[Foundation-l] Free culture?

[Ryan Kaldari]

That page is so full of misinformation, it hardly warrants commentary, 
but just to point out some more annoying examples:

The part about how "Your non-profit donation will ultimately line the 
for-profit pockets of Jimmy Wales, Amazon, Google" is absurd and very 
misleading. Sure, Wikipedia external links financially benefit those 
companies, and The New York Times, and every other website on the 
internet. The money comes from advertising companies though, not WMF 
donations. Implying otherwise is disingenuous. Plus, external links are 
a content issue and not the responsibility of the Foundation.

And that's just one of many sections erroneously blaming the WMF for 
content issues. For example, "A WikiProject of topic lists has existed 
since November 2007, but it is still half unfinished" and "the 100 
articles about the hundred United States Senators have been shown to 
render erroneous, if not libelous, information". Obviously, the 
Foundation is not responsible for these issues.

In some parts, the page is simultaneously arguing two sides of an issue. 
For example, it complains that the Foundation refused to censor the 
Virgin Killers album cover image and "pollutes the minds of children", 
but then also criticizes the Foundation for doing the controversial 
content study. Which way does he want it? It also complains about the 
Foundation not addressing content problems but then says that the 
Foundation is risking it's Section 230 protection by being too involved 
in content issues. Again, which way does he want it?

Other parts are just flat out false or outdated. For example, "We are 
still waiting for Flagged Revisions" or "Wikipedia and all its sister 
projects could probably operate on a budget of $1.6 million including 
salaries for several IT developers". (The current hosting cost is $2 
million, not including salaries.)

Anyway, this probably constitutes feeding the trolls, so -1 for me.

Ryan Kaldari

On 10/19/10 11:06 AM, Mike Dupont wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Michael Peel<email at mikepeel.net>  wrote:
>    
>> On 19 Oct 2010, at 18:44, Mike Dupont wrote:
>>
>>      
>>>> I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign,
>>>> as illustrated at
>>>> http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia
>>>> against Wikipedia.
>>>>          
>>> Wow, this is very well written and interesting! please share more such
>>> information.
>>>        
>> </sarcasm>, I hope, given the sheer number of inaccuracies and misportrayals in that document?
>>      
> <serious>
> This page about wikipedias faults points to some concrete places to
> help improve the quality of wikiepedia.
> of course you have to take it all with a grain of salt,
>
> I am just reviewing the wikia links right now.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=20000&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.wikia.com
>
> For example, who added a link to wiki
> http://water.wikia.com/wiki/Oil_sands is linked from How to Boil a
> Frog ?
> It is a link that is not obvious as how to value is added to wikipedia.
>
> * David Dodge, Dan Woynillowicz&  Chris Severson-Baker
> [http://water.wikia.com/wiki/Oil_sands],
>
> That page on wikia has some reference to an article from Woynillowicz
> but does not justify the link, doe it?
>
> mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>