"The Power Of The Wikimedia Movement Beyond Wikimedia"

[ericbarbour]

Something to really disgust you:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelber ... 90fe405a75

I wonder if Bernick is an undeclared Wikipedia insider. This isn't an "opinion piece", it's a love letter. Open propaganda.

Also ran recently:
https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/24/are-c ... ving-back/

A majority of the Foundation’s support comes from individual donors, courtesy of six million users who give, on average $10. Support from corporations (excluding foundations) makes up about four-percent of the company’s donations, according to Gruwell. Of course, it’s possible that some of the big anonymous funders have direct ties to these companies, but the list of top corporate donors is actually a bit surprising.

Here are the numbers for the 2017-2018 Fiscal Year:

Google (more than $1 million)
Humble Bundle ($456,000)
Craigslist Foundation ($250,000)
Cards Against Humanity ($35,000)

[ericbarbour]

Well well, whatta know, this guy has an article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Bernick
The bulk of which was written by one Rwyrwa, who certainly looks like Michael Bernick's sock. Go figger.

[CrowsNest]

Disgust, sure, but it doesn't particular alarm me. It's not an WP:RS (Forbes contributors <> Forbes), so it cannot be used in their on-site propaganda. For general readers, it is doesn't hurt our cause for pieces to admit Wikipedia doesn't pre-screen it's editors for anything, much less expertise. And to alert them they have grand designs and indeed we'll advanced plans that go well beyond the mere production of Wikipedia. It is surprising now few muggles even realise those two basic issues. And for intellectuals, they will have no trouble discerning that contrary to his claim, romanticism of Wikipedia is exactly what he is guilty of. And obviously, fans of Wikipedia being caught abusing Wikipedia by us, the untouchables, is always good for our cause.