SueSue reports that:



What?! Which crackpot gave $500,000 to this whacked-out organization? And nobody even thinks to ask on the Foundation list?

As for the still-missing audit from financial data that closed June 30, 2007:



Isn't this the same SueSue who led FloFlo to announce that the Board would vote on the release of the audit results on January 31, 2008? My calendar says February 3rd now.

Greg

Al Qaeda? MI5? The Medellin Drug Cartel, assuming they're still around? Robert Mugabe? The Trilateral Commission? Aliens?

Maybe it was someone who won the lottery somewhere by picking numbers based on random IP addresses found in WP page histories, and who then thought he'd "give something back."

Another possibility is that that's where all the Enron money went...

Regardless, I can't imagine it's a person with a conscience, and any sense of general social responsibility... Maybe Steve Ballmer?

This might be very naïve of me…but it strikes me that one of the main problems with the Foundation is exactly that they don't have any money. It's impossible for them to exercise responsibility over their publications with anything like the current number of staff. They need attorneys, publishing professionals, and scholarly counsel. All this costs money. And, as the Foundation gets money, it becomes more feasible to pursue civil action if they act irresponsibly. As it is, many attorneys won't take a case, not because they're disheartened by the "Wikilawyering" around section 230 of the CDA, but because they're not confident that their expenses will be recovered. Similarly, many judges would probably hesitate before issuing a ruling which put an end to the whole endeavor.

It's like me driving around without auto insurance because I don't have any money. Perhaps I can affix a bumper sticker to my vehicle stating that I'm not liable for anyone I run over? Either way, if I do, that victim's expenses won't be paid. Wikipedia is just like that, only with a compellingly cool car - they've done something revolutionary, but on the cheap. I might even support money from the government, so long as that money be predicated on fixing the problems.

I may be missing your point here, Mr. P... It sounds like you mean that one of the main advantages working in their favor is the fact that they don't have any money. So maybe you're referring to the problems other people have with them...?

But at the risk of turning this thread into a discussion of the most likely source of a future lawsuit, I think there are enough people with deep pockets out there who'd be willing to sue them, if Wikipedia became sufficiently intransigent about maintaining libelous and/or personally damaging information. IMO the thing that works in their favor is that they're smart enough to know when they're up against someone like that, and those people, in turn, are the ones who have their "problems" quietly deleted, oversighted, and/or banned out of the picture, with as little fanfare as possible, and if necessary with a phone call from Jimbo offering to "have lunch and discuss the situation together in a nice, friendly manner."

This is why we all had such high hopes with Jeff Merkey, and to a lesser extent Don Murphy, but neither of those cases have panned out - yet.

Speaking of Mr. Murphy, I finally got to see Shoot 'Em Up on DVD last week. I can sort of see why it didn't get nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture, but how can you not like a movie in which the hero (or "antihero," if you prefer) uses carrots as deadly weapons? I'm simply incapable of not liking a movie like that, no matter how much insane violence there is.

Actually, I thought that those two would have set a precedent in a direction that you wouldn't want.

Both. In order to address the problems , they need both to feel themselves being forced to take responsibility and to employ agents to ensure that they do so. Obviously, the current batch of volunteers isn't willing to or capable of doing the job. We need people who will take direct responsibility for every word Wikipedia publishes, just like any other respectable publication.

Maybe... I mean, there's no question that any serious candidate for suing the foundation over WP content is going to be controversial, almost by definition. The ideal scenario is for someone who's hugely popular, and almost Gandhi-like in terms of moral/ethical calibre, to become so incensed with something WP has posted about him/her, without being able to simply get it removed, that he/she can sue them with significant (if not overwhelming) popular support. Realistically, that probably isn't going to happen.

It might be interesting to speculate on who might fit that criteria... haven't we started threads on that before? I could've sworn we have.

Anyway, the point (of this thread?) is that the existence of deep-pocket types with no sense of social responsibility is one of the most demoralizing aspects of this whole enterprise. We could convince 99 percent of the world that Wikipedia is the worst thing to come down the pike since the Bubonic Plague, but if the other 1% has $500,000.00 to just throw around on any silly ol' website that happens to provide them with just the bit of key information they needed about a minor character from Season 2 of Ghost in the Shell, that's another year or more that the rest of the world has to suffer. I'm just saying that it could work both ways, at least in theory.

It's done surreptitiously, I'm convinced, because the WF is concerned that to openly exercise responsibility for content would constitute an admission that they are, in fact, responsible.

Hallelujah and Amen to that!

Perhaps a religious figure. Wikipedians on average are not terribly sympathetic to religion, and would probably resist removing controversial material--even if it was a two-hop smear with clerical pedophilia, say. The problem is that I can't think of a non-Scientology religious figure who would also be willing to sue.

A Scientologist lawsuit could be amusing. Neither law nor popular sentiment would be on their side, but they've demonstrated a willingness to bankrupt small organizations with flimsy legal claims. Anti-Scientologists have free reign on Wikipedia, and some of the articles seem vicious to me (and I'm no fan of the religion). If I had to bet on any single entity, I would put my money on the CoS.

Wikipedia is a religion, much the same way that Scientology is a religion. Both are cultish in nature. Both operate on an eyebrow-raising set of beliefs and practices. Both have elements of flim-flam in them.

And neither of them, as yet, have been made into a reprise of The Music Man, notwithstanding Jimbo's unrequited infatuation with Madame Librarian.

Indeed. It was when I realized the similarities between the two, and that Wikipedia truly is a cult, that I got the hell out of there. The mere fact many cabalistas are anti-Scientology really has little bearing on WP's own cult status.

I think you have done a fair job of describing three possible models of risk management available to WMF:

• Address risk in a socially responsible manner that commits adequate resources to address problems and accepts responsibility for content and editorial restraint;
  
• Keep the resources of the foundations thin and deter attempts at being held responsible at bay by appearing (and actually being) judgment proof, or;
  
• Assert immunity from liability and responsibility for content and restraint.

But when someone important enough makes enough noise, Jimbo at least reacts, so he's admoitted responsibility.

He's admitted moral responsibility. But since he still maintains the farce that he does not have absolute power, he could make it very hard for anyone trying to claim legal responsibility.

Reminds me of the Wikipedia is a cult 2004 userpage.

That will never happen, it's Wikipedia. Like I previously said, only limited number of people having their full name disclosed should be able to edit namespace..., others only talkpage. But this would be admitting that the myth of a credible encyclopedia where everyone can edit can not be possible.

Does anyone have a list of the donators? It's a non-profit, this information can be made publically available, has anyone tried having a copy?

The internet in general is very weird about disclosure of names. Pretty much everything in the real world requires you to give your name; just try volunteering somewhere as "DragonWarrior9253" and see how far you get. Not that anonymity should be completely gotten rid of, but anyone exercising actual power should do so with their name given. I'm trying to stay away from editing BLPs for that reason.

I think privacy is important, in the internet in particular. But it's about a so-called encyclopedia. No one wanting such a project to really work will have any difficulty losing their privilages to write mainspace when this will higher quality. Wikipedia seems to be build on the misleading belief that authorship is only there to protect someones intellectual property when it's far beyond that.

I find wikipedia to have more in common with radical islam than scientology, if only for the reason that Scientology is about making the COS money.

Sign at the WikiZoo:

PLEASE DON'T INSULT THE DONORS.

As I am neither a lawyer nor a fundraiser, I have a question -- can they legally withhold the name of the donor, or is there a reporting requirement in any jurisdiction that the WMF fall under?

I have the same question. It's a non-profit, so there should be a way to have the information. No?

Not that it should do any differences. Who is the fool who will pay that much to corrupt when it's already free to sell BS on Wikipedia. So I just don't get why someone will give that much of hard earned money.

There is no simple answer. The IRS reporting requirements on Schedule A of the 990 form apply here. Keywords for your research are "disqualified person," "substantial contributor," and "unusual grant."

My sense of it is that they are obligated to list it for the IRS, but they don't have to reveal it to the public. In addition, the sum of $500,000 is large enough so that it does not qualify as "public support" because it's from a single source. On the other hand, the "public support" is averaged over five years, so it might not matter. There is also an "unusual grant" exclusion that will work once, but probably not twice.

In the final analysis, the IRS doesn't really enforce all this stuff. They're busy trying to get a handle on the offshore tax shelters that the entire ruling class uses, and don't have the staff to follow up on petty stuff like a half-million here or a half-million there. You can almost get away with murder (see bottom of that page).