Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,857
edits
Wikimedia: Difference between revisions
trim off some crap
m (moving para) |
(trim off some crap) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Wikimedia Foundation''' is a private tax-exempt corporation (IRS 501) in the state of Florida, USA. | '''Wikimedia Foundation''' is a private tax-exempt corporation (IRS 501) in the state of Florida, USA. | ||
==board status== | |||
It was founded by James Wales. It has | It was founded by James Wales. It has an [[independent board]] contrary to what some claim. Factually it is correct three of the five members have association with [[Bomis]] in the form of being employed by the corporation, ex-employee or owner, but still Bomis does not control the board. | ||
==funding== | ==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 | 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 other Wikis. | Bomis.com donates all the bandwidth needed for Wikipedia and other Wikis. | ||
== | ==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 [[ | 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. | ||
== | ==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, and plans are in the work to set up nonprofit organizations in European countries to complement the global foundation. Wales has given all rights and ownership in the Wikipedia name(s) and websites, as well as some hardware, freely and permanently. | Supporters of the Wikimedia foundation claim that most longstanding participants in the [[Wikipedia]] project have greeted the formation of the nonprofit with great enthusiasm, and plans are in the work to set up nonprofit organizations in European countries to complement the global foundation. Wales has given all rights and ownership in the Wikipedia name(s) and websites, as well as some hardware, freely and permanently. | ||
==Wikimedia's bias== | ==Wikimedia's bias== | ||
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 tries to stay out of dipute resolution and remain neutral as much as possible as to not influence editorial decisions, but it is apparent that he does influence others who are burdened with the task of dispute resolution and [[ban IP|IP banning]] for example when he chats with other users they get a picture of how Jimbo tends to see things and in awe to this person who [[initiator|initiated]] [[Wikipedia]] development among other people they may wish to skew issues towards the way Jimbo sees them. This cannot be avoided but staying concious about this kind of phenomenom helps to minimize the damage some claim it to be doing. | |||
==Wikimedia's response == | ==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 - conveniently, they ignore the fact that these so-called trolls actually authored the majority of useful material here. [[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 | 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 - conveniently, they ignore the fact that these so-called trolls actually authored the majority of useful material here. [[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]]. | 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== | ==Wiki management and policy criticism== | ||
Many 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: | Many 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: | ||
*Treating 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 �quitable]] or [[w:fr:Commerce �quitable]] map incorrectly to the [[interwiki link standard]] name which is [[fr:Wikipedia:Commerce �quitable]]. 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. | *Treating 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 �quitable]] or [[w:fr:Commerce �quitable]] map incorrectly to the [[interwiki link standard]] name which is [[fr:Wikipedia:Commerce �quitable]]. 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; in this case Hawaiian and Greek. | ||
::Editorial note: For computers it is irrelevant in which order, service and language are. Viewing the current syntax as a problem is a psychological not so much practical problem. | |||
*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. | *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. | ||
*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 mirrors on the basis of even minor inconsistency with the GFDL in places where Wikimedia itself may be arguably inconsistent. 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]] | *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 mirrors on the basis of even minor inconsistency with the GFDL in places where Wikimedia itself may be arguably inconsistent. 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]] | *[[Libel chill]] employed as a tactic to silence critics, including those who have raised simple legal issues re the [[GFDL]] status, which any contributor or citizen has a right to do. | ||
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. | 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. | ||