Wikimedia Foundation article

[thekohser]

The Wikipedia article Wikimedia Foundation (T-H-L) contains many errors and unsourced clunkers of information. Wouldn't you think that Wikipediots would attempt to make that article especially exemplary and up to snuff? I guess not.

The Wikimedia Foundation's stated goal is to develop and maintain open content, wiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge.[11] This is possible thanks to its Terms of Use (updated and approved on June 2009, to adopt CC-BY-SA license).[citation needed]

In 2001, Jimmy Wales, an Internet entrepreneur, and Larry Sanger, a software developer, founded Wikipedia, an Internet encyclopedia.

The Wikimedia Foundation was created from Wikipedia and Nupedia on June 20, 2003.[7]

On December 11, 2006, the Foundation's board noted that the corporation could not become the membership organization initially planned but never implemented due to an inability to meet the registration requirements of Florida statutory law.

That doesn't sound true, and linking to a change in the organization bylaws is certainly no "source" for the rationale.

I stopped reading there.

[EricBarbour]

It's a regular target for editwars. 3,842 edits and 1,895 editors, which is more typical of an article about a controversial public figure. Censorship is still their bitch -- random people keep adding scandals and disputes, and insiders keep removing them.

Every WMF insider, Wikipedia fan, and crackpot you can think of has fooled with it. I'm amazed any of it is still "coherent".

Amusing, isn't it, how short Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation (T-H-L) is? Many things are left out.

[Poetlister]

Maybe there should be a separate controversies article, provided it doesn't get deleted and is properly linked from the main article. (These are of course two big IFs.)