Full Version: Help out Wikipedia - San Francisco Chronicle (blog)
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />Help out [b]Wikipedia[/b]
San Francisco Chronicle (blog)
Hey, I feel Wikipedia is a really big deal, something for the ages, and I'd like you to help out. Check out what I say on the site, but here's the gist: I'm ...
View the article
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Tue 15th December 2009, 11:03pm) 
"Comments have been removed from this entry."
Yeah, cut it out, Greg.
You kinda hafta wonder about the Quid Pro Quo for Craig on this latest Blitz o' Cheez Wiz Blintzes.
Insert your own joke about Quid Pro Quo here:
- £1 Professional What?
- Tit 4 Tat
- …
"Hey," I feel that now is the time for every good Wikipedia Reviewer to flood the comments.
Since it's probably headed for the "Report abuse" file, I'd better copy it here:
Since it's probably headed for the "Report abuse" file, I'd better copy it here:
QUOTE
thekohser
12/15/2009 8:40:23 PM
I find it ironic (or, is it "hypocritical") that Craig Newmark is a vocal champion of transparency in government, but then he goes on and on here and elsewhere about his support of a Wikimedia Foundation that is utterly lacking in transparency or ethics in its governance. The "co-founder" of Wikipedia insists that everyone call him "The Founder", and they all obey. The Foundation said it would need $2.6 million for technology in 2008, but they only spent $900K of it, stuffing the remainder in the bank. The Foundation was still shuttling rent money to Wikia, Inc. (the company that once employed 60% of the WMF board) as recently as this summer. The Deputy Director was hired straight off the board of trustees, without a job description, much less a candidate search -- in so doing, they employed someone with a history of defending child pornography as "doing no harm", as long as it's non-violent. The former Chief Operating Officer was a multi-count felon, wanted in two states. And when Jimbo Wales was accused of submitting for reimbursement receipts for pricy steakhouse tabs and a Moscow massage parlor, the Executive Director's response was to say -- on camera, on CNET -- that "Jimmy has never done anything wrong".
(None of my comments are personal attacks. These lapses in ethical governance have all been reported in the tech media.)
The independent Charity Navigator organization rates the WMF as 2 stars (out of four) in organizational efficiency. Their audit, not mine (though I would have given only 1 star, given that a partner in the firm that has money invested in the WMF co-founder's for-profit commercial enterprise, recently bought HIMSELF a board seat).
I'm not sure I could find a more comic notion than the thought of giving money to the Wikimedia Foundation. It is wholly off-track from what you would expect of a dutiful body entrusted with knowledge management. It's a complete mess.
12/15/2009 8:40:23 PM
I find it ironic (or, is it "hypocritical") that Craig Newmark is a vocal champion of transparency in government, but then he goes on and on here and elsewhere about his support of a Wikimedia Foundation that is utterly lacking in transparency or ethics in its governance. The "co-founder" of Wikipedia insists that everyone call him "The Founder", and they all obey. The Foundation said it would need $2.6 million for technology in 2008, but they only spent $900K of it, stuffing the remainder in the bank. The Foundation was still shuttling rent money to Wikia, Inc. (the company that once employed 60% of the WMF board) as recently as this summer. The Deputy Director was hired straight off the board of trustees, without a job description, much less a candidate search -- in so doing, they employed someone with a history of defending child pornography as "doing no harm", as long as it's non-violent. The former Chief Operating Officer was a multi-count felon, wanted in two states. And when Jimbo Wales was accused of submitting for reimbursement receipts for pricy steakhouse tabs and a Moscow massage parlor, the Executive Director's response was to say -- on camera, on CNET -- that "Jimmy has never done anything wrong".
(None of my comments are personal attacks. These lapses in ethical governance have all been reported in the tech media.)
The independent Charity Navigator organization rates the WMF as 2 stars (out of four) in organizational efficiency. Their audit, not mine (though I would have given only 1 star, given that a partner in the firm that has money invested in the WMF co-founder's for-profit commercial enterprise, recently bought HIMSELF a board seat).
I'm not sure I could find a more comic notion than the thought of giving money to the Wikimedia Foundation. It is wholly off-track from what you would expect of a dutiful body entrusted with knowledge management. It's a complete mess.
Mods, can we get this in "News Worth Discussing", then delete this comment?
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 16th December 2009, 6:53am)
Mods, can we get this in "News Worth Discussing", then delete this comment?
Take a number …
Jon
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 16th December 2009, 6:04am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 16th December 2009, 6:53am)
Mods, can we get this in "News Worth Discussing", then delete this comment?
Take a number …
Jon
Moderator note: So moved.
The Comments field has become a 2-page tsunami of scorn and ridicule. I love it. Thank you, Wikipedia Review.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 17th December 2009, 1:06pm)
The Comments field has become a 2-page tsunami of scorn and ridicule. I love it. Thank you, Wikipedia Review.
But, hey, I wore flowers in my hair …
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.