Why this Site?

  • Our Mission:
  • We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”
  • How you can participate:
  •  Visit the Wikipediocracy Forum, a candid exchange of views between Wikipedia editors, administrators, critics, proponents, and the general public.
  • 'Like' our Wikipediocracy page on Facebook.
  •  Follow Wikipediocracy on Twitter!

Jimmy Wales accepts Dan David Prize, criticizes Kazakhstan en.wikipedia.org/wik… via @wikisignpost

Google Search

Press Releases

  • Please click here for recent Wikipediocracy press releases.

Wikimedia Fundraising: Where Is Your Money Going?

By Eric Barbour

.

Few people realise that when they think they are donating to Wikipedia (with a ‘p’) they are actually donating to Wikimedia (with an ‘m’). For example, if you are logging in from an IP address based in the UK, even if you are not from the UK but here on business or pleasure, you will be taken to a page owned by Wikimedia UK. Note that: it says Wikimedia with an ‘m’ not a ‘p’, and it says ‘UK’. If you are outside the UK you don’t get the ‘UK’ but you still get the ‘m’.

Wikimedia is not the same as Wikipedia, so you are not donating to Wikipedia. Some of the money will go to Wikipedia to pay the costs of running the enormous server farm which supports the huge Wikipedia traffic. But that is small compared to the sum that Wikimedia spends annually, and in any case you are not supporting the construction of Wikipedia itself, which is entirely written by volunteers. Wikimedia International (the Wikimedia Foundation) has spent lots of money on travel, entertainment, and Sue Gardner’s (and now Lila Tretikov’s) decent salary. But none of this supports Wikipedia itself.

Wikimedia Foundation revenue, expenses and assets
Have steadily risen since the Foundation was first established as a Section 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. So far, revenue has always substantially exceeded expenditure in each year, and the Foundation has built up healthy reserves. As of 2012 assets were standing at about $34.9 million, more than one year’s expenditure at 2011–2012 spending levels. By 2014 net assets were up to $53.4 million.

The following table is compiled from the “Statements of Activities” (ending 30 June) in the Financial Reports available here. Note that WMF fundraising was paltry and amateurish, until Sue Gardner (THL) became Director in 2007. Unfortunately, expenses rose at a similar rate — mostly staff salaries, travel and miscellaneous. The actual hosting and bandwidth charges to keep Wikipedia and its allied projects online have been roughly constant since 2009, at about $2.5 million. Nonetheless, the WMF managed to increase its net assets by a factor of 1000 in only 10 years. By 2015 the WMF was awash in money.

Year Total Support and Revenue   Total Expenses   Increase in Net Assets   Net Assets at End of Year
2003/2004 $80,129 $23,463 $56,666 $56,666
2004/2005 $379,088 $177,670 $211,418 $268,084
2005/2006 $1,508,039 $791,907 $736,132 $1,004,216
2006/2007 $2,734,909 $2,077,843 $654,066 $1,658,282
2007/2008 $5,032,981 $3,540,724 $3,519,886 $5,178,168
2008/2009 $8,658,006 $5,617,236 $3,053,599 $8,231,767
2009/2010 $17,979,312 $10,266,793 $6,310,964 $14,542,731
2010/2011 $24,785,092 $17,889,794 $9,649,413 $24,192,144
2011/2012 $38,479,665 $29,260,652 $10,736,914 $34,929,058
2012/2013 $48,635,408 $35,704,796 $10,260,066 $45,189,124
2013/2014 $52,804,246 $45,900,745 $8,285,897 $53,475,021

The Wikipedians know there’s a problem

*WMUK Office Correspondence Log/10 December 2011 “This week has seen a rise in the more complex items of correspondence, for example … Cheques made payable to Wikipedia, which have to be voided and returned with a custom-written letter.”

* Mark delirium at hackish.org Sun Jan 1 06:04:43 UTC 2012 “Informally canvassing some of my non-Wikipedian friends and colleagues, the vast majority were under the impression that the purpose of the fundraiser was to raise money to “keep the lights on”, more or less: to pay for servers and bandwidth holding the *.wikipedia.org websites, along with some associated stuff like the Wikimedia Commons media repository, and a few programmers and sysadmins to maintain the servers and MediaWiki. “I’d say (nearly?) everyone was pretty surprised when I sort of hemmed and hawed and explained that yes, that’s the use of some of the money, but the budget is much larger than just that, and the main purpose of the fundraiser is to raise money for more ambitious projects, like new initiatives, grants to researchers, funding for travel and events, grants to Wikimedia chapters, etc. Some were pretty annoyed, feeling it was a bit of a bait-and-switch: the advertising gave them the impression that their donation was being used to keep wikipedia.org on the air and maintain the servers/software, and they didn’t even realize the Wikimedia Foundation did or planned to do any of the other things with their money. “

*Domas Mituzas midom.lists at gmail.com Tue Jan 3 13:34:06 UTC 2012 “Mark wrote it very much the way I feel about it – I talk to lots of people, and they’ve been donating in early days or few years ago, but they stopped donating lately – and they are still reading our annual reports and what not. People who understand what Wikipedia is and what Wikimedia is stop supporting financially. Of course, they are way more interested and way more willing to help than average person, who’d donate only if we say “this is to keep lights running”, but yet they turn away. This does tell something.This infinite loop of “we should do more things, because we can raise money”-“we need more money, because we want to do more things” doesn’t work that well, when growth of projects has flatlined, so fundraising team has to resort to blinking banners. Last year we discussed this, and “blinking banner was an error”. This year pictures at top left, blinking banners, etc – are becoming a norm. This isn’t much of a slippery slope to say that next year we should expect dancing monkeys. “

Leak of #wikipedia-en-admins discussion, 2 Apr 2013
An IRC discussion, leaked by an unknown admin, reveals that the popular webcomic XKCD is providing considerable financial support to the WMF. It also shows the general cluelessness and argumentativeness of Wikipedia administrators, as usual. It should be noted that the bulk of WMF donations tend to be small ones, although large organizations such as Google (THL) and various nonprofit groups give the WMF millions every year.

<guerillero> he raised $30K
<guerillero> for the WMF
<Coren> Kingpin13: ... I don't think that's quite it.
<guerillero> in less than 24 hoursa
<closedmouth> guerillero: your point?
<Earwig> when we get like $500,000 on a typical fundraiser day
*** guerillero shrugs
<guerillero> 30K is nothing to shake a stick at
<closedmouth> "vandalism is ok, as long as we're getting some money"
<Aranda56> opps who raised 30k?
<guerillero> the readers of XKCD
<Aranda56> XKCD?
<Gfoley4> popular webcomic
<Aranda56> oh
<guerillero> and I think this is the best breaching test ever conducted. 
He knows our policies as well as we do

2014 banner ads

This came up in a forum discussion thread here at Wikipediocracy. Despite numerous complaints and even arguments on Wikimedia-l, this round of banner-ad harassment earned more than $30 million. Desperately-worded emails directly to major donors were used heavily, and attracted much criticism.

2014 report
April 2015: As announced here and quoted here and here:

“In the previous fiscal year 2013-2014, the Fundraising team raised $52.6 million, exceeding the annual plan goal by 5%. So far in the 2014-2015 fiscal year, (from July 1, 2014 – January 7, 2015), the team has raised $58.5 million from 4.2 million total donations. By reaching this number, we met our goal for the fiscal year six months ahead of our revenue plan……Due to changing readership [see Considerations section, below] Fundraising intentionally exceeded our goal in the 2014-2015 fiscal year in order to prepare for future challenges. We have also explored new banner formats and messaging to increase the effectiveness of our appeals and will continue to do so in the months and years ahead.”

* According to our projections, our revenue from our year-end English fundraiser would have decreased by 43% had we run the same campaign as last year.
* 90% of funds come from North America and Europe.
* Traffic is in decline in Europe and North America
* In the U.S.: Between 2013 and 2014, total desktop and mobile pageviews in the U.S. dropped 8.6%
* Traffic is also in decline in many key European countries, for example:
* Belgium: 30% decline in total pageviews
* Netherlands: 31% decline in pageviews
* Traffic is up in many other countries, however these are not countries where we raise significant funds – and in some cases we are unable to fundraise due to local or national laws.
* India: 13% increase in total pageviews
* Iran: 168% increase in total pageviews

.

Meanwhile, at Wikimedia UK…..
The money they raised for 2012 went entirely on what is listed here, none of which is easy to make sense of. (Each year, WMUK completely changes the “Activity Plan” format and breakdown of funds accounting, making it very difficult to compare years. For example, 2013 and 2014. Masterpieces of “creative accounting”.)

WMUK Estimated income:
*2010: £90,350 (from here)
*2011: £601,000 (from here)
*2012: £1,051,000
*2013: £743,000
*2014: £746,712

You can give those wonderful WMF people more money this year, if you wish. Just don’t believe any reports that they actually “need” the money.

 

Image credits: Flickr/Atomic Mutant Flea Circus, Flickr/Tax Credits  ~ licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

Cyrus Farivar And His Hoaxes

By Eric Barbour

.

“Civility”. It’s one of Wikipedia’s favorite words, and one of their favorite pretexts for keeping various people from editing Wikipedia (the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit”). Yet there is a well-known journalist who, despite having written scores of feature articles for outlets such as Slate, Ars Technica, and Wired, does not have a biography on Wikipedia — apparently because he made Wikipedians look bad. They bent the meanings of the words “civility” and “notability” into pretzels, specifically to be rid of him.

Almost forgotten today, a partly-unintentional hoax covered by Farivar made the Wikipedians look very silly indeed. Among the most snookered: the ever-annoying Philip “Snowspinner” Sandifer, a former Wikipedia administrator and frequent commenter on Arbitration Committee cases. Farivar only needed to discuss one small hoax article, plus a bio of himself, to start the wrecking ball swinging.

We reproduce here the August 2005

…continue reading Cyrus Farivar And His Hoaxes

Experiment concludes: Most misinformation inserted into Wikipedia may persist

by Gregory Kohs

A months-long experiment to deliberately insert misinformation into thirty different Wikipedia articles has been brought to an end, and the results may surprise you. In 63% of cases, the phony information persisted not for minutes or hours, but for weeks and months. Have you ever heard of Ecuadorian students dressed in formal three-piece suits, leading hiking tours of the Galapagos Islands? Did you know that during the testing of one of the first machines to make paper bags, two thumbs and a toe were lost to the cutting blade? And would it surprise you to learn that pain from inflammation is caused by the human body’s release of rhyolite, an igneous, volcanic rock?

None of these are true, but Wikipedia has been presenting these “facts” as truth now for more than six weeks. And the misinformation isn’t buried on seldom-viewed pages, either. Those three howlers alone have been viewed by over 125,000

…continue reading Experiment concludes: Most misinformation inserted into Wikipedia may persist