Editing Wikimedia

'''Wikimedia Foundation''' is a private tax-exempt corporation ([[not-for-profit project]]) (IRS 501) in the state of Florida, USA. 

Generally, its critics point to Wikimedia as a classic [[insider culture]], and '''''not a good model''''' for [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] or any other nonprofit entity that is actually trying to serve users and disadvantaged people and other living things.  

This article explains why, and why [[precedent]] and rules decisions from '''Wikimedia''' can't and shouldn't apply to [[Consumerium:Itself]].  The separate article [[Wikimedia corruption]] explains how Wikimedia fails to work in fulfillment of the [[wiki mission]] of [[w:Wikipedia:Itself|Wikipedia itself]].  

==board status==
It was founded by [[Jimmy Wales]], on the [[Wikimedia Board of Trustee]]s as "member for life".  As this demonstrates, [[w:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]] has no [[independent board]].  Three of the five members have association with [[Bomis]] in the form of being employed by the corporation, ex-employee or owner, and only 2 of the five current board members are elected by the community.  The other three positions are currently held by "permanent" board members.  As long as this structure remains, Wales and his close associates will maintain a permanent majority, with control over all final decisions.  [[w:Wikimedia|Wikimedia]] claims that they are in the proccess of revising this structure, and it will become more open very soon.

==funding==
Wikimedia is funded by donors, and spends most money it receives as donations on providing hardware for [[MediaWiki]] sites such as [[Wikipedia]]s and [[Wiktionary|Wiktionaries]].  There are no salaried employees at the present time, and no immediate plans to have any at present levels of funding.

Bomis.com donates all the bandwidth needed for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Some believe that an [[independent board]] is a necessity to increase funding to a point where [[service outage]]s would end.

==Claims of funding used to support MediaWiki software development==
Some claim that part of the funds it raises is used to support development of the [[MediaWiki]] software (which [[Consumerium]] [[R&D wiki]] is running on). According to [[Mediawiki]] developers these claims are not true and they are receiving no money from Wikimedia - the software is "funded" like all other [[Free Software]], by volunteer donations of labour.

==Assets==
Supporters of the Wikimedia foundation claim that most longstanding participants in the [[Wikipedia]] project have greeted the formation of the nonprofit with great enthusiasm.  Plans are in the work to set up nonprofit organizations in European countries to complement a global foundation.  Wales has given all rights and ownership in the Wikipedia name(s) to these foundations.

Supporters also can point to the fact that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia] has grown to over 1.5 million articles, with editions in over 100 languages, and thus is probably the largest and best known [[Wiki]] community.  They also might claim that this success would not have been possible without the current leadership or organizational structure, or the policy of "neutral point of view".  They generally believe that widespread mainstream acceptance of the project would not have been possible had content been allowed to be more polemical, and less built on consensus.

==Wikimedia's bias==

Many dispute Wales' contribution and neutrality. The much vaunted [[wiki ideology]] of "[[neutral point of view]]" is also very strongly criticized: Though other editors ostensibly correct misinformation, there is no procedure to assure correction and when corrections are made, it can happen hours, days or weeks after the misinformation has been served and forked to readers and to other web services.

During election or war-time propaganda campaigns, a few hours of misinformation can be useful, but this possibility of disinformation cannot be avoided in [[wiki]]s.

Jimmy Wales claims to try to stay out of dipute resolution 
and remain "neutral" as much as possible "so as to not influence editorial decisions,"
but it is apparent that he does intervene, e.g. the notorious case of [[English Wikipedia User Secretlondon]].   He can influence others who do "dispute resolution" and sometimes will
[[block IP]]s for "[[vandalism]]".  This is 
the most "[[sysop vigilantiism|heavily abused power]]", "especially" when 
extended to "[[trolls]]".

When Wales "chats" with other users they get a picture of how he 
tends to see things and usually "[[defer]]" to this person who they see
as an [[GodKing|awe-inspiring founder]].  Certain [[sycophant]]s skew
issues towards the way the founder sees them.   None of these are unusual:
[[Group dynamics]] suggest that this cannot be avoided but staying concious about this kind of phemonemom helps to minimize the damage it does, the [[systemic bias]] it creates, [[groupthink]] reinforced.

==Wikimedia's response ==
Wikimedia supporters cite as one of the greatest difficulties that Wikipedia has faced maintaining an open and welcoming culture in the face of repeated attacks from "vicious" [[trolls]], such as the ones that they view as beginning to "plague" [[Consumerium:Itself|Consumerium]].  Conveniently, they ignore the fact that these so-called trolls actually authored the majority of the useful material at [[Consumerium]]!

== failure or success ==

[[Wiki management]] issues are complex and difficult, and there are many lessons yet to be learned.  However, to invent a pet label for "heretic" or "dissident" and use that to compel or enforce an existing [[community point of view]] violates every principle of an open project. 

In contrast, supporters point to the "incredible success of Wikipedia" as an excellent model for any community organization.  Wikipedia faces far greater challenges than any single-purpose community such as consumerium, because by design, it draws from a very broad range of ideological backgrounds, and must be welcoming to them all.  

Consumerium, or other narrow-purpose projects, will likely find a more homogeneous user base, thus making [[governance]] decisions much easier.  

Detractors point out Wikipedia's consistent refusal to accept any end-user-driven quality criteria, lack of [[vocabulary]] control, relative slow growth of its [[Simple English]] project, which has been sabotaged to the point of being useless for [[translation]], leaving translators defaulting to complex full English, which necessarily carries a degree of serious English [[culture bias]] - sometimes called [[EPOV]].  

==Wiki management and policy criticism==
Some participants in the [[Wikipedia]] and other [[GFDL corpus]] projects have raised concerns with the people and processes employed by the "foundation". They claim that it has structural problems and that is unlikely to ever outgrow these.  Most of the criticisms have to do with [[wiki management]] problems:

*Claims that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]].

*Claims that Wikipedia's [[name space]] is [[EPOV]] and favours Wikipedia itself inherently, e.g. creating use of ISO language codes in [[mediawiki]] as if they are invocations of Wikipedia in that language, not simply references to "that page in that language".   
For example [[Wikipedia:fr:Commerce �uitable]] or [[w:fr:Commerce �uitable]] map incorrectly to the [[interwiki link standard]] name which is [[fr:Wikipedia:Commerce �uitable]]:

::It is not up to the service to decide what languages to serve in, nor is it up to the service to decide how to carve up space within that language - that's up to the language itself.  Not only that, but the name of the service is itself expressed in a language:  Hawaiian and Greek, combined using English rules of [[proper noun]] formation.
Other [[Unicode]] character sets make this problem more poignant:
So to use a label like <;nowiki>[[Wikipedia:ch]]</nowiki> is to impose the English word "Wikipedia" first - only if you understand this in English are you then to be allowed to go on to read in Chinese.

*Promoting its own [[community point of view]] as if it were actually a [[neutral point of view]].  Under this policy, sysops are guilty of ignoring [[systemic bias]] questions, and letting [[sysop vigilantiism]] and [[sysop vandalism]] occur freely against outsiders, to the bizarre extremes of assuming that the Wikipedia mailing list consensus on legal issues overrules the best legal advice of actual qualified legal experts, or citing [[echo chamber]] assertions in [[Wikipedia]] articles as if they were true.

::Recently, on [[m:|Meta-Wikipedia]], Users [[Erik Moeller]] and [[Auntie Angela|Angela Beesley]] agreed that "only the [[community point of view]]" should even be permitted on Meta, with every dissenter [[use real names|forced to reveal "their real name"]] to attach to positions that dissented.  This of course would put these dissenters in positions of very extreme [[vulnerability]] and weakness.  

::Moeller even advocated openly on the [[Wikipedia IRC channel]] that Wikimedia should have thugs on call in every country to make sure this point of view was enforced by violence.  This led to complaints about him [[w:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales|which you can read here]]. More importantly, the idea that '''''systemic bias is something to be enforced, not balanced''''' has taken root, thanks to advocates of [[sysop vigilantiism]] - who were destroying and damaging essays presenting alternative views even in advance of discussion of this policy point.

*Allegedly planning (certainly discussing open whether) to modify its contributor agreement to make Wikimedia the contributor's [[copyright infringement agent]].  This would pose some potential threat to the open content status of Wikimedia projects, by letting '''Wikimedia''' use a legal bludgeon to shut down even legitimate [[mirror]]s and full [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s on the basis of even minor inconsistency with the GFDL - in places where Wikimedia itself may be arguably inconsistent or in [[GFDL violation]].  At the moment it requires some degree of consensus before that could happen, since a fair number of contributors would have to sign up for any legal action. Eliminating that hurdle would significantly increase the potential for locking up the content.  See [[w:Wikipedia:Submission Standards]]

*[[Libel chill]] employed as a tactic to silence critics, including those who have raised simple legal issues re the [[GFDL]] and [[charitable status]], which any contributor or citizen has a right to do.

''See [[link transit]] for various attempts to resolve this issue.'' [http://www.squidoo.com/safe-tanning-with-tanning-booth PC Pro School]