QUOTE(Zenwhat @ Sun 24th February 2008, 10:44pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 25th February 2008, 3:29am)
QUOTE(Zenwhat @ Sun 24th February 2008, 8:52pm)
Letting Wikimedia sued because of some minor impropriety that's played up by supporters of Wikipedia Review is not helpful to Wikipedia.
So, you're saying if the Wikimedia Foundation is doing something illegal, it is a bad thing for Wikipedia that the Foundation that manages it be corrected by legal means? You would prefer that the WMF be allowed to continue in an illegal arrangement, if hypothetically one existed?
Zenwhat, the fact that you use the words "minor impropriety" suggest that you may be the one with an irrational point of view on this matter.
What have they done that is illegal?
I thought Kato just said a moment ago that you guys
don't believe Wikipedia is a tax shelter for Wikia.
If they're breaking the law, of course they should face criminal penalties.
I said "minor impropriety." Impropriety meaning "inappropriateness," not criminal activity.
In order to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, Jimmy should step down from Wikipedia, Angela should not by working for the Communications committee and Advisory board, and Wikipedia and Wikia should not share any resources or costs at all, even if their resources (like equipment) are "traded" or "borrowed."
But while that is inappropriate, that isn't necessarily
illegal.
I don't know if a particular law was broken, but I do contend that in past year(s) the Wikimedia Foundation incorrectly completed their Form 990. For example,
on the 2004 form, when 60% of the Foundation's Board of Trustees had ownership interests in Wikia, Inc., the response to Line 80a was "
no". The question was: "Is the organization related through common membership, governing bodies, trustees, officers, etc, to any other exempt or nonexempt organization?"
Wikicities (later Wikia) was founded in December 2004. The 2004 Form 990 covered the period July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005.
The next year, the Foundation changed their answer to this Line 80a question to "yes", which is correct and an obvious improvement.
However, they still answered the (new) Line 75b incorrectly with "no" -- the question being, "Are any officers, directors, trustees, or key employees listed in Form 990, Part V-A... related to each other through family or business relationships? If 'Yes,' attach a statement that identifies the individuals and explains the relationship(s)."
Part V-A lists, plain as day, that three of the five officers (Wales, Davis, and Beesley) were most certainly related to each other through a business relationship -- Wikia, Inc.! Beesley and Wales were
co-founders of the enterprise, for heaven's sake; and Davis was (and continues to be) the chief financial executive of the operation.
If you want my opinion, the reason why the Foundation answered this question incorrectly was because the incomes earned by the related parties may have to have been reported in a separate filing with the IRS, and Jimbo didn't want his income to be public information. I suspect that the Foundation hoped that nobody in the government would ever notice this little discrepancy, or that they would cross that bridge if it ever got noticed. I have contacted the IRS about this, and I've not received comment back. Maybe a simple "mistake" on a non-profit's Form 990 is about at the bottom of their priority list, and I would agree with that as a taxpayer.
However, what
would be disconcerting as a tax-deductible
donor to the WMF would be any evidence that the Foundation rejects, ignores, or covers up this mistake when called upon it. With all of the "Wikia is not Wikimedia" and the "completely separate" dust-ups we've seen over the past year, I think the jury is no longer out on that question. The Foundation has indeed been less than honest about its relationships with Wikia principals, and that's why I think it stinks.
For me, it's not about the law, it's about basic business ethics and a responsibility to be truthful to donors -- and that's where the WMF has failed. You are free to call that a "minor impropriety". I choose not to.
Greg