimedia wiki, sheesh, I'd have to say I really was a hypocrite.

Is anybody else here as boneheaded as Doc, that they truly believe that Wikipedia Review is my "business"?

You forget your audience — of course there is.

The history of the "dispute", the rules that were in place when you first started to work on Wikipedia, the astounding lack of integrity that Wales displays at every turn of the screw, the way he thinks he can brush off every breach of faith with a wave of his grubby hand — none of that makes any dent in the skulls of the craven shills who have come to infest this site.

Jon Awbrey

[Milton Roe]

This is ironic.

Wales is being accused of trying to influence Wikibooks, when he's (allegedly) got a commercial for-profit motivation. Thus he's using his position at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business, wikia - or at least that's the alleged bad faith we're supposed to read into this.

Oh, now consider.

He's being accused by Gregory Kohs. Kohs has a dispute with Wales over Kohs's own commercial for-profit motivation for using Wikipedia. So now, Kohs is using his ability to post at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business interest, wikipediareview.

So, unless we are supposed to assume Greg's good faith, whilst attributing any perceived motivations of Wales in the worst possible simoniacal light, I call "hypocrite".

How is my ability to post at Wikibooks in furtherance of my business interest (odd, this "business interest" of mine that costs me about $300 a year, net, to maintain for my friends), Wikipedia Review? (I do prefer the CamelCase, Doc.)

And I'll apologize in advance if I've somehow forgotten the $4 million venture investment in Wikipedia Review from Bessemer Partners and the $10 million second round from Amazon. I mean, if that were the case, with so much to gain by manipulating a Wikimedia wiki, sheesh, I'd have to say I really was a hypocrite.



Is anybody else here as boneheaded as Doc, that they truly believe that Wikipedia Review is my "business"?

It might be your business, yet make no money. However, we all are sure, Kohs, that you control a "charitable foundation" from which you siphon content, depend upon to make you exorbitatant speakers' fees, and to which you rent server space, and charge the tab on everything from expensive wines, to train trips to see hookers.

Aha, you say, where is this giant multimillion dollar a year charitable tax-free thing? Well, give me time. I'm sure I can find it around the net somewhere. And when I do, I'm going to embarrass the hell out of you for taking advantage of the taxpayer, and so many contributors-of-their-free-time. Yes, I will.

Go get him, Doc. We've got him on the run, because I can smell the rottenness from him. Kohs, you immoral bastard.

[Doc glasgow]

This is ironic.

Wales is being accused of trying to influence Wikibooks, when he's (allegedly) got a commercial for-profit motivation. Thus he's using his position at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business, wikia - or at least that's the alleged bad faith we're supposed to read into this.

Oh, now consider.

He's being accused by Gregory Kohs. Kohs has a dispute with Wales over Kohs's own commercial for-profit motivation for using Wikipedia. So now, Kohs is using his ability to post at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business interest, wikipediareview.

So, unless we are supposed to assume Greg's good faith, whilst attributing any perceived motivations of Wales in the worst possible simoniacal light, I call "hypocrite".

How is my ability to post at Wikibooks in furtherance of my business interest (odd, this "business interest" of mine that costs me about $300 a year, net, to maintain for my friends), Wikipedia Review? (I do prefer the CamelCase, Doc.)

And I'll apologize in advance if I've somehow forgotten the $4 million venture investment in Wikipedia Review from Bessemer Partners and the $10 million second round from Amazon. I mean, if that were the case, with so much to gain by manipulating a Wikimedia wiki, sheesh, I'd have to say I really was a hypocrite.



Is anybody else here as boneheaded as Doc, that they truly believe that Wikipedia Review is my "business"?

Your vendetta against Wales originated in the fact he refused to let you use Wikipedia to make money, because it was against what he saw as its charitable ethos - so you now accuse him of attempting to do the same, ignoring its charitable ethos.

The difference is only he was accusing you of minor misuse of Wikipedia's purpose, you are accusing him of what would be a criminal misuse of Charitable funds. Your evidence? Oh, yes. He's evil, and you don't like him, so assume the worst.


(If Wikipedia Review is losing money, perhaps that suggests you also share his entrepreneurial incompetence - last I heard Wikia was hardly in the money either!)

[CharlotteWebb]

Is anybody else here as boneheaded as Doc, that they truly believe that Wikipedia Review is my "business"?

I'll admit I thought that's what the root words of the name were meant to imply. You know, in addition to operating through a wiki (NTTAWTT).

[dogbiscuit]

Is anybody else here as boneheaded as Doc, that they truly believe that Wikipedia Review is my "business"?

I'll admit I thought that's what the root words of the name were meant to imply. You know, in addition to operating through a wiki (NTTAWTT).

I am not the longest serving member of the site, and at times I have also publicly bemoaned Greg's blind spot in how to make his case without shooting himself in the foot, but one thing that Greg has never been in this is hypocritical.

Greg openly set up an editing service that allowed companies to have a presence on Wikipedia. Remember that Wikimedia is a 230 protected organisation and is not a publisher, it is just providing a platform. Greg went to some lengths to sort out rules of engagement. He was arbitrarily banned from contributing, and he was and still is libelled by the Wikipedian community who have consistently misrepresented what Greg was doing.

I have always thought that Greg was highly moral in the way he set up Wikipedia Review. It is entirely open, he makes it very clear that it is a business, and he does not improperly take advantage of charitable trust status for the furtherance of his private gain.

While I agree that there is a contradiction between treating Wikipedia as a knowledge based charity and seeking to make a business around it, Greg was always clear that he wanted that to be a business compatible with the right minded aims of Wikipedia, and part of that service was ensuring that there was accurate information about companies in Wikipedia.

[Avirosa]

So, unless we are supposed to assume Greg's good faith, whilst attributing any perceived motivations of Wales in the worst possible simoniacal light, I call "hypocrite".

Hypocrisy (whether present or not) is irrelevant, GK has given evidence of his claim and an indication of what institutional wrong needs to be address:

Now, I see that the current [[Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks|"What Wikibooks is not" policy]] includes two distinct recommendations to displace content from here (Fiction/Literature and Primary research) to Wikia, Inc. sites. Is anyone familiar with the notion of "self-dealing" when it comes to non-profit charity governance?

The transfer of assets (in the case of a Wiki the asset base is primarily its content) from a non profit taking entity to a profit taking entity should only be undertaken within defined terms if the npte is to protect itself against charges of incompetence or corruption. Of course any Wikia business, or Wiki hoster operation can act as a 'scraper' using the figleaf of licence agreemnt, but that doesn't excuse a publicly supported npte from actively facilitating the scrape - or in this case, gift of original copy.

A.virosa

[dogbiscuit]

So, unless we are supposed to assume Greg's good faith, whilst attributing any perceived motivations of Wales in the worst possible simoniacal light, I call "hypocrite".

Hypocrisy (whether present or not) is irrelevant,

What is interesting is that Doc is Koolaiding in his argument. Assuming good faith or not is also an irrelevance, there are tangible facts to be assessed - this is not something that needs to be assessed in terms of supplication to the GodKing.

AGF is one of the most manipulated and distorted terms on Wikipedia, and is usually the red flag for "ignore the facts that are staring you in the face".

It is interesting that Wikipedia can be so manipulated that simply because Greg raises a valid, fact based and researched issue, it can, and must be dismissed simply because of Greg raising it. ABF, indeed.

[Jon Awbrey]

I think this is probably another one of those cross-the-pond things.

See Ex Post Facto

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

Firstly, I am not accusing Greg of breaking any laws, or having any hidden agenda, with Wikipedia Review.

I'm simply saying:

1) that it would be best to say "hey Jimmy, this doesn't look too good can you explain it?", before assuming he's deliberately engineered it. Two things happened - a) Jimmy (and, presumably others) felt this material unsuitable for a WMF project. b) Jimmy's Wikia took the/similar material and made a success of it. Now - post hoc, ergo propter hoc? And, even if so, did the result influence the initial decision? In short, was their a "loss" to the charity (removing inappropriate material would not be a loss), and if there was a loss, was it engineered so as to profit a trustee? Where's the beef?

2) as for Kohs. His vendetta - and it is that - is motivated by his frustrated (even if legitimate) attempt to gain through Wikipedia. Thus he's hardly the best judge of Jimmy's good or bad motives. Neither, perhaps, are those here who constantly believe anything bad or conspiratorial about Jimmy.

The accusation that I'm "drinking the kool-aid" rather supports my case. Anyone who's followed my interactions with Wikipedia knows that I'm not exactly a great fan of Jimbo or (for that matter) of Wikipedia. But it appears that the logic is now that anyone who doesn't buy 100% into the latest evil-Jimbo conspiracy is obviously an irrational sycophant. Might I suggest that there's some anti-Jimbo kool-aid being drunk here too?

[dogbiscuit]

The accusation that I'm "drinking the kool-aid" rather supports my case. Anyone who's followed my interactions with Wikipedia knows that I'm not exactly a great fan of Jimbo or (for that matter) of Wikipedia. But it appears that the logic is now that anyone who doesn't buy 100% into the latest evil-Jimbo conspiracy is obviously an irrational sycophant. Might I suggest that there's some anti-Jimbo kool-aid being drunk here too?

I was just interested that you, known as an independent thinker, chose to express the argument in terms of good faith which, for me, is one of the most irritating mis-directions on Wikipedia. The feeling your post gave was that you were expressing the problem in the typical Wikipedian talk page way. I imagine a Wikipedian reading your post and simply seeing the AGF and switching off, no more to be considered.

Wikipedian antics get under everybody's skin, but I was especially surprised that you had chosen that form which suggested to me that you've perhaps been reading Wikipedian talk pages for too long.

I don't disagree that it is easy to dismiss Greg's points because of the way he presented them, I simply observe that you chose the language of Wikipedia to express the point.

[Jon Awbrey]

Yes, Doc, it appears that you've been so long at The Unfair that you simply can't tell Fair Play from Unfair Play anymore. Aside from your incompetent mis-sequencing of events as they happened, in that all too contemptibly familiar Wikipediot Minority Report fashion, and your blithe ignoring of the vastly different levels of power that are involved in the Abuse of Power, you fail to recognize the basic principles of Fair Dealing, like no after-the-fact crimination, that people of integrity take for granted.

As for the pretension that Jimbo does what he does out of some remotely consistent Ethos of the Project —

Seriously, Doc, you oughta have that looked at.

Jon Awbrey

[Doc glasgow]

The accusation that I'm "drinking the kool-aid" rather supports my case. Anyone who's followed my interactions with Wikipedia knows that I'm not exactly a great fan of Jimbo or (for that matter) of Wikipedia. But it appears that the logic is now that anyone who doesn't buy 100% into the latest evil-Jimbo conspiracy is obviously an irrational sycophant. Might I suggest that there's some anti-Jimbo kool-aid being drunk here too?

I was just interested that you, known as an independent thinker, chose to express the argument in terms of good faith which, for me, is one of the most irritating mis-directions on Wikipedia. The feeling your post gave was that you were expressing the problem in the typical Wikipedian talk page way. I imagine a Wikipedian reading your post and simply seeing the AGF and switching off, no more to be considered.

Wikipedian antics get under everybody's skin, but I was especially surprised that you had chosen that form which suggested to me that you've perhaps been reading Wikipedian talk pages for too long.

I don't disagree that it is easy to dismiss Greg's points because of the way he presented them, I simply observe that you chose the language of Wikipedia to express the point.

I've found that assuming good faith, at least until the person has been invited to explain their actions, generally has some traction beyond wikipedia's talk pages. Greg has (perhaps) shown a set of circumstances, which could be construed in a negative way. That doesn't show anything much. Maybe it shows a certain naivety, but nothing much else. It is possible Jimmy is a crook, but this isn't a smoking gun.

[thekohser]

I'm simply saying:

1) that it would be best to say "hey Jimmy, this doesn't look too good can you explain it?", before assuming he's deliberately engineered it.

I would absolutely love to do that, except that Jimbo has ignored every one of my e-mails since about a year ago, and he's "globally banned" me from Wikimedia projects. So, how to ask him to explain it? (Also, if you would have actually read the links I provided, you would have seen that Rob Horning, on April 23, 2006, said "For Jimbo to add this policy out of the blue like this, without any discussion or even what his mindset is on this issue is totally beyond reason. ...I would welcome a reasonable and thoughtful conversation about this issue, but drastic changes like this one are too much, especially if done by one person... even if that person is Jimbo himself. Even a slight longer explaination here in this talk page would have been incredibly useful, to even explain motiviations....")

Take a wild guess, Doc, as to whether Jimbo deigned to participate in that discussion to "explain it".

Two things happened - a) Jimmy (and, presumably others) felt this material unsuitable for a WMF project. b) Jimmy's Wikia took the/similar material and made a success of it. Now - post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

Yes, I believe so. Explain to me why the only period where a decline in Wikia links from Wikipedia occurred was the two-month period (August-September 2006) where I was pointing out Wales' hypocrisy to the Wikipedia community; then after I was removed by Wales from that forum of discussion, Wikia links skyrocketed, all out of proportion to Wikipedia's natural growth rate?

And, even if so, did the result influence the initial decision? In short, was their a "loss" to the charity (removing inappropriate material would not be a loss), and if there was a loss, was it engineered so as to profit a trustee? Where's the beef?

Spoken like a true Wikipediot.

2) as for Kohs. His vendetta - and it is that - is motivated by his frustrated (even if legitimate) attempt to gain through Wikipedia. Thus he's hardly the best judge of Jimmy's good or bad motives. Neither, perhaps, are those here who constantly believe anything bad or conspiratorial about Jimmy.

So, you're an expert at recognizing a conflict of interest to explain motivation, if it surrounds me; but you are mind-numbingly blind if the same conflict of interest to explain motivation surrounds Jimmy Wales. Got it, Doc.

P.S. Thank you to Jon, Milton, and Dogbiscuit and others for seeing the correct viewpoint on all of this.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Adrignola]

As interesting as Abd's theory of the tinderbox is, knowing the Wikibooks community as I do, I don't think anything will come of it. Policy discussions there are pretty much dead and I've not seen a new policy approved or an approved policy heavily revised and reapproved. To continue the metaphor, we're all out of matches.

What I have heard anecdotally from others who've been there longer than myself is that the video game guide book purge resulted in a measurable decrease in project participation. That's too bad. At the start of the next month another administrator will be removed due to inactivity, bringing the total to ten, an all-time low. Wikibooks is larger than Wikiquote, Wikinews, and Wikiversity. Using a toolserver tool's measure of active admins, they have 6, 20, and 6 respectively in comparison to Wikibooks' 7.

Maybe the video game guides were Wikibooks' golden goose?

[Doc glasgow]

Whatever.

I just see you, a sad man, with a vendetta.

[dogbiscuit]

I've found that assuming good faith, at least until the person has been invited to explain their actions, generally has some traction beyond wikipedia's talk pages. Greg has (perhaps) shown a set of circumstances, which could be construed in a negative way. That doesn't show anything much. Maybe it shows a certain naivety, but nothing much else. It is possible Jimmy is a crook, but this isn't a smoking gun.

That doesn't really stack up as an argument though. Jimbo has a long track record of self-interest in his personal dealings with the WMF, including his statement of being an Objectivist which I take as an intellectually dishonest way of stating that there is no need to take account of others. With respect to Wikia, there is a long track record of inappropriate dealings - many petty, but inappropriate all the same. In that context, pretending that we start afresh and assume the best is naive.

If the rule was "no manuals on WikiBooks" and some happen to end up on Wikia, then that's fine, but it is not the case. Just games, and send them to Wikia, all seems rather odd.

In the real world, good faith is earned or assumed in two ways - by reputation or when no other evidence exists. I don't see that applies. I agree that you get more bees with honey than vinegar, but you also get wasps.

[thekohser]

Whatever.

I just see you, a sad man, with a vendetta.

You've scored one with the "vendetta". Yeah, it's a vendetta against an easy target that is obviously nefariously manipulating others to personally profit. Geez, I've chosen such an inappropriate target, huh, Doc?

As for "sad", though... you've missed the mark. I'm having a ball with life. Family, career, activities, this hilarious crowd here at WR (you excepted, of course, Serious Doc), community service, my output on various wiki projects, personal expression on blogs and Examiner.com... all add up to "happy", as far as I'm concerned.

Doc, remind us again, what do you do with yourself outside of Wikipedia Review?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Greg openly set up an editing service that allowed companies to have a presence on Wikipedia. Remember that Wikimedia is a 230 protected organisation and is not a publisher, it is just providing a platform. Greg went to some lengths to sort out rules of engagement. He was arbitrarily banned from contributing, and he was and still is libelled by the Wikipedian community who have consistently misrepresented what Greg was doing.

It is probably worth pointing out that many companies and individuals make money out of charities. The voluntary sector is a vast consumer of services of all sorts from accounting to consulting to advertising and PR.

In real world terms, it is all really no big deal. It is just a tiny PR contract proven as successful on the ground that the articles stuck.

The spit of bile of the Pornopedians, from Jimbo down, is aimed at Kohs merely because he got the price of a few drinks off someone whilst they are getting nothing. It has nothing to do with ethics or rational logic.

And it laughable when the ex-Porn King Jimmy Wales is ripping product endorsement fees and $70,000 per night speaker's fee off corporations.

I think all works should be paid and even voluntary workers be offered expenses and benefits.

[Doc glasgow]

Doc, remind us again, what do you do with yourself outside of Wikipedia Review?

Well, I haven't much time, what with three daily masses for Jimbo's soul.


(edit) sorry, should have capitalised Masses, sorry Ottova!

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Somey]

Yes, I believe so. Explain to me why the only period where a decline in Wikia links from Wikipedia occurred was the two-month period (August-September 2006) where I was pointing out Wales' hypocrisy to the Wikipedia community; then after I was removed by Wales from that forum of discussion, Wikia links skyrocketed, all out of proportion to Wikipedia's natural growth rate?

Interesting graph... There were a lot of things that were going on around that time that might have contributed to this, but the thing that really triggered it was their decision (not long after the Kohs block(s)) to add the "nofollow" tag to all outgoing links, except the ones to Wikia and a handful of other "trusted" sites, most of which were "friendly" non-commercial wikis, many of which were being run by Wikipedians. That had two effects - it disincentivized SEO people from adding links to their own sites, but it also sent a subtle message to Wikipedians that Wikia was "okay" and "trusted," and therefore "safe to link to."

So with this graph, Mr. Kohs may be trying to suggest that his being blocked was an additional (and not necessarily subtle) message to The Faithful that if anyone objected to this state of affairs, they would no longer be welcome on Wikipedia. Obviously it's a rather self-centered suggestion on his part, but I don't think it's entirely unwarranted - a LOT of people were pissed off about the "nofollow" tags and still are, and Kohs was one of the few people suggesting an ulterior motive for them (i.e., besides it being simply an attempt to reduce the amount of spamming that was going on).

Having said that, I would actually have to agree with Jimbo that a site like Wikibooks can't really allow fiction and primary-source material - otherwise it would be an open invitation to a crap-flood, which might easily outstrip the amount of "legitimate" public-domain book content that they (apparently) want.

As for video games, that's a bit more tricky. It would depend on the nature of the material - if you look at the Wikia for Halo, for example, there's an entire category devoted to books, but these are articles about the books, not the books themselves (though if you actually might consider reading any of the books, don't read the articles, as they're basically nothing but spoilers). Regardless, I should think that any legitimate book or manual for a video game would fall under some sort of existing copyright, wouldn't it? They'd all have been written after, say, 1980, or 1975 at the earliest. So if Wikibooks is supposed to contain the text of actual books... I'd say the only ones they could really carry would be manuals for games that are no longer being produced, and for which the game's publisher has expressly released the manual into the public domain. In those cases I'd say Wikibooks would be a perfectly appropriate hosting site. There are probably a few of those out there, but I'd be hard-pressed to come up with any actual titles, not being much of a "gamer" myself.

Interesting problem - all in all, I'd have to say these "policies" (more like decrees) were probably necessary - again, to avoid crap-floods. But the fact that Wikia/Jimbo is the primary beneficiary looks pretty bad. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't engineer things that way, though at least they were sort of subtle about it (Mr. Kohs' block notwithstanding).

[Milton Roe]

Interesting problem - all in all, I'd have to say these "policies" (more like decrees) were probably necessary - again, to avoid crap-floods. But the fact that Wikia/Jimbo is the primary beneficiary looks pretty bad. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't engineer things that way, though at least they were sort of subtle about it (Mr. Kohs' block notwithstanding).

Of course they engineer it, and give the reason as preventing "crap floods." But crap floods in other areas (biographies of minor sports people, Pokemon) are actively protected (save for the rare plagarism and copyright infringement case) by simply citing WP:NOTPAPER. That's the "get out of jail free" card for infinite fanboy expansion of any non-money generating topic on WP.

And to tell the truth, WP:NOTPAPER actually has a point. Since it's not paper, WP really has no legitimate concern with "crap explosions," so long as its servers can handle the amount of content-- which I've seen no evidence is a problem. And so long as the material is digested and indexed properly. A properly-constructed encyclopedia built along WP:SS can contain knowledge down to any level of detail that anybody wants to put in, and it will can possess absolutely no bother or problem to those interested in skimming and summarizing at higher levels. Since it's not paper, a reader doesn't need to ever see or feel or get hampered by the footnotes and minutia. It's not only NOT like a paper encyclopedia, it's not even like a library of paper documents. The crap can be totally invisible and out of sight and mind, unless you want dig for it by successive linking. There's beauty in this! That was the original idea behind HTTP and HTML-- that all human knowledge would eventually be sorted or semi-sorted in this way. It sure as hell wasn't WP's idea. All Sanger contributed was the idea of crowd-sourcing the work to do it.

But now, turn this around and you see there really isn't any legitimate reason to make anything on WP disappear, only to re-appear on Wikia. We really should have two words for "scrape"-- one which means "copy," and the other that means "copy to THERE, followed by erase HERE." Like what happened to the Klingon Wikipedia.

Even today, although there's much Trek-related info on WP (enough to give the appearance of impartiality), it is still true that something with the detailed level of information possible at Memory Alpha, ends up getting deleted, with the suggestion the the poster go to Wikia and Memory Alpha. Which is to say, to a site that will eventually use it to pay a tiny bit of money to Jimmy Wales every time somebody looks at it.

Doc glasgow, you want to refute this?

The fact that WMF and its Koolaiders have actually convinced themselves of a need to limit the scope of WP, and to "disappear and deport" some of the rest to Wikia FOR ANY REASON whatsoever, is actually a masterpiece of psychological manipulation by Wales. He's got everybody at WMF (including board members who get NO MONEY) that it's ENTIRELY reasonable that WP be limited in scope, and that some of what it "can't handle" should go to Wikia instead! Even though this makes absolutely NO rational or logical sense.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) It boggles my mind. Even pretty smart people like WMF board member Sam Klein/Sj (not to be confused with Essjay) are totally fooled. And nobody else is going to go against Jimbo, even if they do have an itchy glimmering that something is not right about the incestuous relation between WMF and Wikia.

MR

P.S. I don't really care if Wikia has not made a profit on paper. Have you ever heard of a venture which made little or no profit, yet from which the owners and controllers individually still profitted anyway (even as investors and the IRS got screwed)? Not to shock you, but it happens.

I'm sure Jimbo draws a very nice salary from Wikia, though of course I can't tell you want it is. And god knows what his expense account over there looks like, without an effective COO to keep his fingers out of the pie, as happend at WMF.

[thekohser]

Yes, I believe so. Explain to me why the only period where a decline in Wikia links from Wikipedia occurred was the two-month period (August-September 2006) where I was pointing out Wales' hypocrisy to the Wikipedia community; then after I was removed by Wales from that forum of discussion, Wikia links skyrocketed, all out of proportion to Wikipedia's natural growth rate?

Interesting graph...

I'm happy that the graph was interesting to you. All factual data. The fun was in attributing the causal relationship. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Adrignola]

So if Wikibooks is supposed to contain the text of actual books... I'd say the only ones they could really carry would be manuals for games that are no longer being produced, and for which the game's publisher has expressly released the manual into the public domain. In those cases I'd say Wikibooks would be a perfectly appropriate hosting site.

Emphasis mine.

I'm afraid you're getting Wikibooks and Wikisource confused. While Wikisource hosts public domain books and public domain materials, Wikibooks is CC-BY-SA licensed and policies prohibit it from being a repository for source texts. Any game manuals were written by the players for the players. They are very similar projects in theory, but the licensing difference and Wikisource's alignment with Project Gutenberg are what differentiate it with Wikibooks. What is Wikibooks? Wikibooks encourages dynamic collaboration to improve upon content created by contributors rather than a hosting of static content already published and simply formatted and proofread.

[Somey]

I'm afraid you're getting Wikibooks and Wikisource confused. While Wikisource hosts public domain books and public domain materials, Wikibooks is CC-BY-SA licensed and policies prohibit it from being a repository for source texts. Any game manuals were written by the players for the players. They are very similar projects in theory, but the licensing difference and Wikisource's alignment with Project Gutenberg are what differentiate it with Wikibooks. What is Wikibooks? Wikibooks encourages dynamic collaboration to improve upon content created by contributors rather than a hosting of static content already published and simply formatted and proofread.

Ahh, okay, sorry. I just figured people had been taking existing game manuals, uploading them to Wikibooks and improving on them (or trying to), but you're saying the game manuals people were doing on Wikibooks were completely original? If anything, that makes Jimbo's decision to prohibit them (while welcoming them at Wikia) even more suspicious. And yes, that would definitely mean reduced participation in general at Wikibooks - for all intents and purposes, gamers are the core demographic for all of Wikiland.

[Somey]

I'm happy that the graph was interesting to you. All factual data. The fun was in attributing the causal relationship. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Well, that's just it - I'm agreeing with you that there was a causal relationship. My only point is that it probably wasn't a direct causal relationship, but like I say, you were probably the first and most prominent among us to point out the fact that Wikia sites were nearly all included on the exempt-from-nofollow-tags "whitelist."

And yet, what sort of content do you find on Wikia? An entire month after I noticed it and reported it here, there's still an entire Wikia devoted to the question, "What age can a child squirt?" If you link to that NSFW set of pages from Wikipedia, there won't be a "nofollow" tag, but if you link to, say, the Chronicle of Higher Education website or Harvard University, sorry, no Google-juice for them. (They might accidentally squirt it! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) )

"Safe" and "trusted" my ass! They don't even check their own content!

Anyway, I didn't want to just rely on my memory for the timing of all these events, so I checked - and yes, all of this was nearly simultaneous.

January 12, 2007
January 20, 2007 (nofollow tags "turned on")
February 2, 2007

IIRC, this was followed by a great deal of negotiating, during which Mr. Kohs was asked to stop criticizing WP so much in exchange for being unblocked. At one point, I believe he actually agreed to some of these conditions - and in fact, was unblocked by Jimbo himself on 23 March, only to be blocked again a week later by Samuel Blanning for making a "legal threat" when he referred to a libelous statement made by User:Durova as a "libelous statement."

[jayvdb]

I'm afraid you're getting Wikibooks and Wikisource confused. While Wikisource hosts public domain books and public domain materials, Wikibooks is CC-BY-SA licensed and policies prohibit it from being a repository for source texts. Any game manuals were written by the players for the players. They are very similar projects in theory, but the licensing difference and Wikisource's alignment with Project Gutenberg are what differentiate it with Wikibooks. What is Wikibooks? Wikibooks encourages dynamic collaboration to improve upon content created by contributors rather than a hosting of static content already published and simply formatted and proofread.

Ahh, okay, sorry. I just figured people had been taking existing game manuals, uploading them to Wikibooks and improving on them (or trying to), but you're saying the game manuals people were doing on Wikibooks were completely original? If anything, that makes Jimbo's decision to prohibit them (while welcoming them at Wikia) even more suspicious. And yes, that would definitely mean reduced participation in general at Wikibooks - for all intents and purposes, gamers are the core demographic for all of Wikiland.

Wikibooks should be textbooks only, and to hell with existing demographics or pageviews of Wikimedia projects or of Wikia. Sending this crap to Wikia (or anywhere else) helps to define the culture of Wikibooks, which should be a quieter environment for people motivated to write textbooks.

If wikimedia projects are favouring Wikia over other similar Wiki hosts, then we have problem. It isn't necessarily a problem which can be blamed on Jimbo, unless he is actively promoting and protecting a practise of favouring Wikia on Wikimedia projects. If there is favouring going on, it is more likely that the community feel that Wikia is a closer ally due to overlap in the communities, or simply because wikimedians want Jimbo's project to succeed. OTOH, Jimbo/Wikia should be actively ensuring that there is no favouritism occurring, in order to be seen to be avoiding the possibility of unfairly profiting due to overlap in the boards and community.

btw, does anyone know who holds executive roles at Wikia; I can't seem to find a page on Wikia.com that provides a list of people who are responsible at Wikia. Jimmy Wales says he is currently the president of Wikia, but Wikia says that he is the chairman, and that Gil Penchina is the CEO.

[Doc glasgow]

Jimbo/Wikia should be actively ensuring that there is no favouritism occurring, in order to be seen to be avoiding the possibility of unfairly profiting due to overlap in the boards and community.

I don't think it is Wikia's role to ensure it doesn't get favourable treatment. Most commercial organisations will take whatever they can get.

OTOH, it is the role of the WMF (including Jimbo wearing his WMF hat) to make sure its charitable assets are not being used to benefit a commercial organisation at the expense of the goals of the charity.

The last bit is important. "at the expense of the goals of the charity". If Wikia is by its very nature a good place to link to or favour, then that would by OK. If, however, a bias towards it means that operational decisions are made, where if there were no bias evidently better ones would follow, then we have a problem.

[jayvdb]

Jimbo/Wikia should be actively ensuring that there is no favouritism occurring, in order to be seen to be avoiding the possibility of unfairly profiting due to overlap in the boards and community.

I don't think it is Wikia's role to ensure it doesn't get favourable treatment. Most commercial organisations will take whatever they can get.

OTOH, it is the role of the WMF (including Jimbo wearing his WMF hat) to make sure its charitable assets are not being used to benefit a commercial organisation at the expense of the goals of the charity.

The last bit is important. "at the expense of the goals of the charity". If Wikia is by its very nature a good place to link to or favour, then that would by OK. If, however, a bias towards it means that operational decisions are made, where if there were no bias evidently better ones would follow, then we have a problem.

It was Jimbo who I was thinking of mostly when I said 'Jimbo/Wikia', as he is the only person that appears to have an active role in both, as best as I can quickly tell. I agree that it is the WMF which is legally accountable for this, however I doubt that they legally accountable unless they are involved in the favouritism; in the case of the 'community' making decisions which result in favouritism, it makes more sense to me that Wikia should be the one to keep tabs on whether or not it is unduly benefiting from the relationship; by being proactive and transparent about this, they avoid the clearly beneficial relationship from being buggered up.

Also, 'at the expense of the goals of the charity' is not the only potential problem here. The others are arrangements which are designed to divert money to the WMF executive, either directly or indirectly, and there could be a case for anti-competition as well. For example, if WMF developed mediawiki enhancements that are more suitable to Wikia than their competitors, this results in Wikia not needing to pay resources to do this, and thus having an unfair market advantage; or if the code repository gatekeepers (who are WMF employees) rejected patches from other sources, this increases the maintenance and upgrade costs for Wikia competitors. IMO, strong long-lived ties between non-profits and corporations are best avoided.

[thekohser]

You guys are missing/forgetting many of the additional linkages between Wikia and the WMF.

I might elaborate later, but if you could so easily forget that Wikia co-founder Angela Beesley was the chair of the WMF Advisory Board, the office space rental scam, and the Omidyar-bought board seat (Omidyar invested start-up cash in Wikia), then I'm not sure my effort is worth it.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Kelly Martin]

The simple fact is that nobody really cares about Jimbo's "misconduct" in this regard. Americans expect corporate leaders to cheat like this; nobody is surprised by it and nobody sees any point in doing anything about it because his replacement isn't likely to be any better.

[Jon Awbrey]

You guys are missing/forgetting many of the additional linkages between Wikia and the WMF.

I might elaborate later, but if you could so easily forget that Wikia co-founder Angela Beesley was the chair of the WMF Advisory Board, the office space rental scam, and the Omidyar-bought board seat (Omidyar invested start-up cash in Wikia), then I'm not sure my effort is worth it.

Not to mention the whole culture that is being cultivated at Jimbo's Wiki-Peanut Plantataion (aka Wiki-Pharmville). Every serfile wiki-peon — like MikeyLifey or MrOllie — knows the juice they get from keeping all the links as internal to Wiki(a)pedia as possible.

Now we all know that there's such a thing as real spam, but anyone who watches one of these Wikiaphidlers for any length of time knows that their antics go way beyond defending against spam, to the point where they disserve Readers, Learners, Contributors, and Society itself, all the things that the Wikimedia Foundation claims to justify their tax-advantaged status as an Educational Charity.

Jon Awbrey

[Avirosa]

I don't think it is Wikia's role to ensure it doesn't get favourable treatment. Most commercial organisations will take whatever they can get.

So you wouldn’t expect to be prosecuted for receiving stolen goods ? Corporations whether profit making or non profit making have a responsibility to ensure that their members (the Board) act in ways that do not do make the Corporation party to illegal or improper acts. As a for profit corporation Wikia would be equally as culpable as any of its board members acting individualiy, if it (Wikia) was to be benefiting from private inurement achieved through self dealing by any of its board members, or even if it were merely facilitating that inurement for those individual board members. Whether or not there may be criminal sanction under US Law in the suggested circumstance, is not obvious to me, however in the described circumstance the WMF would certainly have a Civil claim against both its inuring directors/officers/employees and Wikia. To avoid liability Wikia would have to show that it acted both in good faith and that it could not reasonably have known that its board member(s) were cheating WMF.

OTOH, it is the role of the WMF (including Jimbo wearing his WMF hat) to make sure its charitable assets are not being used to benefit a commercial organisation at the expense of the goals of the charity.

The last bit is important. "at the expense of the goals of the charity". If Wikia is by its very nature a good place to link to or favour, then that would by OK. If, however, a bias towards it means that operational decisions are made, where if there were no bias evidently better ones would follow, then we have a problem.

That is not the limit of what is required of a registered tax exempt corporation in the US. In fact using the term charity is confusing because it evokes the UK system which differs in may respects from the US. The operative regulation for WMP is the IRS code on Tax Exempt Organizations http://www.irs.gov/charities/content/0,,id=96986,00.html . A condition of tax exemption is the absolute avoidance of inurement and private benefit, any breach of this provision may be subject to removal of exempt status and punitive taxation. The WMF has an overiding duty to its funders who support it as tax exempt organisation, to ensure that it is wholly immune from any inurement, private benefit or self dealing. The follow/no follow of links with advantage preferenced to Wikia might well be something that may suggest to the IRS that there a matters of inurement requiring investigation. That is of course should anyone choose to alert the IRS.

A.virosa

[Abd]

You guys are missing/forgetting many of the additional linkages between Wikia and the WMF.

I might elaborate later, but if you could so easily forget that Wikia co-founder Angela Beesley was the chair of the WMF Advisory Board, the office space rental scam, and the Omidyar-bought board seat (Omidyar invested start-up cash in Wikia), then I'm not sure my effort is worth it.

You invest your effort and you take your chances. Usually, Greg, it's not worth it, if the people with power, or the organization with power, doesn't want to know.

Speak to someone who wants to know, or, indeed, you will be wasting your time and just get people riled up. About you, for disturbing their nap.

Your question at Wikibooks was completely off-the-wall. Raising the issue of the arbitrariness of the exclusion of video-game textbooks was fine. Blaming it on Jimbo, even though he obviously was very involved in that original shift, wasn't. Wikibooks isn't the judge in a conflict-of-interest lawsuit. It's not even the jury, and even if a consensus appeared there that Jimbo was an evil, self-dealing monster, it would be irrelevant. Would that mean that policy should be changed to frustrate the ESDMs?

I don't think so. What's needed at Wikibooks is a coherent vision, expressed as a policy, with consensus, that then leads to consequential decisions like the VG guide decision. And all the crap of the past is actually irrelevant and distracting, leading to useless argument, unless we turn to the actual issue. That was my "firebreak."

Adrignola, it is not only the Wikibooks community that is involved. If debates pop up on Wikibooks, and are publicized here, and seem to be going in a way that "others" don't like, you will see the others and their friends popping up to participate. You may think that the Wikibooks community isn't interested in this, so there is no danger, but ... the "community" is not just those whom you see working on the project. It's potentially everyone in the world who is willing to register an account, and there are a whole pile of editors, quite interested in preventing this "trolling," who would have the motive to stir the pot on Wikibooks, and to try to provoke Thekohser into making comments to justify the original ban, even more than might be his natural inclination.

[Avirosa]

Your question at Wikibooks was completely off-the-wall. Raising the issue of the arbitrariness of the exclusion of video-game textbooks was fine. Blaming it on Jimbo, even though he obviously was very involved in that original shift, wasn't. Wikibooks isn't the judge in a conflict-of-interest lawsuit. It's not even the jury, and even if a consensus appeared there that Jimbo was an evil, self-dealing monster, it would be irrelevant. Would that mean that policy should be changed to frustrate the ESDMs?

I don't think so. What's needed at Wikibooks is a coherent vision, expressed as a policy, with consensus, that then leads to consequential decisions like the VG guide decision. And all the crap of the past is actually irrelevant and distracting, leading to useless argument, unless we turn to the actual issue. That was my "firebreak.".

You are completely lost in the wiki gloop. WMF does not exist in some cyberspace cosmic fluid where boltzman brain players engage in etherial world building, WMF is a real world entity subject to regulation and laws. Whether Wales is an evil self dealing monster or simply an arrogant prat making a living as a chancer doesn't matter, but Wales' actions as a Director/Officer of WMF do matter because they actually impact on the human world with its real consequences. You can come up with whatever 'game' rules for Wikibooks that you like but if the inherent system benefits a specific private corporation linked to one or more WMF directors, then the real world may very well bite WMF and its directors in their collective arses.

A.virosa

[Abd]

You are completely lost in the wiki gloop. WMF does not exist in some cyberspace cosmic fluid where boltzman brain players engage in etherial world building,

It doesn't? My, obviously I have some reconsideration to undertake here.

WMF is a real world entity subject to regulation and laws. Whether Wales is an evil self dealing monster or simply an arrogant prat making a living as a chancer doesn't matter, but Wales' actions as a Director/Officer of WMF do matter because they actually impact on the human world with its real consequences.

Sure. However, Avirosa, you have interpreted "real world entity" and "regulation and laws" as if these fantasies and abstractions -- they are, you know -- actually determine the flow of events, i.e., "real consequences," without any understanding of the practical realities, i.e., what it takes to get the machinery of law enforcement moving.

You can come up with whatever 'game' rules for Wikibooks that you like but if the inherent system benefits a specific private corporation linked to one or more WMF directors, then the real world may very well bite WMF and its directors in their collective arses.

Sure. But I don't see any sign of WMF or Jimbo transgressions rising to anything close to the point of actual consequences. In particular, your statement of the problem is incomplete, overlooking a crucial point.
Others have explained the distinction. It is not unlawful, my opinion, not a lawyer, for a charitable corporation to "benefit" a director or officer, if that benefit does not come at the expense of the corporation, i.e., does not divert funds or charitably controlled resources from that purpose, without sufficient justification. If a donor to the corporation buys influence in this direction, i.e., if Omidyar, for example, were to steer resources toward his own personal interests, the tax deductibility of that donation might come under review (and a nonprofit can get dinged for this). I've not seen anything like that even being alleged.

Let's suppose -- I find it implausible, but possible -- that Jimbo's action to define video game guides as "not textbooks" and outside the scope of Wikibooks, was motivated by private gain. What loss did the WMF suffer? That action was, as far as I can see, a private action, not taken ex officio, at that time, as the WMF. It was simply a personal recommendation, given the way that wikis work, and it was, in fact, taken that way, the community debated it and came up with its own decision in its own weird and arcane process. Some have imagined that every statement of Jimbo was "official WMF," when that is obviously not true. The guy had the right to his opinion! Even if he was occasionally unclear on what his role was.

Quite simply, this is not a legal issue. It might be an image issue, and if someone wants to smear Jimbo and the WMF, this seems like a handy piece of mud to toss. And I'm pointing out that this, itself, is purely destructive, and it's no wonder that it arouses major defensive responses, sometimes.

However, it seems that the Wikibooks community is collectively yawning. And in spite of the nonsense being pushed here by a few, that is not a good example of collective inattention that could lead to serious damage. There is plenty of other stuff that is. And by running around in circles with moot allegations, attention is distracted from what truly does cause continuing damage.

[Avirosa]

Let's suppose -- I find it implausible, but possible -- that Jimbo's action to define video game guides as "not textbooks" and outside the scope of Wikibooks, was motivated by private gain. What loss did the WMF suffer? That action was, as far as I can see, a private action, not taken ex officio, at that time, as the WMF. It was simply a personal recommendation, given the way that wikis work, and it was, in fact, taken that way, the community debated it and came up with its own decision in its own weird and arcane process. Some have imagined that every statement of Jimbo was "official WMF," when that is obviously not true. The guy had the right to his opinion! Even if he was occasionally unclear on what his role was.

Quite simply, this is not a legal issue. It might be an image issue, and if someone wants to smear Jimbo and the WMF, this seems like a handy piece of mud to toss. And I'm pointing out that this, itself, is purely destructive, and it's no wonder that it arouses major defensive responses, sometimes.

As Gregg has pointed out - Wales' action with Wikibooks is relevant because it is part of a set of questionable actions. Wikibooks has no substantive legal existance, the only legal entity on the non profit side is WMF and it is the operation of WMF as a whole that raise questions of private benefit. Does anyone who spends their time at Wikibooks or any other WMF pwned website care about the operation of the WMF ? Very probably not - that still leaves nearly 300 million US citizens who might have a concern about how their Tax system operates. For them the following is worth a read: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4221pc.pdf = What activities may jeopardize a public charity’s tax-exempt status?


A.virosa

[dogbiscuit]

Let's suppose -- I find it implausible, but possible -- that Jimbo's action to define video game guides as "not textbooks" and outside the scope of Wikibooks, was motivated by private gain. What loss did the WMF suffer? That action was, as far as I can see, a private action, not taken ex officio, at that time, as the WMF. It was simply a personal recommendation, given the way that wikis work, and it was, in fact, taken that way, the community debated it and came up with its own decision in its own weird and arcane process. Some have imagined that every statement of Jimbo was "official WMF," when that is obviously not true. The guy had the right to his opinion! Even if he was occasionally unclear on what his role was.

Actually, under company law, company directors do not have a right to a personal opinion on matters that affect a company they are involved in.

Anything that a director of Enron says about an issue involving Enron cannot be separated out into a personal view or a company view.

Similarly, once Jimbo has a role as an officer of one or more companies, he is not allowed to say "x was said on my own dime, it is a private opinion" but "ah, y was my opinion as an officer of the company". It is a burden you accept when becoming a company officer. As you can well imagine, such a distinction is both arbitrary, impossible to police and unreasonable to expect an individual to distinguish - even if prefaced with caveats such as "in my personal opinion". Imagine a director saying "in my private opinion which does not represent my view as a company officer and therefore is of no legal standing, our products are rubbish and we should be sued for selling an unsafe product, but as a company officer, I think any criticism of the company's products is unjustified."

There is a potential loss. It might well be that by disallowing certain forms, the format fails to gain its critical mass - and we also know that link farming is an element of the SEO game, so losing content by itself is potentially a loss to the domain as a whole.

In the UK this action would potentially be covered by the Fraud Act of 2006 (I am sure that the US position is entirely different, but it is instructive to see that in some juristrictions this is has the potential to be an actual illegal act even if no profit derives).

Section 4 deals with fraud by abuse of position (where this is taken to mean something less an an obligation or legal duty, more of a moral obligation). The fact that Jimbo is an important person within the WMF community, and is supposed to be acting for that community by the position he holds, would be sufficient to trigger him as being under the influence of the act. The fact that he made a suggestion that could be for gain is sufficient:

"Section 4 is entirely offender focused. It is complete once the Defendant carries out the act that is the abuse of his position. It is immaterial whether or not he is successful in his enterprise and whether or not any gain or loss is actually made." (CPS Guidance)

But we are again in the Wiki world where people involved in Wikipedia want to treat the world where legal and moral obligations are as flexible as the editing system they are using.

To be absolutely clear, as a member of WMF, and in his position as Chairman Emeritus or whatever it is this week, Jimbo Wales is under a duty not to take any action that may make private gains at the expense of the organisation by abusing his authority within the company.

In this case, if he had acted through a Chinese Wall to make the suggestion to the community and it was then taken up by it, he might have a defence, but here we have the founder and leader of the community (especially so in 2006) making a suggestion that is of no benefit to the community (the neutral policy is no games manuals which by itself is reasonable, as Somey points out) but the error is putting in place the policy to direct the content to benefit a company he has a financial interest, when the policy could have been left as "suitable hosts elsewhere on the Internet".

[Kelly Martin]

Actually, under company law, company directors do not have a right to a personal opinion on matters that affect a company they are involved in.

The failure of basically everyone involved in Wikimedia to understand this has been a persistent issue. When I ran for the WMF Board back in 2006 I stated that I thought it was a poor idea for a Board member to actively participate in any WMF project (and promised to curtail my activities as an editor should I be elected) because doing so created an unacceptable risk of liability for the Foundation. Officers and directors of a corporation are always, irrevocably, agents for that corporation, regardless of what hat they claim to be wearing at the time. Fundamentally I think this stems from Jimmy's belief that rules do not apply to him, and so he can do whatever he wants.

[Abd]

To be absolutely clear, as a member of WMF, and in his position as Chairman Emeritus or whatever it is this week, Jimbo Wales is under a duty not to take any action that may make private gains at the expense of the organisation by abusing his authority within the company.

Yes. The critical phrase here, "at the expense of the organization."

In this case, if he had acted through a Chinese Wall to make the suggestion to the community and it was then taken up by it, he might have a defence, but here we have the founder and leader of the community (especially so in 2006) making a suggestion that is of no benefit to the community (the neutral policy is no games manuals which by itself is reasonable, as Somey points out) but the error is putting in place the policy to direct the content to benefit a company he has a financial interest, when the policy could have been left as "suitable hosts elsewhere on the Internet".

I'm not seeing an assertion of harm to the organization.

This argument has practically no chance of standing in a real court of law. And no chance of being accepted for enforcement by a federal agency. You want to make it stand, or try to, go ahead, waste your money hiring a lawyer and paying costs, getting through the thicket of obstacles. It would be fun to watch.

Notice the confusion arising between the community and the organization. A court will not be fooled.

I have seen far more cogent complaints fall flat on their faces.

Here is the relevant section from the manual cited:

A public charity is prohibited from allowing more than an insubstantial accrual of private benefit to individuals or organizations.This restriction is to ensure that a tax-exempt organization serves a public interest, not a private one If a private benefit is more than incidental, it could jeopardize the organization’s tax-exempt status.

No part of an organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of an insider. An insider is a person who has a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization such as an officer, director, or a key employee This means that an organization is prohibited from allowing its income or assets to accrue to insiders. An example of prohibited inurement would include payment of unreasonable compensation to an insider Any amount of inurement may be grounds for loss of tax-exempt status

The issue here would be:

1. Was the editing action of Jimbo at Wikibooks an action of the corporation? If so, it was singularly poorly implemented. The recommendation of Jimbo, represented in that edit, did not become policy at first, it was actually removed, and only came back much later, without any apparent action from Jimbo or any officer of the WMF. It had a reasonable explanation from Jimbo's conception of the mission of Wikibooks, and that explanation appears to be the basis for it.

2. Did this action allow a substantial private benefit to Jimbo or an organization controlled by him or from which he receives benefit? That would be very difficult to establish. The form of the policy simply suggested (at some points?) wikia or other wikis or sites as alternatives, which has cover as an action that actually is helpful to wikibooks users, and the question would be whether or not there was undue influence over that choice. I see no sign that the corporation engaged in applying undue influence. The wording of the policy was entirely established and maintained by Wikibooks users, and the corporation is not responsible for what they do. Note that if this were unlawful, every reference on the WMF wikis of some other wiki could be considered a violation, if any WMF officer had any connection with that wiki. This would create a conflict with the mission, which would allow and suggest such links where they benefit the projects and the community.

Is it seriously being argued that a WMF officer should have intervened in the development of Wikibooks policy, to force the exclusion of any possible COI web site, based on? A narrow and mindless interpretation of "more than an insubstantial accrual of private benefit" to some one-time officer? Because that is what "allowing" would mean. Rather, the WMF has, for very good reasons, a hands-off policy, it's obvious, about local community governance. Jimbo's action, then, the initial claim of prohibition, because it wasn't enforced, must be seen as an expression of his private opinion. He didn't block the user who reverted him!

That some editors practically worshipped him, and considered his writ to be law, is not his legal responsibility. In fact, it's probably a damned nuisance, if he looks back at it....

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Somey]

I'm not seeing an assertion of harm to the organization.

This argument has practically no chance of standing in a real court of law. And no chance of being accepted for enforcement by a federal agency. You want to make it stand, or try to, go ahead, waste your money hiring a lawyer and paying costs, getting through the thicket of obstacles. It would be fun to watch.

I would actually have to agree with you - this is not really a legal issue so much as an ethical one, which (at best) can help establish a pattern of behavior by which Jimbo subtly attempted to "monetize" WMF-hosted content by trying to have the more commercially-viable stuff siphoned off to Wikia. But as long as he can make the case that he simply suggested that the stuff be siphoned off, he's in the clear legally.

As for things like this affecting the WMF's "charity" status, I suppose you could add it to the list of subtle offenses... but in the end, the WMF should lose its charity status because it isn't a charity, not because of some legal technicality or even the questionable behavior of one (or more) of its principals. And speaking only for myself, I'd say that if there's any one thing that "activist" Wikipedia critics in general should be bringing to the attention of the public at large, in hopes of obtaining some sort of official relief, this is it.

[SB_Johnny]

Actually, under company law, company directors do not have a right to a personal opinion on matters that affect a company they are involved in.

The failure of basically everyone involved in Wikimedia to understand this has been a persistent issue. When I ran for the WMF Board back in 2006 I stated that I thought it was a poor idea for a Board member to actively participate in any WMF project (and promised to curtail my activities as an editor should I be elected) because doing so created an unacceptable risk of liability for the Foundation. Officers and directors of a corporation are always, irrevocably, agents for that corporation, regardless of what hat they claim to be wearing at the time. Fundamentally I think this stems from Jimmy's belief that rules do not apply to him, and so he can do whatever he wants.

I agree, completely. While "IAR" makes sense as a rule for people writing an encyclopedia to follow, it's absolutely not a good idea for a non-profit out here in the real world. Jimmy's disdain for rules and authority (and his willingness to make up rules and be an authoritarian) is a poisonous influence on the WMF, which otherwise might be able to grow into a force for the good.

Unfortunately, Jimmy doesn't have an altruistic bone in his body, and so will never be man enough to walk away even though it's plainly obvious that he's become a lodestone. The board might force the issue, eventually, but not while it's still collectively enthralled... I suspect things will need to go considerably further downhill before they start to take a realistic view of things.

[thekohser]

Could we please all remember one important thing?

According to Jimbo (numerous public lectures), Wikipedia represents that little section of the library where the librarian would send you when you asked for "the encyclopedias".

Wikia is the rest of the library.â„¢

[Milton Roe]

Could we please all remember one important thing?

According to Jimbo (numerous public lectures), Wikipedia represents that little section of the library where the librarian would send you when you asked for "the encyclopedias".

Wikia is the rest of the library.â„¢

That explains a lot. Wikipedia has done more than any other website to break down the traditional divisions between "stuff in the library." For example, despite WP:NOTALMANAC, Wikipedia is the world's largest and most complete almanac.

Wales uses these distinctions (and plays on them, in others' minds) when they serves his interests, and plays the visionary who disregards them all, when they don't. Surprize! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Of course, the truth is that knowlege is far more "one piece" than you'd guess from looking at the random piles of scrolls, waiting to be sorted after being deposited in order of their various physical sources, in the Library of Alexandria. And also more one piece than is suggested by Dewey Decimalized sections of a "modern" library, including the "shelves" where they keep the "encyclopedias." It's more one piece than Jimmy Wales would have you believe because it suits him for you to believe it.

Splitting all knowledge up now, is done for reasons of space, convenience, and (when things are on paper) for reasons of sheer mass. How large a book can you conveniently hold in your hands, or pull off a shelf? That's why books are the size that they are.

A computer-driven digitized hyperlinked library is a quite different beast. The divisions now in knowledge are driven only by convenience and memory, and can be arbitrary in type and granularity. And the whole library can be one interconnected database or one piece. Even the idea of a digital "document" is completely arbitrary. If your memory has no limits, a "document" can be 12 films and 100 books that comment on them. It can be an entire smaller library. Think flexibly.

Yes, the job of indexing and hyperlinking this "thing" (mass of digitized human knowledge) is monsterous, and computers themselves don't have enough "intelligence" to do it all in 2010. They are assisted now "by hand" and much of that work is done by volunteers. Amazing. This will continue to an extent not even possible to comprehend now. But in 20 years, the structure of "libraries" and human knowledge itself, will all be as much transformed as has happened in the last 20 years. I promise.

So Jimbo is spinning bullshit, and as usually it's hard to tell how much even he himself believes. There's no limit to what people can believe if it's in their private interests to do so.

In any case, the "encyclopedia" is not intrinsically a "bit" of the library, with Jimbo owning the rest. The digital encyclopedia is merely one nexus from which the digital library, which has no obvious natural divisions but those we choose for it, has started to crystallize into one single hyperlinked mass, as organized by human minds and machines. It's not the only seed from which this crystallization and linking of knowledge is happening and moving out into the rest of the digital library. But right now, it's the most visible one-- and that is all.

MR

[Emperor]

Yes, the job of indexing and hyperlinking this "thing" (mass of digitized human knowledge) is monsterous, and computers themselves don't have enough "intelligence" to do it all in 2010. They are assisted now "by hand" and much of that work is done by volunteers. Amazing. This will continue to an extent not even possible to comprehend now. But in 20 years, the structure of "libraries" and human knowledge itself, will all be as much transformed as has happened in the last 20 years. I promise.

One problem with inclusionism is what to do with all the stuff of limited interest. Like should an article about the electric knife include its uses in carving up murder victims and fashioning hip and buttock padding for transvestites? I think it's going to be a very long time before computers are smart enough to make these decisions. Probably the information should be in the encyclopedia somewhere, but in a way so that it doesn't interfere with the usefulness of the encyclopedia to the average reader.

Of course the crowd isn't so great at making content decisions either. Individuals and very small groups of humans still seem to be best at this.

[Milton Roe]

Yes, the job of indexing and hyperlinking this "thing" (mass of digitized human knowledge) is monsterous, and computers themselves don't have enough "intelligence" to do it all in 2010. They are assisted now "by hand" and much of that work is done by volunteers. Amazing. This will continue to an extent not even possible to comprehend now. But in 20 years, the structure of "libraries" and human knowledge itself, will all be as much transformed as has happened in the last 20 years. I promise.

One problem with inclusionism is what to do with all the stuff of limited interest. Like should an article about the electric knife include its uses in carving up murder victims and fashioning hip and buttock padding for transvestites? I think it's going to be a very long time before computers are smart enough to make these decisions. Probably the information should be in the encyclopedia somewhere, but in a way so that it doesn't interfere with the usefulness of the encyclopedia to the average reader.

Yes, but note that this isn't really an "inclusionist vs. deletionist" problem! That entire division only sends up serving the pocketbook of Jimmy Wales.

There's no reason, from the pure viewpoint of ease-of-use, to ever delete anything. The only real argument THERE is how far down the Link-Tree to put it, so that the only people who end up seeing it, are those digging really hard to find it.

If there are some people (like children) who you don't want to find porn or murder techniques no matter how many deep the link-well is to see them, then THAT is your problem. It's a very narrow one, unrelated to library science (except as libraries need to have off-limits-to-children sections). And presumably there are some national security related things that all adults on Earth should not get access to. And there are privacy-related things.

Of course you can't let some children see some knowlege, no matter how much they'd like to, and you can't let some adults see some knowlege, no matter how much they want to (your military's ops plans; somebody else's private financial or medical info). But these are complete red-herrings, when it comes to Jimbo and his databases.

As we have seen, WP has no problem letting anybody see anything, unless WP is legally restrained. THEY don't give a shit about children, privacy, or national security (we all are pretty sure that Wikia, and thus Jimbo, is in bed with Wikileaks). But they really DO care when somebody starts making a buck from organization of knowledge that they'd like to make a buck off. That is the one and only reason that now exists behind the entirely artificial division between "Wikipedia" and WikiANYTHINGELSE. It's Jimbo's wallet.

[Jon Awbrey]

In any case, the "encyclopedia" is not intrinsically a "bit" of the library, with Jimbo owning the rest. The digital encyclopedia is merely one nexus from which the digital library, which has no obvious natural divisions but those we choose for it, has started to crystallize into one single hyperlinked mass, as organized by human minds and machines. It's not the only seed from which this crystallization and linking of knowledge is happening and moving out into the rest of the digital library. But right now, it's the most visible one — and that is all.

MR

CAHGO CULT

Crystallized And Hyperlinked Garbage In —
Crystallized And Hyperlinked Garbage Out …

CAHGI
CAHGO

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Milton Roe]

In any case, the "encyclopedia" is not intrinsically a "bit" of the library, with Jimbo owning the rest. The digital encyclopedia is merely one nexus from which the digital library, which has no obvious natural divisions but those we choose for it, has started to crystallize into one single hyperlinked mass, as organized by human minds and machines. It's not the only seed from which this crystallization and linking of knowledge is happening and moving out into the rest of the digital library. But right now, it's the most visible one — and that is all.

MR

CAHGO CULT

Crystallized And Hyperlinked Garbage In —
Crystallized And Hyperlinked Garbage Out …

CAHGI
CAHGO

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

True, but so what? The inputs to WP are not entirely garbage, and neither is its output. That fact that digestion isn't perfect only means that you probably don't want to eat it, unless you're Andrew Zimmern. But that doesn't mean a useful function hasn't been performed, and doesn't mean that there's no work to be done that will do any good. Actually, progress has been made.

It's still shit, Jon. But some of it it's now really good shit.

[Jon Awbrey]

In any case, the "encyclopedia" is not intrinsically a "bit" of the library, with Jimbo owning the rest. The digital encyclopedia is merely one nexus from which the digital library, which has no obvious natural divisions but those we choose for it, has started to crystallize into one single hyperlinked mass, as organized by human minds and machines. It's not the only seed from which this crystallization and linking of knowledge is happening and moving out into the rest of the digital library. But right now, it's the most visible one — and that is all.

MR

CAHGO CULT

Crystallized And Hyperlinked Garbage In —
Crystallized And Hyperlinked Garbage Out …

CAHGI
CAHGO

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

True, but so what? The inputs to WP are not entirely garbage, and neither is its output. That fact that digestion isn't perfect only means that you probably don't want to eat it, unless you're Andrew Zimmern. But that doesn't mean a useful function hasn't been performed, and doesn't mean that there's no work to be done that will do any good. Actually, progress has been made.

It's still shit, Jon. But some of it it's now really good shit.

Maybe it's happening the way it should somewhere or other, but the vast majority of that is happening the old-fashioned way.

What's occurring in Wikipedia is the continual detachment of signs and texts from the semiotic matrix that gives them meaning — both from their objective referents and from the indexicality of the interpretive chain. A hermenewtic critter that operates that way is a malign parasite on whatever knowledge it consumes. It's not the Library, Alex, it's the Flames.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Avirosa]

I would actually have to agree with you - this is not really a legal issue so much as an ethical one, which (at best) can help establish a pattern of behavior by which Jimbo subtly attempted to "monetize" WMF-hosted content by trying to have the more commercially-viable stuff siphoned off to Wikia. But as long as he can make the case that he simply suggested that the stuff be siphoned off, he's in the clear legally.

There is a distinction between 'private benefit' and 'inurement'. While 'inurement' requires that a 'loss' falls to, or some form excessive cost is met by, the non profit organisation, private benefit does not require that such a loss or excessive cost should have occured.

"A public charity is prohibited from allowing more than an insubstantial accrual of private benefit to individuals or organizations.This restriction is to ensure that a tax-exempt organization serves a public interest, not a private one. If a private benefit is more than incidental, it could jeopardize the organization’s tax-exempt status."

The 'private benefit' clause is in effect an insurance of the integrity of the taxation system, i.e it prohibits the use of non profit status to facilitate 'for profit' activity. It is not necessary that the 'private benefit' has to occur 'within' the given non profit for there to be a breach of the IRS code, merely that a non profit act to facilitate private benefit.

How this will be tested where the benefits are as fluid and transferable as they are in Net based operations is open to question but there seems no doubt that WMF has acted in ways that could facilitate accrual of private benefit that is more than 'insubstantial'. The value of 'through traffic' from Wikipedia to Wikia could be considerable and the calculation of private benefit would not be what share of the profit derived from Wikia's activities based on the through traffic was earned by Board Members/Officials of WMF who have an interest in Wikia, but the whole of the assessable value of the through traffic to Wikia. Even if the total value is small, the fact that the WMF has so readily tolerated the follow/no follow advantage to Wikia is probably worthy of report to the IRS - though that's something best coming from a US resident, so I'll pass.

A.virosa

[jayvdb]

... the fact that the WMF has so readily tolerated the follow/no follow advantage to Wikia ...

Advantage to Wikia over who?

Wikia is only one of many wikis who all share that advantage, along with other websites which are not wikis.

Also, the 'interwiki map' is managed in part by the community on the talk page on meta, but the changes made to the database are performed by devs, and these devs would say they were also acting as part of the community rather than agents of the WMF.

[CharlotteWebb]

... the fact that the WMF has so readily tolerated the follow/no follow advantage to Wikia ...

Advantage to Wikia over who?

Wikia is only one of many wikis who all share that advantage, along with other websites which are not wikis.

There is no reason the interwiki prefixes should have any effect on the nofollow attribute. Rather, these should exist solely for ease of linking to web-sites whose urls follow a predictable pattern, and without implying merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

[Avirosa]

... the fact that the WMF has so readily tolerated the follow/no follow advantage to Wikia ...

Advantage to Wikia over who?

Wikia is only one of many wikis who all share that advantage, along with other websites which are not wikis.

Also, the 'interwiki map' is managed in part by the community on the talk page on meta, but the changes made to the database are performed by devs, and these devs would say they were also acting as part of the community rather than agents of the WMF.

The 'advantage' is mediated by commercial exploitability, so all those non commercial wikis are irrelevant, (unless it could be shown they are an effective non monetised market offering competition to Wikia). The point is that Wikia appears to be the only commercial operation enjoying 'follow', where there is no justification for 'no follow' not to apply - Google presumably gets its 'follow' because of its search facilty, though I would have thought Bing et al should be there as well. As the lone non justified commercial operation to have 'follow' Wikia is advantaged over all of its potential commercial competitors.

What the devs claim or don't claim, or what the community does or doesn't agree is also not relevent. The responsibility lies with WMF, which exercises influence upon the community and employs the devs. Even if there was a strict Chinese Wall between the WMF and the operation of the Wikis, the WMF would still be under legal obligation to ensure that it did not act to secure, except in the slightest incidental way, private advantage for any officer or board memeber of WMF - if the very act of funding the interwiki mapping gave Wikia an advantage over its commercial rivals, then that would stand as a potential private benefit. I don't understand what the difficulty is with this - if 'no follow' is the default, then Wikia should be on the 'no follow' list and the question of 'private benefit' lessens quite considerably.

A.virosa

[dogbiscuit]

I don't understand what the difficulty is with this - if 'no follow' is the default, then Wikia should be on the 'no follow' list and the question of 'private benefit' lessens quite considerably.

As a simple rule, any time that Wikia is found to have some setting or option or policy within WMF projects that is explicitly different from the usual policy, then the WMF is exposed.

It was mentioned earlier that Jimbo suggested Wikimedia is the reference section, and Wikia is the rest. That may be a valid view for Wikia, and there is no problem with Wikia positioning itself in that way, there is even a theoretical view that Wikia providing a service to WMF in providing an outlet for unsuitable content pis beneficial. However, it is how that relationship is controlled that is the issue. There are numerous other individuals trying to latch onto the Wiki world.

The real question is, how does the WMF justify the preferential relationship with Wikia?

Perhaps to break that down: does the WMF accept there is a preferential relationship with Wikia? Why are no other partners sought? For example, if commercial content is an anathema to Wikimedia, why have they not approached another organisation, such as Wikipedia Review, to resolve those issues?