Wikipedia's fund-raising - The Economist Options

[Newsfeed]

<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia's fund-raising[/b]
The Economist
The online encyclopedia needs its users' money and volunteers' time. Gaining the first is the easier task MANY mocked, but the money rolled in. For the last few weeks of 2010 Jimmy Wales fixed his piercing gaze on Wikipedia users, imploring them from ...

and more »

View the article

[thekohser]

At least this one breaks down the Foundation's spending a bit. However, it is mostly a hagiography. The initial comments aren't too kind to Wikipedia.

[thekohser]

I just received this by e-mail:

Dear Gregory Kohs,


The attached comment, posted under the pen name thekohser, has been deleted from The Economist online. The comment was removed because it breaks our comments policy:

http://www.economist.com/legal/terms-of-use#usercontent

We remind you that repeated violation of our comments policy may result in your being blocked from posting comments on The Economist online.


Yours sincerely,

Comments Moderator The Economist online


Your comment:

The federal Form 990 that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to file shows
that only 46% of the incoming revenues are actually spent on the program
services that support the non-profit's charitable mission. Most reputable
charities aim for a percentage north of 80%. This is disgraceful, but the
gullible donors just keep donating.

One reason why there is so much waste at the Wikimedia Foundation is the fact
that programmers spend considerable time on new and important features like
the "Flagged Revisions" (or "pending changes") tool that Jimmy Wales promised
for years, but then the "community" voted not to implement the tool. Same
goes for the more recent "user-opted image filter", which was designed at the
request of the Board of Trustees, but then the "community" voted that they
would prefer that an image of a hog-tied woman in bathtub shows up when you
search Wikimedia's image site for illustrations of the concept "underwater".

Let's call the Wikimedia Foundation and its "community" what they really are
-- a mismanaged, tax-exempt pornography and misinformation hub.

So which of the terms of use did I violate? I would guess this one:

(You may not)... Post, link to or otherwise publish any Messages that are illegal, libellous, defamatory or may prejudice ongoing legal proceedings or breach a court injunction or other order

I guess that's why I always end up cancelling my trial subscriptions to The Economist. They lack courage to speak the truth.

[thekohser]

It looks like Nihiltres had one of his rants deleted, too.

[EricBarbour]

Don't waste your time commenting on "news" sites, Greg. Seriously. I doubt if 1% of the Economist's
readers even look at the comments anyway.

Write a book, Greg. Get it printed on dead trees, by a real publisher. That will do far more than
any comments on websites.

[thekohser]

I find it fascinating that The Economist censored off my original comment, but they've allowed this one to remain, even though it's been "reported" twice to them:

hauteclair in reply to thekohser Nov 3rd 2011 19:45 GMT

Thankfully they don't waste their time clearing up *your* shit, having banned you for being a sociopathic troll attempting to exploit the website for your own financial benefit. So, y'know, that's one timesink avoided.

Curse words and personal attacks? Okay by Economist.

Detailed and factual description of legal and financial status of the Wikimedia Foundation? Banned by Economist.

[SB_Johnny]

Your comment is visible, Greg. Did they put it back?

[communicat]

I find it fascinating that The Economist censored off my original comment, but they've allowed this one to remain, even though it's been "reported" twice to them:

hauteclair in reply to thekohser Nov 3rd 2011 19:45 GMT

Thankfully they don't waste their time clearing up *your* shit, having banned you for being a sociopathic troll attempting to exploit the website for your own financial benefit. So, y'know, that's one timesink avoided.

Curse words and personal attacks? Okay by Economist.

Detailed and factual description of legal and financial status of the Wikimedia Foundation? Banned by Economist.

So as you can see Mr Kohs, the foibles of Web 2.0 and the safe malevolence it encourages/facilitates is not the exclusive preserve of WP/WR. It's widespread. The options are clear: Get over it; ignore it; learn to live with it; or better still, get a job -- preferably one that has nothing to do with Web 2.0

Interestingly, I see you've not denied attempting to exploit WP "for your own financial benefit". So I surmise it's true, and if so, it seems for once in its lifetime WP actually did the right thing by getting rid of you. Same applies to a few other unredeemed wikipedians around here.

This post has been edited by communicat: Sun 6th November 2011, 5:29pm

[thekohser]

...or better still, get a job...

In addition to the full-time one, plus the Wikipedia-related side-work?

Interestingly, I see you've not denied attempting to exploit WP "for your own financial benefit". So I surmise it's true, and if so, it seems for once in its lifetime WP actually did the right thing by getting rid of you.

Oh my God, you are so uninformed. There is a Wikipedia-sanctioned board that encourages exploitation of Wikipedia for financial benefit.

Your comment is visible, Greg. Did they put it back?

I re-posted a somewhat more "tame" version of the original.