Talk:Wikimedia Foundation

Wikimedia Space?

Hi, In my opinion there ought to be a mention of https://space.wmflabs.org/ because it is a significant WMF production? Victor Grigas (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Info about File:Wikimedia Foundation financial development.svg

2003/04 - 2017/18

2003/04 - 2021/22

The graphic on the right is more current at the moment. The source is the same (see file description and versionhistory). --Summer ... hier! (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Summer ... hier!: Very nice graphic. I recommend creating it again, since I have changed the revenue figure for almost every year - see next section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello John Broughton, the graphic on the right was created in 2014 by StefanInaktiv. Then he, Kopiersperre and I updated the graphic. You can find the used data in c:File:Wikimedia Foundation financial development.svg#Data file 'wp_finance.txt' (csv-format). The references in c:File:Wikimedia Foundation financial development.svg#References. I think everything is fine at the moment. --Summer ... hier! (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

alka 2409:4089:838C:511E:0:0:D0E:88B1 (talk) 09:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

This is locked similar for me

You can always myself files

Added with myfile 2A02:A03F:607D:FF01:200E:F89E:BE7D:CA4B (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. Please elaborate. Peaceray (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggest new sub-section in the history section: the WP:FRAM case

Hi editor friends, I am proposing a discussion on Talk:Arbitration_Committee#Suggest_new_section_the_FRAM_case xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

221250098@Xinbenlv 103.145.133.100 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Income figures are wrong for every year since the second year

[Previous comment rewritten - jb]

I've corrected the figure for 2018-2019 income. The format of the Statement of Activities (aka P&L) is different than what is usually seen, and we've gotten it wrong every year since 2005-2006.

Income is equal to [Net assets without donor restrictions category, "Total support and revenue" line] plus/minus [Net assets with donor restrictions category, "Increase (decrease) in net assets with donor restrictions" line]. The second amount has consistently been left out of calculations. (For earlier years, this second line was called "Increase (decrease) in temporarily restricted assets.) [Note: REWRITTEN 24 December 2021, for clarity - JB]

You can confirm what net income should be by looking at the difference between Net assets at beginning of year and Net assets at end of year - that difference, plus expenses for the year, is (by definition) what the total income figure should be.

I'm going to correct these later today. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

John Broughton I don't understand what you have done here at all. For the 2007/2008 year, for example, you say that revenue was $7,060,610, and you cite [1]. That figure doesn't occur in that document, which says on page 3 that total support and revenue was $5,032,981. Why is your figure $2 million out from any amount readers can verify from themselves in the cited source?? If the source says total support and revenue is X, and total expenses is Y, we should use the same figures. --Andreas JN466 12:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Andreas The financial statement says that within the category of UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS, total support and revenue was $5.0 million. But there are two categories: (1) unrestricted net assets, and (2) Temporarily restricted net assets. It's incorrect to use only the first category.

You're correct that the revenue figure of $7.1 million doesn't appear on that page. But that's because the accountants (as required by GAAP) have split revenues into two categories. You have to add the "Contributions" figure in the second category to the "Total support and revenue" figure in the first category.

And, as I noted, there is a quick check to make sure revenues are correct - use the increase in net assets (the increase should be the difference between TOTAL revenues and TOTAL expenses). In this case, net assets increased by $3.5 million, and expenses were $3.5 million. So total revenue had to be around $7.0 million. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Foundation" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia Foundation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 30#Wikipedia Foundation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CrazyBoy826 04:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to see if my personal information is correct and my user name I just now created an account Tiffinerussell23 (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome Tiffinerussell23. I've create your User talk page for you. You can also create a personal sandbox for test edits. Your Talk page is at User talk:Tiffinerussell23, where further assistance can be provided. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"WMF Labs" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect WMF Labs. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 10#WMF Labs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia is created before Wikimedia ?

Wikipedia was created in the year 2001 whereas Wikimedia ks just 2003 how could it be ? Kindly clarify!!! Aarlin Raj A (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, but I have two guesses, the first just being a mistake was made, resulting in your confusion. The second is that Wikipedia came first, and then the creators decided to branch out. ECPBlue (ECPBlue) 21:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you please research this and check if there was an error? Thank you. Qwerfjkl talk 18:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

For the first few years, Wikipedia was hosted by Bomis. Then the Foundation was formed to take over the hosting. Wikipedia did indeed exist before the Wikimedia Foundation. See History of Wikipedia. --Andreas JN466 12:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Metawikipedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Metawikipedia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Wikipedia:Metawikipedia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Please append

{{R shell|
{{R from person}}
{{R to section}}
}}

to the redirect. Thanks. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"Carolyn Bothwell" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Carolyn Bothwell. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Carolyn Bothwell until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"Arne Klempert" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Arne Klempert. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20#Arne Klempert until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

"Stuart West (Wikimedia)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Stuart West (Wikimedia). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 21#Stuart West (Wikimedia) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the discussion:

====Stuart West (Wikimedia)====

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Stuart West (Wikimedia) → Wikimedia Foundation#Board of Trustees  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. I could not find any Wikimedia-related Stuart West anywhere else on Wikipedia either. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Qwerfjkl talk 18:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"Test Wikipedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Test Wikipedia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 22#Test Wikipedia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Watch tower advantages&disadvantages

Please answer me Smangele Sgwaza (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia LLC snd Enterprise API

This topic, see [2] also, needs balanced and thorough coverage. SeoR (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use/bn 113.212.111.61 (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Complaints handling process

With that kind of money coming in, why isn't there an official Complaints Department for each Wikimedia project, rather than leaving the community to sort it out for themselves? If there is an issue with the admins themselves on Wikivoyage for example, there is no way to raise a complaint above them. KevRobbAU (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion from COI editor

First, I declare a conflict of interest in articles about the Wikimedia Foundation, as I was a staff member for seven years.

Second, the History section of this article amuses me. We jump from St. Pete to Lila Tretikov and Katherine Maher, as though Sue Gardner never existed at all.... -Philippe (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Some recent articles about WMF/WP fundraising, maybe useful for something

• Wikipedia is swimming in money—why is it begging people to donate? - The Daily Dot

• You think the BBC is biased? Check out Wokepedia - The Daily Telegraph, Andrew Orlowski

• Lileks: Wikipedia wants me to do what? - Star Tribune, James Lileks Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Shortcut proposal

I would like to propose creating a shortcut to Wikimedia Foundation#Projects and initiatives, something like WP:PROJECTS (already exists), WP:FPI, et cetera. I'm not sure if doing so is within the scope of my user rights, and I thought discussing it would be a good idea, given the importance of the section and article. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Shortcut with redirect created; shortcut displayed in said section. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC) (struck 00:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC))

Hello, EpicPupper. I'm sorry for this inquiry being so late, but I only just became aware of this revert. Could you be a little more specific, and show me where the guideline is? There are mainspace shortcuts all over Wikipedia, and I don't understand why you picked this one out after a discussion had already been raised here without any response. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue is this edit which added {{Shortcut|WP:FPI}} at Wikimedia Foundation#Wikimedia projects. See WP:Shortcut which includes "should not be used in articles". As that page says, shortcuts are for administrative pages, not articles. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh—I see! The page isn't formatted as Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation or similar, it's formatted as an article. Okay, that makes sense; thank you. What will become of the WP:FPI shortcut itself? I find it handy as a quick reference for the Foundation projects/initiatives. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FPI should be changed to point to an administrative page (Wikipedia:xxx or Help:xxx or similar). Or, it could be blanked with an edit summary linking to this talk section as an explanation (that would lead to its deletion). Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Johnuniq. Yep, that's exactly what I meant. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs)} 18:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Note: I noticed Template:R from shortcut outputs a text box that says: "This is a redirect from a shortcut in any namespace to a page in any namespace except template namespace." This should probably get updated so that it does not conflict with WP:SHORT. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Edited on September 27, 2021

Brief description. I updated the information on the board of directors of the fund - as of the summer of 2021, citing as a source - the minutes of the meeting, which took place in June (not to be unfounded). ["Meeting of the Board / June 2021 / Minutes" (English). Wikimedia Foundation. June 1-2, 2021] In the Advisory Board section, I singled out a senior community development manager and a responsible public relations manager. When reviewing the minutes, please note that the experts are directly present at this board meeting and are involved in advising the latter. Among other things, they provide interactive presentations on the current state of affairs, and offer an annual plan to help clarify and set priorities for the coming year. Looking at Wikipedia in other languages, I noticed a tendency to completely omit information about the Advisory Board in articles. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to offer volunteers to add this unit. Thanks! R. Shaban. Registered user and one of the editors of Wikipedia. --Shaban Roman Petrovich (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles "Wikimedia Foundation" and Wikipedia. (Edited September 27-28)

"Wikimedia Foundation" Brief description. I updated the information on the board of directors of the fund - as of the summer of 2021, citing as a source - the minutes of the meeting, which took place in June (not to be unfounded). ["Meeting of the Board / June 2021 / Minutes" (English). Wikimedia Foundation. June 1-2, 2021] In the Advisory Board section, I singled out a senior community development manager and a responsible public relations manager. Please check and approve (or reject)! Thanks. Looking at Wikipedia in other languages, I noticed a tendency to completely omit information about the Advisory Board in articles. Given the importance of the article for understanding the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation, I would like to offer volunteers to add this unit. Thanks!

"Wikipedia". Brief description. I added a new subheading to the Wikipedia article, titled "Current Status," which was unfortunately missing before.

If, before that, the article provided information mainly for 2007-19, I provided a more updated one - with references to relevant sources. (For example, the global ranking of the encyclopedia's attendance has changed significantly since January 14, 2017, according to the same Alexa.com source cited in the article. If previously Wikipedia was in 5th place, then by February 2020 Wikipedia ranked eleventh in the world by Internet traffic).

In addition, I propose to consider the "current state" section of Wikipedia as one that needs to be constantly updated (possibly once a year) according to new statistics. --Shaban Roman Petrovich (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shaban Roman Petrovich: This isn't an issue that belongs on the administrator's noticeboard, so ProcrastinatingReader has moved it here. This is a content dispute, not an administrative problem. For help with editing check out the Teahouse or Help desk, to discuss your edits to a specific page please use the article's talk page (i.e. here). Your edit to Wikimedia Foundation was reverted by WikiLinuz who laid out their reasons in the edit summary - the paragraph you added on board members duplicates the paragraph above, There is no need to state that the board in a specific meeting in 2021 contains the same people who were in the board in 2020, and it includes a number of errors (who are "James Gailman" and "Dariusz Emelniak"). The second paragraph you added is Original research which is prohibited by policy: you cannot make your own conclusions about which consultants "stand out", this needs to come from a reliable source. The article will be updated when editors update it - there's no point saying "X needs to be updated every year", we just need editors to do it. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Request a link correction

At the start of the page, the phrase "Wikimedia projects" links to List of Wikimedia projects, and that is a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation#Wikimedia projects. Thus, is a link to the same page.
The thing is tho, that as it first links to "another" page which then links to the respective section, it makes the reader reload the page when it just should move downwards.
So, instead of being formatted as "[[List of Wikimedia projects|Wikimedia projects]]", it should be as "[[#Wikimedia projects|Wikimedia projects]]", which should sent the reader to that section without needing to reload the page.
I can't edit this page, so could someone change that for me please? -Kirbeat (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! -Kirbeat (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

simply(?) Wikimedia

Article starts with: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (WMF, or simply Wikimedia)... which is a bit strange, as Wikimedia IMHO is the whole ecosystem around Wikimedia projects, communities and entities like WMF, but it is not just simply Wikimedia - no? I think this should be removed or at least rephrased to something like sometimes simplified as Wikimedia, but then elanborate later. -- Zblace (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—Chung Yung Chi (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to supply a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

No more bitcoin...

This article says that the foundation began accepting Bitcoin in 2014. It should also say that the foundation has now (05/02/2022 or whatever the date was) stopped accepting Bitcoin. I don't want to update this article myself (not sure if I can, as an user without an account). Thanks. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Staff

Should there maybe be a detailed breakdown of what the more than 550 dedicated staff personnel are actually paid to do? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: We could at least try to provide some sort of basic breakdown. But the matter is not helped by the naming of WMF departments and the overall organizational structure, where a department like "Advancement" e.g. is responsible both for fundraising and strategic partnerships, while at the same time a quarter of the 50 or so people working on fundraising aren't located in Advancement but in Technology (Fundraising Tech). Moreover, the Staff and Contractors listing on the WMF site is no longer complete. I can't think of any secondary sources right now ... do you have any ideas? Andreas JN466 18:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe a foundation-based editor will come by (hopefully 549 have this page on their watchlist) who would have up-to-date information. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You know, we could just list the departments per [3], with a short description based on the descriptions given there. I'll have a go at this. Andreas JN466 10:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: See diff. Thanks for the suggestion; I think this adds value. Does it work for you? --Andreas JN466 10:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. Foundation-based editors, does it summarize well or is more needed? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Section Disputes

The section does not just mention disputes, but also some public criticism regarding the foundation. Would it be better to rename it to Disputes and Criticism? Or possibly the other way around.--188.23.204.117 (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

How to donate to wikimedia foundation

Can’t find a link to donate to the foundation! 206.192.168.13 (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Below the Wikipedia logo, there is a link that says Donate. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

please place a physical address on your post for donations in order to donate by post office mail. 24.191.201.94 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I make tiny but regular donations from Australia. Each time, additional fees are deducted by my bank (about 3%) for international transactions. (The banks – including Visa – are the culprits.) Is there any local office of Wikipedia to donate to? Also, the donation page asks for an optional extra amount (to 'handle' the donation, I believe). Who would get that? --Nielshutch (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The ACLU and the NSA may soon square off in the Supreme Court — over Wikipedia

Include in article?

National Security Agency and American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU and the NSA may soon square off in the Supreme Court — over Wikipedia - The NSA and the scope of state secrets privilege may be in front of the Supreme Court next term. Source: https://www.grid.news/story/technology/2022/09/27/the-aclu-and-the-nsa-may-soon-square-off-in-the-supreme-court-over-wikipedia/ September 27, 2022

"The Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Wikipedia, last month asked the (Supreme Court) to hear arguments on its lawsuit over the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international phone and email communications. The organization, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, has been fighting the NSA in court over such “upstream surveillance” for the past seven years." ... "Wikimedia contends that given this surveillance, it cannot ensure the confidentiality of the tens of millions of people who read, edit and communicate about Wikipedia, one of the largest repositories of human information to ever exist."

Aeryn Palmer, legal director of compliance at the Wikimedia Foundation, said...“When we think about what we might be collecting from anyone who visits the site, when we think about how we do research with our readers or with our contributors to better understand what sorts of features they might like to see and how they want the projects to evolve, we’re continually thinking about how we can best protect their privacy,”

May1787 (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Former WMF board member removing sources critical of WMF fundraising in "cleanup"

Wikimedia fundraising is currently in the news (Slate article), following a recent Request for Comment in which, to quote the closing admin,

Nearly all participants agreed that the banner texts are at least partly untruthful, and that soliciting money by misleading readers is an unethical and inappropriate use of this project. Specifically, participants clearly identified that banners that state or imply any of the following are not considered appropriate on the English Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia's existence or independence is under threat or dependent on donations
• Donated funds are used primarily to support Wikipedia and/or its volunteer editors
• Readers should feel obliged to donate regardless of their means ("guilt tripping")

So it is a bit disconcerting to see User:Sj, a former Wikimedia Foundation board member, swooping into the article and deleting various sources with a critical view of WMF fundraising, namely:

• [4] in The Telegraph
• [5] in The Telegraph
• [6] published by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, a think tank funded by George Soros that is affiliated with the University of Cambridge.
• [7] by me in The Daily Dot (first inserted here over a year ago by User:ProcrastinatingReader, with the edit summary "we look for how reliable independent secondary sources describe the wikimedia foundation")
• [8] by me in The Register (first inserted here over four years ago by User:MarioGom to source James Heilman's reelection to the board)

It's worth noting that the content cited to these secondary sources wasn't even critical of WMF fundraising. The deletions seem solely based on disagreement with the POV of these sources in light of the current controversy.

Their deletion now leaves several passages (like the creation of the Endowment and the Knowledge Equity Fund, the Jimbo quote on "show-stopping bugs", or the WMF's work with Craig Minassian) sourced solely to primary sources – i.e. WMF's own publications. The sentence about the reelection of James Heilman to the board is now left completely unsourced. I don't think this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, Sj. We prefer secondary sources to primary (or no) sources. --Andreas JN466 14:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Secondary sources should be reinstated. I'm not opposed to adding some primary sources as complementary material, but not as a replacement. MarioGom (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi MarioGom, agreed on principle. Two statements w/ primary cites are trivia without reliable secondary sources (See the section below.) I don't think the previous sources were appropriate but am open to suggestions.

The rest should all have sources now. The link you had added for James Heilman's removal only addressed it in a footnote; I replaced it with a Washington Post reference that covers it and Geshuri's brief tenure in more detail.

I left out the Daily Dot as it is a questionable source for contentious topics, or when the author is known to be biased; it did not seem appropriate here. The Orlowski refs similarly seemed out of place -- he is distinguished as a scathing Wikipedia and Wikimedia critic, but that does not make him an informative cite for mundane topics already covered by more reliable journalistic sources. – SJ + 06:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Sj: I didn't check all of them, but I think the Washington Post one you added to replace The Register looks good. That settles the issue for me. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The content you refer to was indeed not critical of WMF fundraising. Your premise and your salacious section title are simply wrong. I would love to see reliable critical sources, however we just don't need more sources of questionable reliability, or dramatic op-eds with misleading titles being cited as sources for mild facts that they mention only in passing. – SJ + 06:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Questionable reliability: The Telegraph is considered a top-class source at WP:RSP. There is an ongoing effort to change its status which so far is failing badly. Andreas JN466 11:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Local consensus can still decide against using certain sources. I agree that The Telegraph, The Daily Dot and The Register aren't particularly good sources to show whether something is or isn't undue weight in this article. (I have lots of fun reading The Register and they're very good at picking up niche but interesting tech-related news. Not saying the contrary.)

As much as I'd like people to care more about certain topics, the reality is that for a lot of Wikimedia-related history and trivia there aren't good secondary sources. It's often good to remove info for which good secondary sources cannot be found. Nemo 08:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• When I made that edit a year or so ago, the issue was we were making statements sourced to WMF mailing lists / metawiki / other WMF or community statements, which is not RS. Sources like The Daily Dot (removed) are fine in this context IMO; RSP only questions its reliability/bias on controversial matters. Sj it'd be useful if you laid out the specific reliability concerns you have with each source? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I think it's also worth mentioning that the Daily Dot was rated as a top-quality, "green" source for many years. Concerns in the recent RfC focused mainly on it being too left-leaning and opinionated in its coverage of US politics. (This is not a consideration here; pretty identical criticism of WMF fundraising has come from centre-right sources like The Telegraph.) I didn't see anyone arguing in the RfC that Daily Dot coverage of Internet stories was factually unreliable.

  In terms of WP:USEBYOTHERS, the article I wrote for the Daily Dot attracted coverage in about a dozen countries, including coverage by TF1 (the French equivalent of the BBC) and coverage in Clarín, the second-largest newspaper in the Spanish-speaking world. This should also be borne in mind for any discussions of due weight.

  The closure statement of the recent RfC on The Daily Dot concluded: "Future discussion on the extent to which The Daily Dot is reliable for particular topic areas (such as internet culture, or alternatively politics) may help to attain consensus going forward for the website's use in those areas, and future civil discussion is encouraged to help attain a community consensus regarding the extent to which The Daily Dot is reliable for its coverage of specific topics." Andreas JN466 13:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Two sections needing help

I'm not sure how to improve these, noting them here for now:

Independent contractors

This section is a bit of trivia I haven't seen elsewhere. Unclear why this is notable in the history of the Foundation or what its inclusion means. (Relevant to budget discussions on meta, though even there this is 1% of the budget and not associated with otherwise notable events.)

Among firms regularly listed as independent contractors in the Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990 disclosures are the law firm Jones Day and the PR firm Minassian Media; the latter was founded by Craig Minassian, a full-time executive at the Clinton Foundation.

The one secondary source that references this is the ineteconomics blog post, but that raises a few red flags: the author was rebuffed for trying to add self-cites into WP; includes some factual errors; and is concerned about a possible conspiracy involving "a nexus between Minassian, the Clinton Foundation, Wikimedia, Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook.".

Absent a cite for relevance, I would leave this out or merge into == Staff == . – SJ + 06:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Prior to your edits, the section on Independent contractors read:

Among firms regularly listed as independent contractors in the Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990 disclosures are the Jones Day law firm and the PR firm Minassian Media; the latter was founded by Craig Minassian, a full-time executive at the Clinton Foundation.

For its Strategy 2030 planning, the Wikimedia Foundation made extensive use of the services of williamsworks, a consultancy established by Whitney Williams, former Trip Director for Hillary Clinton.

FWIW, The Clinton connection was also referred to in one of the Telegraph pieces you deleted [9]: The Wikimedia Foundation has long had friendly ties to the Clintons, and these have grown closer. Since 2016 it has used the Clintons’ PR guru, Craig Minassian, whose firm became the WMF’s highest paid external contractor, while Minassian retained his full-time role with the Clintons. As for Olenick's piece, I would have thought the Institute for New Economic Thinking would pass muster. It's not like it's a rabid far-right think tank; it's funded by Soros, runs programs at the University of Cambridge and Olenick is an INSEAD fellow. The content is clearly factual and backed up by the WMF's own communications. --Andreas JN466 11:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Excessive spending and fundraising

This paragraph is awkward, and should be summarized in a way that addresses the section topic. The details of this particular exchange are not very notable, though the recurring conlicts around inefficiency is.

In 2014, Jimmy Wales was confronted with allegations that WMF had a poor cost/benefit ratio for "a miserable cost/benefit ratio and for years now has spent millions on software development without producing anything that actually works". He acknowledged that he had "been frustrated as well about the endless controversies about the rollout of inadequate software not developed with sufficient community consultation and without proper incremental rollout to catch show-stopping bugs".

Suggestions? There are nominally-secondary sources that repeat the above paragraph almost verbatim, but I haven't found any that summarize the import of the situation. The quote about "cost/benefit ratio" was originally in German by h-stt, translated by Andreas for Wikipediocracy, and went through a chain of citogenesis leading to its inclusion verbatim in this article (which we should avoid).

A separate line about struggles with s/w rollouts belongs in the software section. – SJ + 06:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The section about the "miserable cost-benefit ratio" was added by User:QuackGuru, who no longer seems to be active on Wikipedia. He cited my piece in The Register ("green" status at WP:RSP). I'd suggest just put the Register piece back in and replace the quote with a paraphrase (I agree the quote is not notable; I actually don't see any evidence of it having entered any other reliable sources).

The criticism section does need updating. I would propose complementing the Washington Post piece already cited with –

• the abovementioned Slate piece by Stephen Harrison [10]
• Orlowski's two Telegraph pieces (once again, the Telegraph is a top-class, "green" reliable source per WP:RSP and a criticism section should, you know, cite notable critics ...) Regards, --Andreas JN466 11:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Complaining about how Wikipedia works

Hello, my name is Masoud Minaei, the world champion of several times and has many titles. My page has been deleted several times for unknown reasons by unknown people. Please follow up Masoud.minaei (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not the correct page for receiving explanations on our notability policy. Please post this at WP:TEAHOUSE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masoud Minaei (2nd nomination), and the earlier AfD nomination as well. The reasons are not unknown. Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Current monthly contributior

Please make an option for a current monthly contributior. I don’t want to say “maybe later” but there seems to be no other option. I’m proud to contribute monthly and I would like to let it be known 107.115.171.109 (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

To make suggestions about the fundraising banners please use the following page: Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022 banners. You will see there are some related discussions already about the options available to dismiss the banner. Andreas JN466 09:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2023

Funnymids (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Government censorship

In this interview, Matt Taibbi reveals that Wikipedia was one of the social media companies that met with government censors from 2017 until the present. 152.130.9.9 (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There were other reports on this besides this Fox interview with Matt Taibbi, above all

• Truth Cops in The Intercept (related, earlier story)
• Why the Twitter Files Are in Fact a Big Deal in Jacobin (magazine).

Both of these are reliable sources ("green" status at WP:RSP. However, it's worth mentioning that there were several articles last year debunking the Intercept story:

• No, Wikipedia is Not Colluding with DHS in Slate (magazine)
• Bullshit Reporting: The Intercept’s Story About Government Policing Disinfo Is Absolute Garbage in TechDirt

I wouldn't be opposed to a mention somewhere in the article, provided both sides are given.

(For an internal discussion here on Wikipedia see Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#Meetings about misinformation with FBI, CISA, etc..) --Andreas JN466 15:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this is UNDUE given the debunking; NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"Trevor Parscal" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Trevor Parscal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 10 § Trevor Parscal until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 21:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

How many annual donors?

The lead says "The Foundation finances itself mainly through millions of small donations from Wikipedia readers," which implies at least two million separate donors per year. Is this accurate? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Yes. The 2020-21 Fundraising Report, for example, says $154,763,121 USD raised from over 7.7 million donors. Andreas JN466 05:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen466, almost eight million donors a year is nice support from readers. If I were working for WMF I'd send Wikipedia ambassadors to court the major players who could toss in ten to a 100 million by themselves. Outreach to multi-billionaires should be a major department of WMF if it isn't already. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Other Wikimedia events

This article has a section about Wikimania, but (unless I'm overlooking) no mention of other Wikimedia events such as Wiki Conference India, Wiki Indaba, WikiConference North America, etc. Should this section be expanded? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect "Charity Navigator" info

Quick search of the listed reference shows that the info about 4-Star ratings is generally true, but is incomplete, out-of-date, and incorrect as to dates (e.g. references to 2010 info). This is an easy update to fix. 2601:282:8981:8440:9CE6:BE17:6C4C:3B21 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Table

About the big table in Wikimedia Foundation#Finances:

Net assets are supposed to be related to expenses, with a typical recommendation that well-run organizations will have 12 to 18 months' expenses on hand (see also foundation:Resolution:Setting Working Capital Reserve Target, which adopts this goal for the WMF in particular). Can we add that to the table? It would look something like this:

Year	Source	Revenue	Expenses	Asset rise	Net assets at end of year	Reserve ratio
2022/2023	PDF	$180,174,103	$169,095,381	$15,619,804	$254,971,336	18 months
2021/2022	PDF	$154,686,521	$145,970,915	$8,173,996	$239,351,532	19 months

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Wikimedia Enterprise into Wikimedia Foundation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per WP:NOPAGE, there are times when it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; We don't really have enough coverage to make a substantial standalone article on this venture. I think this would (at this point) be better covered as a section of the article on the Wikimedia Foundation, and therefore I propose that the content of Wikimedia Enterprise be merged into this article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add more WMF Dara from IRS 990 report

..The Wikimedia foundation provides financial information to the IRS on form 990 which could improve the article, especially if we could show changes by year

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_2021_Form_990.pdf

2. APIs are available. All US non profits have to provide 990s https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/api

3. Some of the explanatory notes from WMF mean that we may be misleading on the numbers we use unless with add a similar note. For instance, the number of employees "does not include non-US-based workers, as well as contractors which may be hired part-time or for specific assignments, as those individuals are not issued W-2s from the Foundation."

"https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRS_tax_related_information/2021_Wikimedia_Foundation_Form_990_Frequently_Asked_Questions

I will add a comment below with details of 990. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the diagram for the expense of the revenue of Wikimedia Foundation should be expanded to 2023.

Title. 2001:EE0:4BCB:4170:71E5:E055:6008:4DEC (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Shorten the expanse, revenue section

Hi, it seems that there is a flooding content in two those content in the information box, while there are two years listed in both, 2023 and 2022. Keep it in 2023 only is best. 2001:EE0:4BCA:FD50:B50C:773B:1A40:16BA (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The present infobox works better. Comparing one year with the previous year (or few years) gives the reader an indication of progressive monetary income and outflow and not just a static look at one measure. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so, overwritten details only make the article sound redundant than solving anything else. Also, most pages only shows or details one current statistics, and this page, by a steady view, most people will consider it duplicate information. 2001:EE0:4BCA:FD50:A056:A894:2B9B:12DA (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Make it shorter heading

Change 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization to nonprofit organization for brevity and to avoid confusion. 2001:EE0:4BC8:4F00:71D2:A29:A5C4:100E (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 21:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Abbreviated as, not abbreviated.

I might see there is obviously a grammar mistake in the lead sentence, thus I brought the matter entitled above. Should we do it, or need to get consensus? 2001:EE0:4BCC:A880:9496:F804:F0D4:C864 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Poor wording

I attempted to edit the poor wording regarding this section (in Disputes): "In 2014, Jimmy Wales was confronted with allegations that WMF had a poor cost/benefit ratio for "a miserable cost/benefit ratio and for years now has spent millions on software development without producing anything that actually works"."

I was however reverted within five minutes by Randy Kryn. Do other editors not find those sentences weird? "...WMF had a poor cost/benefit ratio for "a miserable cost/benefit ratio..." makes no sense. AusLondonder (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello AusLondonder, the ping didn't work because you had edited your comment without re-pinging (have to erase the signature and save the page again) but checked the watchlist. I'd done a revert of sockpuppet edits and didn't see the odd wording, have returned the full quote in context. Thanks for following up on this. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Voluntering contributors, giving up copyrights, should be mentioned in introduction

The introduction doesn't mention all people that work as contributors for the WMF and 'donate' because they do not demand any money, and 'donate' by giving up possible authorrights / copyrights, and in doing so in a way 'co-finance' projects of the Foundation. Aware that 'co-fincancing' is probably not the right word but probably makes clear what is being meant. At least one sentence of at least 20 words should be added in the introduction, in the section where is being described how the WMF is being financed, mentioning this for-free contributions. Also the moderatros, admins, coders etc. Happy spring greetings, VanArtevelde (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

One tier board or two tier board?

(Updated: 28 June) - Working on a translation of the Code of Conduct in Dutch, it's necessary to know whether the Foundation uses a governing structure with a so called one tier board, or a two tier board. In the latter situation, the highest-level board has the function of controlling the organisation, including a board of directors. I couldn't find the answer on en.Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation website writes: "The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees ("Board" or "BoT") oversees the Wikimedia Foundation and its work, as its ultimate corporate authority." (link) That looks like a one-tier structure. The suggestion is to add this information to the article, so people can better understand the role of the Board of Trustees. Thanks beforehand and keep up! Kevin Bouwens (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Corporate Identity?

"This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (July 2024)"

Is anyone working on this section? There's a few articles on a 2014 rollout and 2019-2022 visual identity partnership. Weloveresearch (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Location update

Infobox text for Location requires an update from "One Montgomery Tower" to "One Sansome Street" in accordance with office relocation activities DSeyfert (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Even if the fact is true, the policy is to backing your claim with reliable sources. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Which countries

I mentioned that Wikimedia is banned in some countries for the reason I gave in my edit summary however I do not know which countries I would like to be more specific Can anyone help me with this? John Kryten (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this an exception to "no inline external links"?

WP:ELPOINTS says we don’t use inline external links; they should be in the External links section, not the article body.

#Corporate identity has an external link to wikipedia.org. Before removing his maybe it is a good idea to raise the question: should this be an exception to the guide? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it needs to go. Not like it does anything useful there either, since the domain name is discussed and not the website. Somewhat relatedly, am I the only one who feels uneasy about the "See also" links to Meta in this article? Surely to our readers that's no different from an external link. Actually I feel the same abiut links to projectspace (I don't remember where I saw that right now, but another Wikipedia-related article). -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2024

Why isn't Larry Sanger listed as co-founder in the info box? He's listed as co-founder in the article 2605:59C8:6949:5410:44C1:62D4:7665:5BC5 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Although Sanger is considered a co-founder of Wikipedia in 2001, he was long gone by the time the Wikimedia Foundation was founded in June 2003. Sanger was out by March 1, 2002, over 15 months before the Wikimedia Foundation began. Cullen328 (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

I am not meaning to rain on anyone's parade, but there are some issues that need attention. First, I became somewhat agitated by being visually accosted by multiple tags, to "Donate now". Having previously donated, I am working through this as there was no reply or edit button.

I have used some seperating for those that abhore a wall of text.

Some issues with the Wikimedia flagship article, are tags. The article is in the following categories:

• Articles containing potentially dated statements from October 2006,
• Articles containing potentially dated statements from January 2020
• Articles containing potentially dated statements from May 2022,
• Articles containing potentially dated statements from October 2023,
• Wikipedia articles in need of updating from October 2024

There could be someone that might argue this is not detrimental to the classification. However, missing are several instances that could be tagged as missing a reference. To save space I will just mention several sentences added (likely incremental edits) after a listed inline reference. A "dangling sentence", if you will. An example (random pick): In the second paragraph of the "Disputes" section the unsourced sentence, The communities were as well, organizing some of the most visible protest against the bill on the Internet alongside other popular websites. "...on the Internet..." would seem to indicate there would be sourcing.

• The WP:B-class criteria #1)- states, The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.
• #4)- The article is reasonably well-written.

It is somewhat hard to argue that several tags noting "potentially", as well as more than likely, actual dated statements, covering multiple years from 2006 to 2024 as indicating "well written".

At any rate: As I had to endure the donate now tags so I am just giving a flyby opinion of the article issues and classification. Having enjoyed 2,919 editors, with 1,337 watchers, and an impressive 320,055 pageviews in 30 days, there should be plenty of editors to kick this around, or down the road. Otr500 (talk)

External links

Just a second (or maybe a little more), Thirty-one years ago my daughter of four made a statement at an intersection: "I know what them lights mean"? My wife asked "what"? Her answer, "Red means stop, green means go, and yellow means go very fast". :Wikipedia: policies and guidelines are sometimes treated like traffic lights. Why? There are several attempts at regulating the number of links in the "Further reading" as well as the "External links" sections. They still tend to grow and grow. The light is yellow so go real fast.

• As some things just grow during incremental edits they sometimes get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, has 11 entries in four subsections. Is there bloat or instruction creep? Are some of the following in need of reviewing for axing or deprecating? I see higher class articles with as many as 20 links. I have seen as any as 40 links, with several more in the "Further reading, and even more in the "See also" section. On lower class articles I usually just delete some not actually related, or move some to the talk page for any possible discussion.

Three seems to be an acceptable number of links and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for a forth.

The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.

External links This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.

Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

• • Please note:
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

I am taking no action, just a public service announcement, as 20 "External links" was acceptable on a "Featured" article. The good news is it was negotiated down to 12. Is (11 or 12) the new accepted number of External links or sometimes just consensus by silence?

Alright, now that you have endured my deemed necessary time invasion, I will head on along to my proverbial rat "euthanizing" and the article keepers can ponder any possible solution, or wait awhile and just archive.

• • See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject External links#Mass links.

Thanks for your time, -- Otr500 (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)