Removing trolling, damn, they're good Options

[thekohser]

Oh, well, it was fun while it lasted.

Greg

[Herschelkrustofsky]

User:Picaroon has just lately begun to come to my attention. He may deserve some scrutiny as an up-and-coming gofer for the cabal.

[Kato]

Oh, well, it was fun while it lasted.

Greg

Good work Greg. Here's the highlights of that conversation.

There seems to be a great deal of combined efforts and staffing between Wikipedia and Wikia, if this article is to be believed. To me, it seems to be bordering on questionable interaction. --Dude Manchap 16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Questionable in what sense? Theres nothing wrong with the not-for profit organisation and the for-profit organisation being run by the same people. The only thing that would potentially violate this would be if the not-for profit donations were used for personal profit, but as far as anyone knows they aren't. I think its fairly safe to mark this as resolved now since neither the question nor answers fall under the control or judgement of en.wiki. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 16:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the article? The same person who is responsible for the books at Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for the books at Wikia, and he owes someone over $800,000 that he's apparently hidden from judgment. That's questionable. --Dude Manchap 17:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia review is not the world's most reliable source.Geni 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Quack. Corvus cornix 18:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources beyond Wikipedia Review are outlining the evidence, Geni. Sources like Nik Cubrilovic on TechCrunch, the Wikia website itself, the judicial system of the State of Illinois, and the Foundation's own IRS form 990, Line 80 which the Foundation has avoided posting on its otherwise "open" website. They seem to prefer sharing the 2005 version, which lacked any mention of Wikia in the federal documents. Additionally, I've learned from the Foundation's auditor that they cautioned management over a year ago that the Foundation lacks a sufficient reporting mechanism for fraud, abuse, or misconduct. Has the Foundation implemented that recommendation? So far, I seem to be pointing out plenty of reliable sources of questionable activity, but the main reaction seems to be to deny it or wring hands that "nothing can be done" at this level. Are we sheep or are we thinking human beings? --Dude Manchap 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We're encyclopedia writers. If you have concerns about the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia, contact the foundation's board and the management of the company. What do you expect commenting on this noticeboard to do, start a revolution to topple Jimbo? Picaroon (t) 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude: you fail to mention that 1) we adopted a wikimedia:Whistleblower Policy and 2) hired more accounting help to be sure that the books were in order after the auditor's recommendations. (Actually, there is one more accountant not listed on the current staff page: we're not so good with updates.) Since you seem to be otherwise capable of thorough research, as per your citation of the above links, the lack is bothersome. The omission of the current Form 990 on wikimediafoundation.org is simply an oversight in that no one who can update the public site thought to do it; I'll do it shortly. Enough with the veiled accusations already. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC) And now the current 990 is here. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[Jonny Cache]

Dude Manchap ???

Dude Manchap !!!

Wasn't he a big star in the gay porn industry ???

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 5th September 2007, 2:58pm

[anthony]

Dude: you fail to mention that 1) we adopted a wikimedia:Whistleblower Policy and 2) hired more accounting help to be sure that the books were in order after the auditor's recommendations. (Actually, there is one more accountant not listed on the current staff page: we're not so good with updates.) Since you seem to be otherwise capable of thorough research, as per your citation of the above links, the lack is bothersome. The omission of the current Form 990 on wikimediafoundation.org is simply an oversight in that no one who can update the public site thought to do it; I'll do it shortly. Enough with the veiled accusations already. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC) And now the current 990 is here. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Whistleblower Policy is really an *anti*-whistleblower policy. It requires any wouldbe whistleblower to first report to Florence, who herself was accused by a former employee (Danny) of embezzlement.

As for the accountant, I believe Kat is talking about Mona Venkateswaran, a former CBC employee and huge Morrissey fan.

[thekohser]

The plot thickens (a little bit)...

Closer examination of the most recent Form 990 filed by law by the Wikimedia Foundation shows that two errors (or falsehoods) were made.

Lines 75b and 75c ask the following:

75b. Are any officers, directors, trustees, or key employees listed in Form 990, Part V-A, or highest compensated employees listed in Schedule A, Part I, or highest compensated professional and other independent contractors listed in Schedule A, Part II-A or II-B, related to each other through family or business relationships? If “Yes,” attach a statement that identifies the individuals and explains the relationship(s)

75c. Do any officers, directors, trustees, or key employees listed in Form 990, Part V-A, or highest compensated employees listed in Schedule A, Part I, or highest compensated professional and other independent contractors listed in Schedule A, Part II-A or II-B, receive compensation from any other organizations, whether tax exempt or taxable, that are related to this organization through common supervision or common control? Note. Related organizations include section 509(a)(3) supporting organizations.

If “Yes,” attach a statement that identifies the individuals, explains the relationship between this organization and the other organization(s), and describes the compensation arrangements, including amounts paid to each individual by each related organization.

The answers given by the Wikimedia Foundation (as completed by auditor Richard H. Caton of the St. Petersburg accounting firm of Gregory, Sharer and Stuart, P.A.)?

No and No.

How can this be, when just above those lines, the five (5) voting members of the Board of Directors are shown to include Jimmy Wales, Michael Davis, and Angela Beesley, who are all very high-level owner-employees of Wikia, Inc.?

Amazing.

I contacted Mr. Caton at GSS, and while he was not able to comment on a client's paperwork, he did say he would look into it. Even though I gave him my full name, when he asked who I was or what my affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation was, I replied...

I am a major contributor to the project!

His response was, "Oh, that's great." He seemed thankful that I brought this error to his firm's attention. See, there's some value in my having made my $1 and $5 donations to the WMF this year. I can honestly say that I'm a multi-time donor to the project!

The Form 990 on IHateWikipedia.com is working.

The Form 990 on WikimediaFoundation.org is not working.

It's weird, because they rightly identify Wikia, Inc. as "related (other than by association with a statewide or nationwide organization) through common membership, governing bodies, trustees, officers, etc., to any other exempt or nonexempt organizationon" on Lines 80a and 80b.

I've already pestered the IRS enough times, but if anyone else wants to officially notify the government that the Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990 (Lines 75b and 75c) is false or incorrect, the information about Form 3949-A is found here.

Remember, Jimbo tells us that Wikia and Wikipedia are "completely separate" organizations. I suppose they think hiding the truth from the United States government is as easy as lying to The New Yorker!

Greg