Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2010-12

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in December 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.



Hi, recently taking place on cases of abuse of power by some admin. Their names are Demart81, Vituzzu, Gregorovious, personlin, GuidoMac. They love to persecute people for their most unpopular, particularly Demart81 is a psychopath who likes to harass other users, on the political thinking like him. They are terribly unfair and I never hear the version of the accused,on exists telematics dictatorship,and there's very little to be expelled and suspended. This situation has lasted a long and need someone to do something, these cases should be reported to Mr Wales. These users should be dismissed from the role of admin, and now that they are exaggerating a lot, you could do something? Forgive me if I'm wrong section in which to do this report. Thanks--Searchingcriminals 21:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Searchingcriminals

It's a misunderstanding: is not a Wikimedia project, it's owned by a company named Yepa. --Nemo 18:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Procedural note: Searchingcriminals was locked as a sock. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


I am thinking because of all the various sports out their we need to create a new wiki to be devoted solely for that area of interest.

Good idea, you should propose it as a new project! Kylu 14:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks, what you are doing is totally irresponsible and foolish

what you are doing is not in the public interest, indeed you are putting nations security at risk with your foolish actions. I fed up with twats like you putting my family at risk for the sake of your glorification - STOP DOING IT you are harming us.

Hi. WikiLeaks and the Wikimedia Foundation are completely unrelated. See en:Wikipedia:Wikileaks_is_not_part_of_Wikipedia for a few comments on this. Best, PeterSymonds 16:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee and private information

At Talk:Arbitration Committee we are discussing the need for Arbitration Committee members to have access to private information. Could someone confirm that the German Wikipedia policy of separation of powers is still firm? It would be useful to have input from community members on the other Wikipedia projects which have an Arbitration Committee, including Czech, Finnish, French, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Russian & Ukrainian Wikipedia. John Vandenberg 07:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

הרצאה מעניינת

שלום לכולם!

רציתי לעניין אתכם בהרצאה של הד"ר דלית קן דרור, בנושא רשיונות חופשיים, Creative Commons, רישוי תוכנה חופשית, והתחום בכלל במשפט הישראלי.

ההרצאה תתקיים בחסות מועדון חיפוקס,

בבניין מדעי המחשב של הטכניון, אולם הרצאות 6, בתאריך 6/12/2010 בשעה 18:30.

ההרצאה בחינם, וכולם מוזמנים.

יום טוב.

(from Hebrew/Seb az86556 09:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC))

Hello everyone! I wanted to point you to a lecture by Dr. Ken Dalit Dror, on free licenses, Creative Commons, free software licenses, and the range of issues under Israeli law. The lecture will be sponsored by Club Haifux, Building of the Technion Computer Science, Lecture Hall 6, on December 6, 2010, at 18:30. The lecture is free and everyone is welcome. Have a good day.

here's the deal - I want to donate - but I want separation of British English / North American English articles

Here's the deal - I want to donate - but I want separation of British English / North American English articles.

My reasoning - both versions are fine separately, but too many articles are mangled with edits from each camp.

I will not financially support a project that publishes articles so poorly edited (for language usage).

--end of above message---

(following is a comment by [me] who doesn't have editing procedures down yet)

If I'm not mistaken, this is OUR encyclopedia. I totally understand your concerns. Perhaps you, or friends of yours, can make note of the pages which demonstrate this problem, and arrange for them to be cleaned up? Just an idea... 23:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is entirely edited by volunteers. In theory, article subjects pertaining to things directly related to the UK should be written in British English and the same goes for articles related to American English. For neutral articles, it doesn't matter as long as it is consistent. However, this doesn't always happen, and people (perhaps ignorant of Wikipedia policy or British spelling) like to go and "fix" things. And on a side note, to be blunt, the whole "Do X before I donate" tactic never works. Killiondude 18:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Advertising Policy

It is one thing to claim the website has no advertising. It is another thing to have giant banners requesting donations - but I find the two awfully similar, and from my perspective, it amounts to the same effect for the end user.

We ask our readers for money to run the site, we do this for a short period each year to raise the funds we need, then the banners go. If we took advertising from others it would jeopardise our neutrality, advertisers in other industries have influenced or threatened to influence coverage of their activities. That isn't the only difference, but it is a big one to us. WereSpielChequers 20:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A personal appeal from Jimmy Wales

WikiLeaks is your worst enemy in this fundraising pitch. Didn't know until I went looking that it apparently lifted your wikiness without being part of the fold. No way would I give that psychopath (Julian Assange ) money. You need to protect your wiki assets.

We don't own the Internet nor do we own the word Wiki or have exclusive rights to use Wiki software. We use Wiki software to write an encyclopaedia on the Internet, wikileaks use wiki software to leak secret information onto the Internet. Yes the first four letters of our names are the same, but Manchester United and Manchester City share the first ten letters of their names and play the same sport using the same rules whilst not being the same organisation.... WereSpielChequers 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Micro-Payments instead of Donations

Hi all,

I saw the pledge of the Wikipedia founder to make donations. If that doesn't work out (it didn't for my non-profit org), I hope Wikipedia comes up with some kind of easy international system to make people have to pay micro-payments (such as 1 cent per page) instead. Such a system could be used by ALL web publishers in the whole world. The point is, such a system would be very hard or complicate to create, thus it can't be small organizations who create it, but only big ones, big non-profit organizations that is. And Wikipedia would be in a perfect situation for something like that!

Regards, Mark

Hi Mark, an annual appeal for donations seems to work for us, we've been doing it for several years, our readership is still growing and enough of them are willing to give us money to keep us in operation. The problem of micropayments is that as a charity we want everyone to access our information, and that includes lots of people in poor countries where even 1 cent per page would be an issue, others simply don't have credit cards.... WereSpielChequers 19:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just advertise

These solitations are very, very annoying. Why don't you just advertise to get these critical revenues you all are begging the whole community for?

What's happening is that you are advertising without you even knowing it. These headline solicitations do just that.

It's been discussed many times before, actually. See en:Wikipedia:Advertisements - The major argument against having ads is that it would likely introduce a bias in articles, it seems. Kylu 17:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have news for you Wikipedia, it doesn't matter how many goddamn times you show Jimmy Wales from different angles, in different clothes, in different places, I am not giving you one fucking cent!!!! 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah well; I just hope you don't pump gas and leave without paying.  fetchcomms 01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: What about coming up with a way people could "contribute" by viewing ads, if and when they felt like it? View 20 ads - that's a buck. 100 ads is $5... Or how ever it breaksdown. I would be curious to know BTW, just how much is a company like say Pepsi willing to pay for the priviledge of being able to have 100 banner ads in front of 100 random viewers. Is it a penny a piece? Or is it more like 1/100 of a penny? I guess it might depend on whether the ad is interactive or not??? Or does the payment only happen if and when a viewer clicks on a banner? I suppose there are several different ways of deciding the rates. Anywho I'm sure most of you are aware that at Google, for instance, you can set your own preferrences on how you wish to have your searches appear to you. You can have 10 results per page, or you can have 25, 50, or 100. Once you set it the way you like it always remembers until you set it again. A similar preferrance page could allow viewers to control how many ads they see (1 every 5 pages, 1 every 10, or 1 per page, etc). People who would like to "contribute" but who can't afford to, could do so by looking allowing what ever number of ads they choose.

Another observation is as follows: Since Wikipedia is a non profit, how many ads would it actually take to "stay in business". Since there is no need for profit, I would think the number would be so low that it would hardly be noticeble.
The concern over the threat of being influenced by certain advertisers. This is the beauty of being as big as wikipedia is. wikipedia is big enough to tell some company that wants to influence the site to take a hike. One way to ensure that wiki is not dependent on any such company would be to limit any one advertiser to a certain percent of the entire ad budget.
What exactly is wiki afraid of? Do they think that if they allow exxon to advertise, that the exxon ad revenue will become such a big percent of the operating costs that they wont be able to say "no dice" if exxon one day in the future says something like, "You know, we would like to continue advertising, but we would like to control the articles about global warming, otherwise we will stop advertising"? As long as you don't allow any one advertiser to have that power over you then I don't see how that could ever be a problem. BTW, is that kind of influence illegal somehow??? If it is or not I would just let advertisers know up front that it will not be tolerated.
What about allowing only a certain type of advertising? For instance advertising from political candidates... under the campaign laws the candidates are supposed to be allowed to have equal time anyway. The american public seems to be one of the least informed electorate ever assembled on voting day, so why not start by allowing these types of ads? Do you/they think that one of the major parties would seek to control the articles that describe for instance distribution of wealth, or trickle down economics? And don't you think that if wiki articles have so much sway that it would be worth trying to wield such influence, well all they have to do is go and edit the pages anyway, isn't that the case? If fact, when you think about it, if it were really worth all the effort and revenue of becoming a major wiki advertiser so that down the road you could threaten to pull ads unless wiki writes it your way... well, why not instead of having a marketing department, a big corporation could have a "what's wiki say about it" department and they could go and edit the sections they don't like to say whatever they want. Come to think of it, maybe allowing advertising is one of the only ways to keep this site honest. Has anyone considered that angle... the exact opposite of the current thinking may hold more true - considering that this site is written by the public it would seem that it is 100% influence already! This whole thing doesn't make much sense. Clearly there must be disputes within wiki over all kinds of "definitions" and "truths", so whoever and however those disputes are solved would be the path at solving or defending against influence by advertisers. Again, I'm not sure what the law is exactly but it would seem to me that if a company is a non profit organization as wiki is, then it would be highly illegal for any company to try to do what wiki is worried about. The above is of corse IMHO. Goodbye and peace, life, liberty, happiness, love, & euphoria broken up only every so often with contentment, for every living thing in the universe... and if you're against that you can't advertise!

"I want to be famous"

I am not the writer who wrote the above statements. However, I was looking at Wikipedia and trying to find, over and over, where to ask the following and since I found no page where to ask, and since it's related to the appeals for donations, I want to ask: what do I have to do if I want to make an appeal and have my photo appear at the web page?? I want to be famous!!"Antonio Asparagus Martin" 09:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

See Fundraising 2010/Write An Appeal. Seb az86556 08:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not support the site with advertisements

Advertisements are a popular source of income for many free services (radio is probably the best example). Advertisements benefit all involved. The users of Wikipedia get free content. Full time employees/contributors can receive well deserved compensation for their efforts. Advertisers are able to promote their products. Users of Wikipedia need not feel unnecessarily pressured into donating. So, why not support the site with advertising?

Because we're not whores to the people who will then tell us what to write. I don't ever want to hear that Colgate, Kellogg's or BP will withdraw their funds unless we write how glorious and flawless they are. That's why. Seb az86556 18:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't allow Wikipedia to fail.

Seb az86556 ,

No one is going to force anyone what to write, just because they pay money to have their ad shown. The only way that can happen is if Wikipedia contributors give into pressure from advertisers. If an advertiser tries to control content, just cut them off. It's not that difficult. Wikipedia is such a great resource. Don't allow your pride or personal bias to allow Wikipedia to fail. Beyond donations, how is Wikipedia currently being funded?

It's donations only. See -- there is no point in having advertisers that you will eventually have to cut off... and you will have to cut all of them off eventually anyways. Any corporation lobbies for its own interests; you don't hand the gun to someone who you know will eventually shoot you. That's just plain stupid. On the other hand, there are enough donors who love writing their contribution off of their tax-declaration every year. So it works. No need to change it. Besides, if you made this whole deal for profit, you'd have to pay me and others to write for it, so you'd lose all that money again anyways. It's just not gonna happen. Seb az86556 22:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
seb, would you really stop contributing to the wikimedia projects if they hired some very good paid authors with ad revenue to constantly make them better? You really wouldn't want to contribute at the same level you do now unless they gave you money as well? If yes, you really are quite selfish and un-wikipedia-y, if no, you don't have an argument. The fact is, wikipedia especially has a very viable profit stream to support this kind of hiring, which, i think, would make the wikimedia projects much better, one that people like you don't want to take control of because of some comical fear that Wikipedia will become some sort of capitalist monster. It's as if you've never heard of the concept of an organization that's not run for profit before. With wikipedia's daunting number of pageviews, I highly doubt cutting off a few advertisers would render the whole advertising project unprofitable. They could simply be replaced by more, and the money would keep rolling in. Romnempire 03:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The answer is you've read correctly, I would not continue to contribute. I started contributing to a non-commercial endeavor, and it was exactly for that reason. The thought that my contributions will be mingled with those of people whose primary objective is promoting a product is unethical to me. This is simply my moral stance. Your ad hominems won't help. Seb az86556 04:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi. Is there any tool or bot script that would find and remove parent category if an article is placed in both parent category (e.g. Architects) and its subcategory (e.g. American architects)? -- Bojan  Talk  07:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There's tools:~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php which can be used to find such pages. Parent categories should be removed and they usually are, I don't know if some bot is doing that on --Nemo 14:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Bojan  Talk  04:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Appeal for Donations: From Canada

I hope I am adding this in the correct place!

I love Wikipedia and use it frequently, and therefore find it a worthy cause for supporting. When the appeal for donations came up last year I made a small contribution to express my gratitude. Unfortunately Wikimedia is not a registered charity in Canada and therefore it was not deductible. As far as I know, in Canada donations to US charities are only deductible against US income, of which I have none. I knew this when I made the donation and it was fine for a one time gift, but because of this I don't think I will donate this year.

Register Wikimedia as a charity in Canada and I will continue to make donations as I think it is a great cause.

There is a proposal to form Wikimedia Canada, as a Wikimedia Chapter. Once established, they could apply for tax-deductible status in Canada. I'm not sure how quickly this all will happen. Aude 18:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We need a Wikimedia history description "how it all started"

In order to include wikimedia, and wikipedia etc., in our research of Internet and to produce a science paper about it, we need a history description and we need it to be r right. Is there anyone who knows about it and can put it down in an article for all of us to read. It will give us the history perspective, and usually, we feel that we know about wikimedia that way. Thank you.

w:Wikipedia. --Nemo 18:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks: traitors

i understand open gov. concept, but you go too far and let me just say that ill be looking oput for you in my area. you better hope i dont spot you first!!!! i will execute a citizens arrest and i hope you resist. stay out of my area or else!!! nice photo now i know what you look like!!!

If you're referring to the activities of wikileaks — that's not us. Seb az86556 03:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's not you, then stop the brand association by unlawfully using a Wiki name!

Wiki is the software we use; it's not the name of a specific organization. WikiLeaks happens to use it as well. However, neither party owns rights to the name "Wiki", so neither party is being unlawful. PeterSymonds 22:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
And by the way, wikipedia/wikimedia is older than wikileaks. SO if, according to your view, somebody needs to drop the name, it's them not us. Seb az86556 22:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

infinite bias on Wikipedia

The idea that Wikipedia is a fully independent body of reports is a farce. I personally have tried repeatedly to correct glaring mistakes only to have my account switched off so that I wouldn't keep reporting the truth. The specific article was about a woman who was a well known educator but there was absolutely no mention of what made her well known. That seemed to be very strange so I edited the article to include the data. It was changed back within 10 minutes. I changed it again and it was changed back in 2 minutes. I tried to alter it again and my account was closed. The things I reported were common knowledge but they contradicted the clear and ever present political bias of this site. I have no doubt you will ignore this message also. Just know that you aren't known as the impartial site you claim to be. Everyone I know understands that you are liberal to the core. I just read an account of a battle in the Vietnam War that was so full of prejudice and errors that it appeared that it was intended for a comic book. I have a degree in history and one of the classes I took was about Vietnam. You aren't going to fool me quite so easily.

Your site is a joke to put it mildly. Jimmy Wales can go screw himself like he has screwed others. "No ads. No agenda. No strings attached." No truth at all in any of that statement. Here's a hint. When you beg for money that's considered an ad. And you now have an ad on every page. My second major was journalism so I know that subject also. I know an ad when I see one. I hope your site dies the slow and agonizing death it deserves. Your politics are rotten and your self ascribed lack of an agenda is too funny for words.

The misunderstanding is that wikipedia is not about the The TruthTM. Nonetheless, thank you for your interest. Seb az86556 08:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Your Hard Work

Unfortunately, I have chronic pancreatitis and I am on disability so at this time I can't give money support, but you know you have my personal support for your service. Merry Christmas to you all.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Thanks, much appreciated and a Happy Christmas to you too, and I hope your pancreatitis improves as well. WereSpielChequers 17:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

infinite bias on Wikipedia 2

The fact that Wikipedia is not about the truth is obvious. I think I said that in my first post. The point is that you claim to have no bias and that is in fact a lie. Smart a__ remarks don't change that no matter how much people like you might think they do.

Wikipedia doesn't claim to be completely error-proof. In face, there's even an essay on a type of bias that most Wikipedia editors agree occurs, see w:WP:Bias. The fact of the matter is that the ratio of articles to knowledgeable, active editors (knowledgeable as far as how Wikipedia *should* be) is such that it makes it hard to rectify every single article in a timely fashion. That's why there's always room for more people to contribute and help fix articles. Killiondude 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a related essay at en:WP:TRUTH; Since different people have different opinions on what the truth is (and it's unfortunately almost impossible to discover the truth for many things), Wikipedia chooses verifiability as its basis for factual inclusion, instead. The relevant policy on wikipedia is at en:WP:V, also an informative page. There are, in fact, good reasons (as you may read from these pages) to see why we're not going to start claiming we espouse The Truth, and instead rely on verifiable facts. Kylu 14:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

How to turn off the advertisment

I was hoping to be able to turn off the personal appeal ad, after having donated. I donate once a year, and it would be nice to have an automatic feature that knows my username, and stops displaying the ad once I've donated for that year. I think it would also spur some donations, the same way some people do in the subway, to get the performer move to another car.--Gciriani 15:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Earlier in this fundraising cycle, one could click on a box in the upper right corner & that made them go away. However, that feature was either removed -- or broke -- so unless that gadget used on en.wikipedia to suppress these banners is enabled here, there is no way to turn them off. Anyway, don't you like seeing them? -- Llywrch 19:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

10 anos de Wikipedia

10yrs-sharing k+30.svg

A Wikipedia comemora, em 15 de janeiro de 2011, 10 anos de existência! Parabéns a Wikipedia e a todos vocês voluntários. Você pode participar das comemorações de várias formas: desenhando e adaptando logos de aniversário, promovendo e comparecendo a encontros e festas em sua região, dando seu testemunho, etc! Veja na Wiki de Aniversário algumas iniciativas que já estão sendo pensadas por voluntários Brasileiros e crie a sua! E ainda, acompanhe no Projeto Catalisador Brasil a organização da visita de representantes da Wikimedia Foundation ao Brasil! Participe!

--Carol Rossini 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Isso vai acontecer em quais cidades? --Vitor Mazuco Msg 15:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo face ad fatigue

Just a thought...I don't know if other wikipedians feel the same way, but jimbo's face on the ad banner is causing ad fatigue as he's on every single page, which might mean less people donate to help. You've taken quite a different slant from last year's campaign, which was much better because of personal stories and simple quotes of ordinary people giving a dollar, or whatever they could afford, rather than 'elevating' jimbo up the top like he's the President or CEO of a corporate company - resulting in jimbo now coming across as not such a cool guy anymore because it's causing the negative 'advertisement effect' and somehow not a member the 'community.' And there was a graph last year top of the pages showing how much money had been given, which was great, making it feel like a global community fundraiser (which it is) and why people participate. Now it's just a 'one man band' which isn't going to do any good to poor jimbo's image or wikipedia or in the fundraiser. But it's good you changed his photo from the first one.Teinesavaii 12:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Teinesavaii. I use Wikipedia a lot, mostly for technical info, but also for everything else. I know Wikipedia may lack accuracy--when I sense an inaccuracy, I research outside of Wikipedia, then go back to Wikipedia to make edits if I think it will help. Wikipedia often has way more valuable info than any other single source, and I love its often anti-corporate attitude. Wikipedia is the old "Cliff Notes" re-incarnated, combined with the informative "For Dummies" series. In other words, Wikipedia describes things in lay person's terms (usually), simplifying and also including lots of relevant stuff (like associated environmental issues). But when asked to donate by Jimmy Wales via the advertisement banner, I had to research Jimmy Wales. For one thing, his eyes in some of those pictures look a bit too manipulative (to me). So I found a lot of dirt on "Jimbo" -- he's quite a controversial guy, the worst sort of capitalist in my opinion, though I certainly appreciate his work, and I'm not sure what a good capitalist looks like. But why put him out there as the face of Wikipedia? I suppose because his ads get the most donations? Or is he basically running the ship? Well, that face led me to find out about lots of problems with the administration of Wikipedia that I didn't know before, like with biographies. Why not allow people to openly dispute items on their own biography page? I mean, a biography page should state when the subject disputes things, and not just in the discussion page but on the page that everybody reads--perhaps with a red footnote for total denial (82 = "Ain't True"), and an orange footnote for partial denial or refutation. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. In my research, I saw that there are lots of other planned donation solicitation banners--too bad I didn't see those first. Instead of donating, I figured out how to turn off the ad banner. Maybe in the future I will donate when Wikipedia becomes less of a cat fight internally.(ANONYMOUS) The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 13:13, 2010 November 21 (UTC).

WHO is in charge of the fundraiser ads?? It's getting worse, now. Please get rid of the 'black' banner one with jimbo's side-profile because he looks unflattering with Bad lighting, actually like a Criminal + the Black colour is Depressing, 'negative' and a bad look. Is this vandalism? It should be clear, simple, fresh and positive like wikipedia's general layout and design. Why does the fundraiser feel so 'secretive' this year...the whole thing is so much better when the community are involved in Editing, designing and helping with the campaign. And why have you reverted to a 'Conventional' real world marketing model with the wikipedia projects? Wikipedia is not like anything else in the world, so you can't use the same stale boring old marketing that people are inured to. You're going backwards! To the anonymous user posted above, can you please post here in capital letters 'HOW TO TURN OFF JIM WALES AD BANNER IN WIKIPEDIA' (or better still, post it at wiki answers or any'll be doing the entire world a big favour, which is why wikipedia exists in the first place. Thank you.Teinesavaii 06:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to get rid of the banner, use your browser options to block:*
(from (ANONYMOUS November 21, 2010)
Or you can just click the X in the upper right corner of the ad banner, though this is temporary and doesn't persist between browser sessions. By the way, there's an old advertising slogan: "Don't put the client in the ad." (from Straight Dope, thread 585847) (ANONYMOUS November 21, 2010)
I forgot to mention (in my agreement with Teinesavaii above) that I was surprised and very happy to see that Wikipedia now seems to have fairly balanced Wikipages covering many of its previous controversies--that's progress! There are obviously many honest and hardworking Wikipedians--thanks for being there. (ANONYMOUS November 21, 2010) The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2010 November 21 (UTC).

YAY! Good riddance to the yukky ad banner - maintenant the appeal does not look so much like a bad cheap Adsense and is less annoying, and conceptually, looks as if it's coming from the global wikipedia community, therefore, the public and everyone who benefit for free from its existence - now, should see a rise in donation figs. I still think you're making a mistake focusing on jimbo only. You should still add quotes from ordinary people who gave a $1 or $5 or maybe have rolling quotes of the quite extraordinary number of volunteers, around the world, contributing for nothing - then you'll create a feel good positive thing and then you won't be asking for money longer than last year. And if jimbo is broke and thinks he needs to raise his public profile via the fundraiser because he can't make any money from thinking up wikipedia - (understandably a bit unfair, and if he's not making enough profit from wikia) - he could write an autobiography and that will probably be a best seller. Final note (for your archives) - you really need to take a proper photo of him - he should come across as just another 'ordinary' guy (even though obviously, he's not), not like a publicity photo...but a candid one, a bit thoughtful, probably by a window with natural light, and maybe make it black and white, which solves just about any problems. To Monsieur Anon above, thanks for the tips!Teinesavaii 07:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo's face is there as a reminder that we must all behave ourselves, I think it should stay there for as long as he feels comfortable + a little longer (can someone please tell John5Russell3Finley how to deal with wikiharassment, he is affraid of the admins, and has been abused and banned, and was unable to appeal the last abusive event due to a computer problem) The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2010 November 27 (UTC).

new banner design with jimbo street - very cool! 02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I also wholeheartedly agree with Teinesavaii. I refuse to donate to Wikipedia because of the fierce censorship of simple pedagogy. Professionals and academics seem to always cut and complicate everything that explains their art to laymen or beginner students, which is totally unacceptable to me. The most important point for me about gathering the facts of the world independently is increasing the accessibility and pedagogy thereof, which makes a difference among people with limited formal education, and there are many more of them than the well educated! Also Jimbo, by placing that horrid banner, is a big jerk who's stupid and his big ugly face is as dumb as a butt. /John from Stockholm, Sweden The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 12:29, 2010 December 8 (UTC).

I just made a donation, but I largely agree with the comments posted here. It's beginning to feel like this fund-raising campaign has been going on forever, and some of the fund-raising banners that were posted during this campaign were just downright maudlin. They turned me off in the same way as those super-sentimental ads on TV trying to raise money for unfortunate children. I've donated in the past to Wikipedia, and I don't ever remember being perturbed by the fund-raising campaigns in the past years, as I have this year. It did start to get better, though, when the banners started showcasing different people who contribute in some way or another to Wikipedia. Just my 2 cents. - Student in Boston. 15:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a relative who works for Wikimedia in SF and makes around $150,000 a year. There is no way I am donating one cent as I struggle to make ends meet to keep my family and myself clothed and fed. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 04:59, 2010 December 25 (UTC).

Technical difficulties with Wikimedia pages.


I am a user of both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons and recently (as in for the past few hours) I have been experiencing a lot of difficulties in editing. My web browser (Mozzilla Firefox 3.6.13) slowed down dramatically and crashed a few times. I have also noticed that the "personal appeal banners" have multiplied and sometimes there is up to four or five of them one under another. Sometimes they are the same one and sometimes they are different. Also everytime I am editing I can see things like "BoldItalic LinkEmbedded fileReferenceSignature and timestamp AdvancedSpecial charactersHelp" (that is what I am seeing right now) written above the editing space. As far as I can tell these problems appear on all Wikimedia pages and all language versions.

Regards. - 00:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried bypassing your cache? (P.S. I would prefer speaking to your real account. It'd make communications much easier.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

why can't you just run ads or find another monetization method

Wikipedia has so much traffic, I think you could find another way to make money. I understand that you may feel it makes you look less neutral in some topics, but I still think I'd rather wikipedia had ads than that wikipedia ceased to exist. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 02:32, 2010 December 13 (UTC).

It's been suggested many times, see en:Wikipedia:Advertisements for a large list of arguments for and against, plus some alternatives. Kylu 18:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


I use WP fairly often to get answers to questions or understand a particular subject. I understand that it costs money to run WP. I also understand that you have to ask for the money or no one would give. However, I don't understand your timing. I would gladly donate $20 but I can't afford that at Christmas time, especially in this economy. I would suggest a different time of year for a fund raising drive. Maybe around March when people may be getting back tax refunds. Of course under the current administration this is unlikely. In any event, anytime but Christmas would be better. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2010 December 14 (UTC).

Donations are welcome at any time during the year 24/7/365. Just click on "Donate to Wikipedia". Thank you so much. Seb az86556 01:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Turn off" the CentralNotice banner

Would it be possible to install some sort of mechanism in one's Special:Preferences to turn off the CentralNotice banner for all Wikimedia wikis? I would like to have this because a) I'm getting a little tired of that face staring back at me and b) I don't want to have to ask every single wiki to give me the import tool just so I can transwiki enw's version of it every single time. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Use Adblock or something comparable. Killiondude 07:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Voluntarie para a Campus Party!

Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg

A Fundação Wikimedia (WMF) enviará dois representantes para participar da Campus Party, que acontecerá de 17 a 21 de Janeiro. A WMF terá um espaço no qual pessoas podem aprender mais sobre os projetos Wikimedia, e, inclusive, como tornar-se um editor e contribuir para projetos. Por isso mesmo, precisamos de voluntários para ajudar-nos nesse espaço. Caso você tenha interesse e possa vir a Campus Party durante aquela semana, adorariamos receber a sua ajuda!

Nós conseguimos alguns ingressos para esse evento (os ingressos a venda já estão esgotados!) e vamos dá-los aos voluntários que se candidatarem a ajudar-nos no espaço Wikimedia. Você pode enviar a sua candidatura para o email ate 31 de DEZEMBRO DE 2010.

Em seu email coloque o assunto como “Campus Party” e as seguintes informacoes:

  1. Nome
  2. Username
  3. Estatísticas de suas contribuições e há quanto tempo você contribui para algum projeto da WMF
  4. Sua cidade e estado
  5. Quais os horários e dias que você terá disponível para estar no espaço

WMF na Campus Party e oferecer treinamento e informacoes aos participantes da Campus Party. .

Um numero de, pelo menos, 10 voluntários serão selecionados e informados até o final de dezembro.

Caso você more em São Paulo e esteja interessado em receber voluntários que venham de outras cidades, por favor, confirme tal disponibilidade enviando um email para a, incluindo quais dias e quantos voluntários você poderá hospedar.

Avisos: Apenas os ingressos para o evento serão disponibilizados pela WMF. A WMF não arcará com custos de viagem ou hospedagem, mas tentará facilitar a hospedagem de voluntários por aqueles que moram em São Paulo.

Para quaisquer informações adicionais ou duvidas escreva para Jessie Wild no (você pode escrever em Português caso prefira ou Inglês)

Jwild 18:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Novidade! O prazo de inscricao para a Campus Party foi extendido ate 31 de dezembro! Caso voce queira participar como voluntario mande um email para The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jwild (talk • contribs) 18:40, 2010 December 23 (UTC).

Tamil aspirations

The situation in Tamil [N-E]Sri Lanka is alarming since the end of combat and loss of control of the semi autonomus regions of Tamil held [LTTE Army]areas. Much of the info and DATA thats being put is in accurate and not going with the flow,i feel wiki probes are better and more detailed but,,what i see is not much. Eg the last days of "Black tigers has no transalaton of info of whats found in,i dont see room for such secrecy or inkatha of such operations where war crimes and corruption go hand in hand. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2010 December 14 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not affiliated with WikiLeaks. See en:WP:NOTLEAKS. Sorry we can't help further. PeterSymonds 20:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Does this pertain to WikiLeaks or is it just a "regular" mislocated message? Kylu 15:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Jimmy Wales not getting a penny

What about the data gathered from people who browse wikipedia ? everyone knows it is collected and sold for handsome amounts ! what abt the data gathered from the eyes of individuals when they browse and become helpless telecommunication tools ( ref laser microphones and the Bourne Ultimatum movies )? thermal imaging through tv and computers ? one goes to hospitals to get treatment by spending huge amounts of money only to realise the medical fraternity has no answer. their only way to get rid of the individual is to label the person as a lunatic. Maybe you shd ask the London guys and the Washington DC guys as to what they are upto.

Would Jimmy Wales like to take that up ? I for one do not believe he does not receive any money. He does not need money as everything is under the control of the group for whom he unknowingly operates

Regards RAVI VENKATESAN The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 13:40, 2010 December 15 (UTC).

Citation needed in re the data gathered and its sale, especially as the majority of it is publicly available for free. Also, while the Jason Bourne movies were terribly fun to watch, they were both inaccurate as to the proper use of such tools and behind the times as to what tools are available. We do have some fascinating articles on them over at Wikipedia if you'd like to read more, however! Kylu 15:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Translation unuseless !?

I was asked to translate the Jimbo's Appeal in PMS. I translate the Jimbo's appeal in PMS and it is in "published" state. But if someone click on the banner in the PMS-wiki, he get the appeal in italian. Now has been told me that the appeal in PMS will not be linked to the banner. May be something has not worked well ? -- Dragonòt 10:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I see PMS published at It's possible that if you're in a country where there's a chapter, they've chosen not to run banners in that language. The Foundation controls banners everywhere there's not a chapter that has accepted the responsibility. In those areas where a chapter has accepted the responsibility, the chapter controls the banners and landing pages. So, while the Foundation can do everything possible to provide the chapter with translations and templates, if the chapters don't use them, there's not much we can do. I can tell you, though, that when I go to and click the banner, it takes me to Philippe (WMF) 16:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, I understand ;-( there was involved the IT Chapter ... We know them and specially LMO Wikipedia know them ... Anyway, now the PMS translation appears because the page has been updated: "This page was last modified on 11 December 2010, at 17:49." Thank you very much, --Dragonòt 21:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed it, as said on translators-l. And I'll repeat that assume good faith is something the pms community definitely has to learn, sooner or later, although I don't have any hope about it. --Nemo 18:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Nemo, do you remember your first contribution to PMS wikipedia? It was that: [1]. And do we want to speak about your contribution to LMO wikipedia ? -- Dragonòt 12:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


In your fund-raising plea you beg for donations because you claim to be non-corporate supported and affiliated.

Are you also non-government / religion partisan? or are you connected to government agencies?

I know Google and most search engines are now government censored/filtered. There is more Google Spam/Slime being put out than ever! especially the image results! O'Yeah!

It appears some of Wikipedia text and photos/images are now obviously biased/censored/filtered.

for example look at the photos you use for Janet Jackson as opposed to Naomi Campbell? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2010 December 15 (UTC).

The site itself and the Foundation itself are not connected to any government (other than being a legally registered NPO where possible, so that your donations are tax deductible) nor religion. The individual projects are all essentially run by their communities, so the editors on those sites are the ones who decide what goes on for the most part, barring policies that we expect to apply to all of these projects.
The editors, however, are an entirely other boat of fish: Many are politically partisan, have their own pet organizations which they attempt to promote or demonize. Some of us are government employees or contractors, more want to push the agenda of their religion, whatever it may be, and still others work valiantly to fight against these forces in an attempt at enforcing NPOV. Generally, the hope is that the majority of edits are altruistic and works that the author thinks are free from bias, though that's certainly a hazy and often-missed goal. I'd suggest that the majority of editors seem to be moderately liberal, most likely from what I perceive as the more rapid adoption of technology by those of a liberal mindset versus conservatives, but that's hardly empirical evidence.
Governments and religions can and do assert direct and indirect influence over the content, though: Editors of the Chinese Wikipedia, from what I understand, have to be careful if they edit articles about Falun Gong, lest the government there determine who those editors are and attempt to punish them. Projects of languages of which there are a supermajority of a certain religion may well decide to, as a site, censor certain images so as to not offend its members for instance. None of these are positions that the Foundation takes, however: They're all actions by the local communities themselves.
I'm unaware of any Janet Jackson vs. Naomi Campbell issues of political or religious importance, so I'm afraid you've lost me there. If, however, you make (NOT "find on the internet") any better pictures of either individual, feel free to assist us in upgrading the content.
Nobody pays me to edit these projects (oh how I wish!) but the entire above, much as the rest of the content, is purely my opinion and perception of the situation; Just like the contributions of everyone else here. I hope that answers your question. Kylu 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Bład w tumaczeniu na język polski

Witam, Jestem nowy, wyłapałem błąd w tłumaczeniu na polski na stronie:

powinno być:

"może to być 20"

a jest "może to był 20" w zdaniu:

"Co roku o tej porze prosimy wszystkich członków społeczności Wikipedii, by wsparli nasze wspólne przedsięwzięcie skromną darowizną – może to był 20 złotych, 35, 50 lub więcej." The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcinmisiak (talk • contribs) 16:18, 2010 December 11 (UTC).

(Request is for an edit to the Polish translation of Jimbo's appeal: "może to był 20" > "może to być 20" /Seb az86556 16:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC))
Done Fundraising 2010/Appeal/pl. Przykuta 21:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


Could some steward have a look at the last edits of User:KamikazeBot in the Wiktionary projects and apply a general temporary block until it is fixed and stops the mistakes it is making? It has already been blocked in en:wikt:User:KamikazeBot but it seems to be going on in the rest of Wiktionaries. Its operator, seemingly living in Poland, may be just sleeping right now. Thanks. Regards. -- 03:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Donation Problem

Although I am only a part-time worker in New Zealand with children and a sick mother, I would like to give a donation to Wikipaedia. But your options for donation are not realistic for me. Posting a costly money from NZ to US isn't attractive. A credit card payment would be simplest. I have a Visa card. But just as you won't take advertising, I won't use PayPal. They have applied incorrect moral assumptions about the business of a gay friend of mine and blocked his PayPal account and wouldn't release the credited funds. I also have strong concerns about their refusal to channel funds to the WikiLeaks project. If you find an ethically neutral alternative to PayPal for credit card payments, please post it on the website. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 09:33, 2010 December 17 (UTC).[2]

I dunno if you saw, but there are also other ways to give, as well. Killiondude 08:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
...and if you really find yourself unable to give us financial support, consider participating, e.g. writing/editing... or encourage others to participate. That's also a... "donation" :) Seb az86556 12:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Concern of fanaticism on Urdu Wikipedia

Hello, I would like an admin to take a look at some articles on the Urdu wikipedia, especially this one.

They clearly spell hatred for others by extremists, and should be deleted immediately.

Kind Regards.

-- 15:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand much from the machine translation, but I see that the page has been highly modified in the last few days, so perhaps it was only a temporary problem (the page wasn't wikified at all, for instance). If you have other concerns which can be solved locally, I suggest you to open an RfC with a clear explanations of the problems. --Nemo 13:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC) P.s.: I see that this has been discussed here.

Nanking Massacre in Japanese Wikipedia

This June, the name of this article was changed from Nanking Massacre to Nanking Incident(1937). And some Japanese Wikipedians who supported this name changing also deleted all the pictures (you can see them now at the note page of the article)from the article. I tried to discuss with them and they used reasons like these:

  • Those pictures don't have reliable 2nd sources. Because they are propaganda. But they didn't show each concrete reason like which part of the source is not true.
  • The caption of these pictures are some kind of 2nd sources. Also they are unreliable.

In my opinion, and many other zh-wp editors I talked with, this is a serious violation of neutrality. It is comparable with denying Holocaust. So I came here to ask your ideas about these changes and reasons. Thank you.--Zhxy 519 15:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

New Wikimedia Sister Projects.... R. I. P.

I noted that New project policy and Proposals for new projects are now listed as historical pages. Frankly I think that was an excellent move by User:Father Goose and something which needed to be done, but unfortunately it is also flying under the radar and certainly happened without any sort of community discussion. Perhaps I'm making that move here.

Simply put, and I am agreeing here with the comment made when this note was put in, that under no possible circumstances will any possible new Wikimedia sister project ever be created in the future. Period. Yes, that is a bold statement to be made, but one that really does need to be made. Labeling these pages as historic page certainly put that sort of statement into finality too.

BTW, I make this statement so far as I was one of those who was very active with the creation of Wikiversity, arguably the only project to have been created under the standard of the New project policy standards. The major sister project created prior to Wikiversity was Wikinews, and that project actually created the impetus to write up this policy. The Wikimedia Incubator project was created afterward, but it certainly didn't follow these guidelines at all nor follow the pattern established by Wikinews and Wikiversity in terms of getting established either.

Basically, this is a burial of even suggesting that new projects should ever be created in relation to Wikimedia projects. Yes, new languages can and will be created in the future for existing sister projects, but the end of the line has come for new project ideas. If you want to create a new wiki project, go to Wikia or some other free webhosting service, or install MediaWiki on servers of your own choosing. Wikimedia sister projects will never be accepted in the future and let's close this door for once and for all.

If you disagree with the above statement, I hope you reply. I think at some point in the past a much more open policy about accepting new sister project concepts and ideas could have been very much useful to growing the Wikimedia projects and leveraging some of the fertile ground being created by those who were proposing some of the crazy ideas on the new project proposal page. Some of the ideas I think could have become very successful as a sister project in their own right and perhaps should have been followed up on too. But that time has gone and the need to keep such a concept going even as a possible option should not continue as the resistance to new sister project ideas is so high now that it is a futile effort to even try. It was a good run for a while, but may the new project page simply rest in peace. --Roberth 20:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, in my opinion, that the sister projects do not get a lot of publicity and are largely overshadowed by Wikipedia. Therefore, they lack editors and thus, are unable to flourish properly. Even in the currently existing projects such as Wiktionary, Wikibooks or Wikinews, the lack of editors is evident, and therefore I doubt that another sister project will be able to survive. -- Prince Kassad 20:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Apart from that, I wouldn't really know what other kinds of projects could still be proposed that are in line with the foundation's educational mission; we have prose, pictures/videos, animal-classification, dictionaries, books, newspapers, original sources, and a study-hall. I do believe that's the limit of the scope. Seb az86556 20:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The original scope of the Wikimedia foundation was to encompass the whole of human knowledge and to deliver that knowledge to as many people as possible. That explains the multi-lingual mission of the Wikimedia projects, and the sister projects are viewed in that perspective to be ways to express that knowledge which are outside of the scope of an encyclopedia. If you really think there are no other means to express human knowledge, I'd be shocked.
Rodovid is an example of a project that could have been useful and productive with a side project known as WikiTree which attracted a number of Wikimedia user participants. Another idea that certainly could have been very useful and may eventually see some work that would substantially help is the Wikidata concept, although even that needs some work and went into some interesting directions. This is of course cherry picking through what I think are some better projects, but these might have been useful and certainly would have fit well within any sort of scope of the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. Unfortunately I don't see either of those ideas becoming Wikimedia projects even if there were established communities pushing to become a sister project. Resistance is now too high to even consider that as an option. --Roberth 21:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood the mission statement; it's educational. It is also human knowledge that I have a bag of chips next to me right now, but it's not in the scope of the mission statement. Seb az86556 21:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that those pages are obsolete, and approve marking them historical. I do not agree that it is impossible for any new projects to be created in the future. At a time when participation in major projects has reached a plateau it is hard to imagine a new content type getting off the ground, but the future is a very long time. I believe Wikimedia has the potential to endure for centuries (though not MediaWiki, in anything like its present form), and I find it hard to imagine a world in which I can imagine everything imaginable. To use the proverbial oxymoron: never say never. ~ Ningauble 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
If you consider w:internet time as a sort of yardstick of how things happen on wikimedia projects and that about a week is considered typical for arriving at "consensus" (IMHO too short of a period of time, but is typical for Wikipedia), four years might as well be an eternity... which is how long it has been since the last major project got started using these rules. Never say never, perhaps, but it seems fairly firm at this point. There certainly isn't any sort of new process that is being suggested as an alternative. The current precedent is to simply say "no" in an emphatic manner. --Roberth 01:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a misunderstanding. The new project policy has been marked historical since 2008 because there's no actual policy, and there are some proposals for a new process in Proposals for new projects/process, but the page itself is just a list of proposals and ideas, and can't be "historical" (it's not a policy and it doesn't contain outdated information). --Nemo 09:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
What possible statement or discussion can be pointed to that showed the absolescence of the New Project Policy? The only way you can claim that this is historical is because somebody had the "guts" to slap on a historical tag... or at least any other similar discussion certainly hasn't been pointed to on the talk page or somewhere else like the Meta Babel or something on Foundation-l. The fact is that the Wikimedia Foundation did pass a formal resolution adopting new project policy standards, of which only one project has gone through that process to become adopted as a sister project. I am strongly suggesting that by declaring this policy as historical, therefore obsolete, that this policy and the effective closure of the new project proposal page have essentially killed any potential route to creating a new sister project. The fact that this historical tag has been allowed to stand for two and a half years without challenge and no discussion shows the futility of even trying to come up with another process or policy that would allow new projects to be created. It is essentially consensus by default since nobody is challenging the historical tag. Certainly no alternatives are being proposed, or any sort of revisiting the concept is happening as an alternative policy. --Roberth 22:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki How to?

What about a WikiHowTo where people could share ways of building and fixing things ? Thanks. Philippe.bourgau 08:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two non-WMF sites like that in existence already; my (subjective) experience is that they tend to rely on opinions and other unverifiable information, because there's no way to definitively prove whether a particular writer's method is "best". Often the subject material is something so obvious that no "scholarly" sources about it can ever be found (e.g. ), or something too dangerous to safely investigate (e.g. (who's gonna volunteer to provoke a pack of monkeys to attacking him to see if this author's method works best?)) If we did this we'd either have to toss out most of the animal attack pages or toss out the policies of reliable research that most of our projects rely on. Soap 13:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
To some extent, Wikibooks allows how-to guides. Perhaps not "how to take a bath" or "how to prevent or survive a monkey attack", but it does have a cookbook section, which is a kind of how-to guide. You could definitely ask at Wikibooks whether a how-to guide on building and fixing things would be acceptable there. Angr 11:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
To some extent? As long as you can cite a few sources of information and write the Wikibook with an NPOV tone, making sure that it isn't essentially an encyclopedia article (a problem with people who routinely write on Wikipedia sometimes can't adjust to a different format like Wikibooks), I don't see a problem even with the suggestions you are making here. More informal "How-to" books can and do happen on Wikibooks, and I've even written (well helped to put onto Wikibooks) a guide for making Nintendo DS video games as a how-to Wikibook. A book on "how to make beer" is certainly welcome there. The need for sources tends not to be as high of a bar on Wikibooks compared to Wikipedia, and can be some rather informal sources if necessary. b:Making an Island is an example of a very informal sort of "how to" book that has survived the VfD process on Wikibooks. --Roberth 22:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


According to 2010 financial statements, Wikimedia spent over $3,500,000 on salaries and wages. If wikipedia is completely run by volunteers, who is on salary? Jimmy Wales claims that he is a volunteer. Doesn't volunteer mean that you do not receive a salary or wage? I understand that it costs money to host wikipedia, but that amount is more than covered already. I feel that the annual "urgent appeal" is using wikipedia's popularity for greedy purposes. Yes, Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, but that only means that it must use 10% of it's profit charitably. Last year, when salaries were over $3.5 million, awards and grants were under $300k. Please remove the self-promotion ads. If there must be ads on Wikipedia, then have them balanced by ads from various corporations, not just Wikimedia. The people who love Wikipedia will always provide enough for Wikipedia to continue and grow. If you are asking for more than that, please provide a reason that it is needed or how it will be used. Otherwise, the people who love Wikipedia will cease to love it quite so much.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Please check the Q&A of financial plans, the employees of wikimedia foundation are on salaries and in charge of run the foundation and all the projects' Interenet host, you can check the staff list Here-Mys_721tx(talk) 02:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You can see a visual breakdown on wmf:FAQ/en#If I donate to Wikimedia, where does my money go?. Killiondude 08:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Buone Feste - Happy Holidays

Two weeks after the beginning of 2011 there is the celebration of 10 years Wikipedia. Those who have a LinkedIn account (or make one for this occasion) are invited to discuss it. Read more...
Patio 08:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


I am an American Sikh born in the USA and I used wikis daily by forwarding them to others in email. I am very concerned that wikipedia thrive. My religious superior in Sikh Dharma, which is the name of our religion is very conservative, a Tea Partier. She has the DC connections et al to bring Wikipedia down. Yesterday I almost forwarded your wiki on Circumcision but only sent an excerpt because the images on it might me mistaken for porn. Eventually that one and others could be reviewed by Congress anonymously and wiki could suddenly loose funding and it's massive popularity. I hope that you know what I mean. The Hollywood 10 I'm sure didn't think that they would go down. Tina Fey may now go down. And the long time black rep democrat from NY was just put down without due process and without a lawyer. Please pay attention and take the medical photos off the Circumcision wiki, I would recommend. Also, your wikis sometimes seem to the left, but not always. I appreciate the free trade of knowledge and hope that you can get into the Library of Congress System and the PBS Council of Arts system or the Guggenhein Foundation or the Smithsonian system, to legitamize a fantastic and history making project. Many libraries were burnt in the ancient world. We don't want to repeat that kind of history. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 07:06, 2010 November 18 (UTC).

Is that a threat? Which images on w:Circumcision concern you? Wikipedia is not censored.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


Dear Mr. Jimmy Wales, I wish you knew that my account, Sri Krishna Geova Allah there is no more in wikipedia, I don't know why. I want to do donation for the tirthyth of the month of November. Can you reactivate my account, please? Thanks. Sri Krishna Geova Allah The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 01:57, 2010 November 23 (UTC).[3]

Your account w:User:Sri Krishna Geova Allah still exists, and has not been blocked. What error message are you seeing?   — Jeff G. ツ 04:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No open proxies on test wikis

Does the No open proxies policy apply for proxies editing test wikis, or is it limited only to wikis that would have major impacts or significance? I would think that since a particular wiki is meant only for testing, it would be exempt from the regular policies such as test edits and vandalism, construed as extending to open proxies as well. (This came up in a particular discussion on User:Jeff G.'s talkpage on the flaggedrevs wiki where he was shown to have blocked multiple IPs.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That policy "applies to all projects" since 2008 August 15.[4]   — Jeff G. ツ 05:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
That link doesn't provide much of an explanation. I'm sure test wikis have their own policies, and they do not necessarily have to be about open proxies. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Where does the $15M go?

Where does the $15M go? Especially when the thousands of volunteers do not get a dime. It would be to your credit to let the others know that on your "READ NOW" request for $$. Thanks 905 836 5928 The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2010 December 24 (UTC).

As Killiondude wrote above, "You can see a visual breakdown on wmf:FAQ/en#If I donate to Wikimedia, where does my money go?."   — Jeff G. ツ 07:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


I don't recall how I stumbled upon your website, but thank God I did! I would truly be lost without your service. I didn't even consider that your site might be non-profit, so I'll gladly be a regular contributor. I use your service for EVERYTHING. I particularly love the movie reviews, summary of the film, actors involved, etc. I keep my laptop with me in bed so that if something comes up that I don't know about, I can look it up in seconds.

I commend you on it's fantastic content! I don't know if you're aware, but in the movie, "Jennifer's Body", there is a classroom scene where Needy is saying that the band who sacrificed Jennifer to Satan didn't help anyone get out of the fire. A girl turns around and says something like "It's's on the Wikipedia". So you've reached an entire new batch of people who didn't know about you. Let's face it; if you rate in a Diablo Cody film, you've truly arrived!

Please keep feeding information to the masses. There's no one who can measure up. If you need testimonials, feel free to quote any portion of this email.

Lori711 BTW, how does one become a writer/editor? I have time on my hands and a passion for writing!

I'm assuming you'll want to write in English — en:Wikipedia:Introduction might be a place to start. (For writing in one of the other 250+ languages, you'd have to ask there) Seb az86556 17:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank You So Much

Thank you so much to Jimmy Wales and everyone else involved in organizing and writing for Wikipedia. It's invaluable in so many ways, including in maintaining freedom of information and speech. I would donate if I could. Even a few dollars is beyond me right now. Best wishes to you and to all of us in maintaining easy unlimited access to the Internet.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 22:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC).

pageview stats on wmf

I can't find page view stats for in It would be nice to have page view stats for the fundraiser landing pages. (e.g. wmf:WMAU-SLQ8) John Vandenberg 00:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Read this. --MZMcBride 07:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I was aware of that development, but hadn't read the blog post. My current problem is that I did something wrong when setting up these banner+appeal, and I'm told that the data isnt being captured via the WMF processes. They can go back and pull it all together, but it isn't worth that much effort. Simple pageview stats would suffice. John Vandenberg 09:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair and balanced?

Moved from Foundation wiki feedback.

As a Wikimedia donor who leans more conservative, I'd like to suggest that consideration be made to have the Wikipedia News articles show a bit more neutrality. We'd all like to accept Wikipedia as a go-to reference, and your credibility would be increased by trying to have a less slanted view of the world.

As an example, today's headline..

"In the United States midterm elections, the Democratic Party retains a majority in the Senate, while the Republican Party (current minority leader John Boehner pictured) wins a majority of seats in the House of Representatives."

...diminishes the historic impact of yesterday's election as being the largest ideological swing in the House since 1948, yet this article seems to be more concerned that the Dems kept the Senate.

Probably not intentional, but these are the kinds of things that should be scrutinized a little bit more.

keep up the good work otherwise.

Frank Polack —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fpolack (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2010

Fortunately the folks at wikipedia are presenting information in a fair and balanced way, ie: unbiased. Idealogical insights, by defintion, are not unbiased, therefore I am thankful that wikipedia is not including them. Keep up the good work, guys!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Random Articles with-in given Topic

Hi, I like "Random Article" feature of wikipedia and I gained lot with this feature. However some times I encounter articles which are of no interest to me. I prefer the idea of having "Random Article" confined to a topic . ex: Random article related to science, history or biography or music albums. If enabled correctly this can be of great help.

Thanks, Vijayakumar Udupa.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2010

Facebook Support

I wrote and posted the following in Facebook recently:

"Anyone talking about 21st-century education must incorporate, intimately, the play of knowledge and learning so vital to us via Wikipedia and its participants. By our steady and growing grass-roots support of this essential crossroads of awareness, we protect it, and ourselves, from compromise and ownership by anyone. It's ours, for all of us. Let's keep it that way." The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 14:22, 2010 November 21 (UTC).

Can't donate - "No response from credit card processor. Please try again later!"

Thought you'd want to know that I've gotten this error several times, and so far haven't been able to get my donation processed. This may be costing WMF a lot of lost donations, as not everyone will get around to trying again later, or may give up after a couple of attempts.

Keep up the great work! JHD The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2010 November 29 (UTC).

Bring "the amount donated thus far" bar back


It would be in your best interest to bring back the "X number of dollars have been donated thus far, and here is our goal" bar from a year or two ago. Seeing how much money was left to reach a goal motivated people to click the "here's my money" button. The "personal appeals" are nice and touchy feely, but without something visible (like the bar), most people figure someone richer than they will donate the money. Bring the bar back!

-A Wikipedia User The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2010 November 30 (UTC).

WikimédiaFoundation /wikimédia et wikipédia france


Pour de nombreuses raisons, j’ai demandé le retrait définif et immédiat de toute mention des mes pseudo, adresses ip et contributions de french wikipédia et de tous les projets. Je vous demande instamment et pour la Xè fois d’accéder à cette demande. Altshift —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Altshift (talk) 15:51, 2010 November 21 (UTC)[5]

Is Wikimedia operated like a well oiled lean mean non-profit machine...

...or more like a fat cat spending someone else's dime so "Let's live it up. Live high on the hog. The donations keep rolling in. There's no end in sight. The sky's the limit!"

First of all I want to say that I love wikipedia, use it all the time. ALL THE TIME! That being said, I've viewed last years fiscal report which is somewhat detailed and at the sametime also very ambiguous. I would guesstimate that salaries take up a much larger chunk(well over 50%) of operating costs. Everybody there driving nice new cars? Nice retirement plans? That's nice. Really it is great. Moving along...12% of total budget spent on marketing? That's obsurd. Sponsoring a NASCAR team are we? Isn't your website marketing enough?

As far as the paid ad debate...look you have huge margins. Stick an ad on every page. If Google will give you some money do it for crying out loud. What's one ad on every page gonna hurt? I don't look at 'em. I could care less. My ad blocker will probably take care of it anyways. Take the revenue and quit padding your figures. That's all. Who's next? NEXT! The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markman007 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 2010 November 22 (UTC).[6]

Hi Jimmy Wales

Although i doesn't have an wealth to donate or given any help. i wrote this for encourage u and appreciate your service given us thank you jimmy

(Sri Lanka) The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 11:58, 2010 November 27 (UTC).[7]

correct genders

I would willingly donate to Wikipedia as soon as it corrects the gender titles. As a former school teacher I had considerable problems explaining these to pupils.

Masculine Feminine

Author Authoress

Manager Manageress

Conductor Conductoress

Managing Director Managing Directress.

Steward Stewardess.

Executor Executrix

This list could be considerably extended and Wikipedia isn't setting a good educational example by the continued use of incorrect gender titles.

At face value/description, LilaRoja is describing herself as being a man! The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 10:54, 2010 December 8 (UTC).

I cannot understand why you are refusing to donate to wikipedia because it includes some slightly old terminology. Plus I have never heard the MD or CEO of a company described as anything other than MD or CEO. I have just done a search on wikipedia for 'Directress' and got no results at all. Same with Authoress and Manageress. Stewardess did come up with 2 results, but also a large banner saying "Did You Mean Steward?". I hardly think this justifies your concerns or lack of contribution. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geoffabatchelor (talk • contribs) .

All Good Utopias Come to an End

Having been shat upon by Wiki nazi editors, the very last thing on my mind is contributing money. That is likely true for many millions of folks. There are no hardware capacity reasons to delete information, and as long as the information is on topic, just keep adding it to the bottom of the article. In short, do everything possible to keep material. Then hit these people up for money. A sustainable model. I mean we are talking $100 from about a million vain people = $100 million.

As Einstein pointed out, there is no preferred inertial frame of reference. In Wiki terms, there is no absolute standard of "notable". And there is no absolute standard of quality. So this quality/notable kick Wiki is presently on ... just puts the entire project on a "death spiral". Nothing is quite good enough or notable enough to be added. New contributors are driven away (derided as "newbies"), and all those potential donors of $ end up giving to the Salvation Army instead. And is it FUN to delete stuff. I actually had an editor tell me the cleaning up part was more important that the original contribution. Another said about all the articles worth writing were already in Wikipedia.

But hey, what can you do with volunteers? You are stuck with what you got.

And utopias invariably come to a distasteful end.

Any questions? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 05:18, 2010 December 10 (UTC).[8]

Capturing Old School Bill Paypayers

There should be a button for entering your address and getting a letter sent to your bill pile. I am old school and the donation money is old school, mostly, I'd like to think anyway. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2010 December 11 (UTC).

Kepp the pages brief

Dear,The dearest WIKI,

smaller the articles more attractive it is. for example, lets take the article of flip flops(electronics). it would be more interesting to read if it was just introduction to flip flop. and let the deep ones be seperaste artiles and be linked in this article. like,sr flip flop a seperate article jk flip flop a seperate article,and all these linked to the main flip flop article.

there are days wen i read wiki from morning 10 to night 11 with short food breaks.and from that experience i understood this.shorter the article,more the attraction to read it.wen articles are long,we are repeled from it.

hope this will be considered.and i dunno if i post it in wrong section.if so please forgive me.

thank you I ♥ Wiki (created an orkut community by the same name.) i'm a student from a poor pocket money.and mom and dad dunno my attachment to they wont donate.but,i'm selling some stuffs and doing some data entry.i will donate watever i get from it. bye byeee forums. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2010

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity page

Dear Editors and Readers,

As an educated expert on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity from twenty years of personal experience and research, the article's presentation probably leads a new reader toward skepticism of the illness because the American Medical Association doesn't recognize it. All research points to this illness not being clearly understood. Please treat it with more neutrality by moving the AMA sentence (currently in the introduction, paragraph two) down to a new home in the "Lack of Widespread Recognition" section. Thank you.

Also, a big thanks to everyone who supported Wikipedia's fund drive this year. I love accurate information. It improves life for everyone through better decision making and understanding.

Best, Nick Michael Los Angeles, CA


I'm trustlulu and I'm really thankfull, that I'm here to help other people who needs help.