Get out your money bags Options

[thekohser]

It's donation time again!

[thekohser]

That's interesting... they seem to have deleted my comment. I suppose that means I'll be getting a refund on my $1.00?

[Jon Awbrey]

That's interesting... they seem to have deleted my comment. I suppose that means I'll be getting a refund on my $1.00?

Welcome to duh mockracy.

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

[Somey]

That's interesting... they seem to have deleted my comment.

Well, they wouldn't want any of the other donors to know what's actually going on. That could really eat into their sales margins! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[victim of censorship]

That's interesting... they seem to have deleted my comment.

Well, they wouldn't want any of the other donors to know what's actually going on. That could really eat into their sales margins! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

To bad the Government don't pull the wiki foundation's 501 c3 non-profit tax status certificate .

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Somey]

To bad the Government don't pull the wiki foundation's 501 c3 non-profit tax status certificate .

Don't remind me...!

It might be interesting to try and work out what percentage of commenters appear to be donating because they think the WMF is a charitable enterprise, and what percentage donate simply because they use WP frequently, and just feel like they should be paying someone something. IOW, those in the latter group would essentially be acting on guilt feelings, despite the obvious fact that the money will never make it into the hands of actual contributors. I suspect the percentage of people in the latter group outnumbers the former by at least 10 to 1, assuming you include those who are just saying "Wikipedia is so useful! I use it all the time!" and such.

[dogbiscuit]

Someone knows exactly how to use Wikipedia:

Teresa Hadenfeldt
As a nursing student in my late 40's I have found Wikipedia to be a priceless tool. I use it in class for quick look up, or when I am needing information that I can not find in a book. Thank you!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[thekohser]

Fortunately, the national news media is already on top of this story, reporting that only 41 cents of every Wikimedia dollar actually goes toward program expenses.

[Seurat]

That's interesting... they seem to have deleted my comment. I suppose that means I'll be getting a refund on my $1.00?

What did your comment say?

[EricBarbour]

Amusing--on the 7th, starting at 7pm and continuing until 4am on the 8th, there was a whole slew of "test donations" of $1.33.

[thekohser]

That's interesting... they seem to have deleted my comment. I suppose that means I'll be getting a refund on my $1.00?

What did your comment say?

Something to the tune of "Jimbo, even in your appeal, you lie to us. Do you know no shame?"


Anyhow, as I said, the news media is covering the story now:

Indeed, if you look closely at the Wikimedia Foundation's "Benefactors" page, you'll see even Luke Skywalker is a sustaining donor.

Is that a joke, or did some Web 2.0 millionaire geek actually re-name himself as "Luke Skywalker"?

Amusing--on the 7th, starting at 7pm and continuing until 4am on the 8th, there was a whole slew of "test donations" of $1.33.

Yes, the news report also recognized: "It's also possible that this is only a test run."

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[victim of censorship]

Someone knows exactly how to use Wikipedia:

Teresa Hadenfeldt
As a nursing student in my late 40's I have found Wikipedia to be a priceless tool. I use it in class for quick look up, or when I am needing information that I can not find in a book. Thank you!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Scary, yes??? any rate since this seem fitting, I roll out an oldie but a goody... enjoy


000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If surgery was like Wikipedia: Surgipedia.

Several surgipedians have gathered in an operation theater. On the table lies an unconscious man whos left leg looks dark. Surgipedian #1 grabs a sheet prepared by the patient's doctor that details the problem.

Surgipedian #1: "Whoa, he's been lying here for 26 hours, we sure got a backlog again. It also says on this that he has a 'claudication' and a 'chronic venous insufficiency' in the left leg", looks at right leg, "and we are asked to do a 'leg segmental arterial doppler ultrasound exam'. Whatever that is. His leg looks pretty good to me".

Surgipedian #2: "You looked at the wrong leg. It says the left one".

Surgipedian #1: "I looked at the left and it's looking totally normal!"

Surgipedian #2: "The left from his point of view! Do you know where your left leg is?"

Surgipedian #3: "No need for shouting, #2, please remember Surgipedia guideline 'Assume Good Faith'. #1 was just trying to be constructive!"

Surgipedian #2: "I was only trying to be constructive, too!"

Surgipedian #3: "Well, let's just get to back to this guy."

Surgipedian #1, feeling securely at the helm again: "I remember something I read once on a website about heart diseases; when your arms or legs turn dark, you got a heart problem".

Surgipedian #3: "Yup, you are right. It's something about the veins in the heart being clogged up."

Surgipedian #2, feeling outdone: "I think it's something about having not enough oxygen in your blood!"

Surgipedian #1: "Can you cite a source for that?"

Surgipedian #2: "My aunt Thelma had something like that and I wrote a paper about it for my biology class at school!"

Surgipedian #3: "Please remember Surgipedia guideline: No Original Research! Let's get back to the man's heart problem! What should we do?"

Surgipedian #1: "I think you need to cut open his ribs and give him a heart massage or clean the veins or something".

Surgipedian #3: "Sounds reasonable. After all, when you get a massage to your back, the blood there flows better as well. I just wrote an article about it".

Surgipedian #2: "Heh, that is original research, too!"

Surgipedian #3: "Several surgipedians agreed on that article to be correct. Are you trying to be a nuisance or do you want to do that man some good?"

Surgipedian #2: "Of course!"

Surgipedian #2: "Then please stay constructive! How do we cut the man's ribs?"

Surgipedian #1: "You need a saw or something."

Surgipedian #3: "A saw? Surgeons use scalpels when they operate. I think you just need to cut a hole and poke your fingers through".

Without further ado, he grabs a scalpel and cuts a hole approximately where the heart is and sticks two fingers through.

Surgipedian #3: "I can't reach the heart, my fingers are not long enough!"

Surgipedian #2: "Then do that thing with the veins!"

Surgipedian #3: "How do you do that?"

Surgipedian #2 "Well, my aunt Thelma finally had something they call a bypass and they cut open the veins, I think".

Surgipedian #3: "But that is orig..., well let's try it. But I will have to push in the scalpel pretty deep to reach the heart. Shall we do it?"

Surgipedian #1, #2: "Support".

Surgipedian #3 remembers Surgipedia guideline "Be Bold!", grabs the scalpel in his fist and swings his arm in preparation of a deep push into the hole, but at that moment a surgeon comes by.

Surgeon: "Stop! What in the world are you doing?"

Surgipedian #3: The man has a problem in his leg and we are going to cut his heart veins open".

Surgeon: "What? All I see is a man with vascular problem in his leg and another that wields a scalpel like a knife. Are you aware that pushing a scalpel into someone's heart will kill that person?"

Surgipedian #1: "We have decided by majority that this is the proper thing to do. Besides, can you prove that pushing a scalpel into someones heart is deadly?"

Surgeon: "You decided by MAJORITY? Are you all nuts?"

Surgipedian #2 feels that there is finally someone besides him to put down: "Please, no personal attacks!"

Surgeon: "I will fucking personal attack you if you endanger someones life!"

Surgipedian #3: "We need to call an admin!"

Surgeon: "Alright, do that, but put that scalpel down!"

An admin comes by.

Admin: "I have heard that a guest is violating Surgipedia rules".

Surgeon: "I am a surgeon and these people are about to kill this man by pushing a knife into his heart!"

Admin: "Reviewing the archived discussion, you are in violation of rules Surgipedia: Assume Good Faith, Surgipedia: Vandalism, Surgipedia: Neutral Point of View, Surgipedia: No Personal Attacks, Surgipedia: Avoid Weasel Words and Surgipedia: Do not disrupt Surgipedia to make a point. You will be blocked from accessing Surgipedia for one week. Please use the time to review

Surgipedia guidelines and rules".

Admin and desperate Surgeon leave.

Surgipedian #3: "Okay, where were we?"

Surgipedian #2: "You were about to cut his heart."

Surgipedian #3: "Yup. I propose that so-called 'surgeon' was just a troll and we should go ahead."

Surgipedian #1 and #2: "Agree".

Surgipedian #3 slams the scalpel into the man's heart, who is dead within moments.

Surgipedian #3: "Why did he die?"

Surgipedian #1: "It's his fault. There was nothing WE did wrong!"
[All guidelines and policies mentioned in this satire do exist in Wikipedia

[NuclearWarfare]

That's interesting... they seem to have deleted my comment. I suppose that means I'll be getting a refund on my $1.00?

What did your comment say?

Something to the tune of "Jimbo, even in your appeal, you lie to us. Do you know no shame?"

Last year you complained because the WMF had not removed an attack against you from the donation log. Which was perfectly reasonable. Now you are complaining because they removed an attack against someone else?

[thekohser]

Last year you complained because the WMF had not removed an attack against you from the donation log. Which was perfectly reasonable. Now you are complaining because they removed an attack against someone else?

Jimmy Wales is a public figure, and my "attack" was simply stating the truth, and I did not address him by full name. And I signed my statement and donation with my full name.

I do recall the defamatory statement you mention: "Gregory Kohs is a loser who is banned from Wikipedia". My full name was used in the attack, while issued by someone hiding behind an "Anonymous" label. While the WMF did remove the statement within an hour, some ten days later, the same statement was re-published again. Nobody would explain to me how this happened, and nobody at the Wikimedia Foundation would release to me the name of the donor who perpetrated the stunt.

Thank you, Nuke, for demonstrating so clearly how these issues are not equivalent, at all.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Cedric]

Indeed, if you look closely at the Wikimedia Foundation's "Benefactors" page, you'll see even Luke Skywalker is a sustaining donor.

Is that a joke, or did some Web 2.0 millionaire geek actually re-name himself as "Luke Skywalker"?

What I found interesting was the appearance of the "Wikimedia Foundation Staff" on the list of "sustaining donors". Since the WMF wouldn't be covered under the Copeland Act, it makes me wonder if they have a standard kickback provision in their employment contracts.

[NuclearWarfare]

It is the Wikimedia Foundation's site, and I am assuming your statement was one harshly critical of Wales. The man certainly isn't a saint. But your donation was made cognizant of the fact that it was a purely voluntary donation, not a payment in exchange for putting up whatever you want. The Wikimedia Foundation was in no way obligated to keep up anything you put up on their website, no matter if you took credit for it or not, and you know that just as well as I do.

"Public figure" protects you from being sued in a court of law. It doesn't force anyone to allow you to participate in their website. The Wikimedia Foundation, like nearly all other open to registration websites in the world, operates by the standard of "this is our website and if you don't want to play by our rules, arbitrary as they may be, we won't accept you."

Speaking of public figure, by the way, there really seems to be no good definition of one. The EFF defines "A limited-purpose public figure" as "one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across." Do you consider yourself a public figure then?

[Cedric]

"Public figure" protects you from being sued in a court of law. It doesn't force anyone to allow you to participate in their website. The Wikimedia Foundation, like nearly all other open to registration websites in the world, operates by the standard of "this is our website and if you don't want to play by our rules, arbitrary as they may be, we won't accept you."

Speaking of public figure, by the way, there really seems to be no good definition of one. The EFF defines "A limited-purpose public figure" as "one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across." Do you consider yourself a public figure then?

This is a rather idiosyncratic view of the law. Besides which, the EFF is an advocacy group, not a legal authority.

[Somey]

"Public figure" protects you from being sued in a court of law. It doesn't force anyone to allow you to participate in their website.

The point you were trying to make, Mr. Warfare, was that Mr. Kohs was being hypocritical to "complain" about their removal of his Wales-bashing comment this year, when in the previous year they'd removed a Kohs-bashing comment from another donor, and he didn't complain (at least not until the same comment was added again 10 days later). That has nothing to do with allowing participation, much less who (if anyone) is liable for defamation, assuming that might actually apply.

Personally, I'd say it's very clear that he wasn't "complaining" at all - it looks like he knew the comment would be removed, wasn't the least bit surprised when it was, and simply mentioned it in passing as one of those "oh well, it was worth a shot" sort of affairs.

It would be an interesting (nice?) PR move if they'd give him the $1.00 back, but hey, it's only $1.00...

As for the "limited public figure" thing, it might also be interesting to find out if the US courts would view the WMF donor board in a broad context or a narrow one, though nobody in their right mind would ever take it that far. (IOW, if someone sued for defamation over something posted on the WMF donor board, would the court treat the donor board itself as the relevant context, or something larger, i.e., the WMF website, the WMF in general, Wikipedia, all of Wikiland, the entire internet, etc.). Mr. Kohs would probably qualify as a "limited public figure" in some of those contexts, but not all. Meanwhile, Jimbo Wales would easily qualify in all of them.

[Doc glasgow]

At least everything you read on Wikipedia isn't bollocks.

Sometimes it speaks truth:

"The Wikimedia Foundation dances under section 501©(3) of the US Internal Revenue Code as a public charity"


And it's been that way since 14th September . Someone should sue them for that.....

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Seurat]

I do recall the defamatory statement you mention: "Gregory Kohs is a loser who is banned from Wikipedia".

That statement isn't actually defamatory. "Loser" is too vague to be objectively true or false, (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) and "is banned from Wikipedia" is true. It's certainly insulting, but it's not defamatory.

My full name was used in the attack, while issued by someone hiding behind an "Anonymous" label.

That isn't relevant. The behaviour would have been as ignoble if perpetrated under a legal name. You're simply upset because you don't have a target for retribution. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Nobody would explain to me how this happened, and nobody at the Wikimedia Foundation would release to me the name of the donor who perpetrated the stunt.

What is there to explain? You're not popular in Wikimedia circles, and someone decided to get back at you with a dry insult, in a place where few people will see it and understand it. The fact that the Foundation did not release to you the name of the donor is a credit to their donor privacy policy.