Daily Mail
-
- Sucks
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:33 am
Re: Daily Mail hits back at Wikipedia/Wikimedia
Of course there are:-Soham321 wrote:The Foundation’s accounts show it has assets of more than $90 million (£73 million), and spent $31 million (£25 million) in salaries last year, up from $26 million (£21 million) the year before. Since the same documents state that it employs 280 members of staff and contractors, their average salary appears to be more than $110,000 (£90,000). Meanwhile, the Foundation’s last tax return showed that its former executive director, Lila Tretikov, earned $308,149 (£251,000), plus another $18,213 (£15,000) in ‘other’ compensation, while former boss Sue Gardner was on roughly the same.
Are these amounts not excessive? Again the Foundation refused to answer my questions about the subject. Perhaps they feel no need. For theirs is a world where it has become troublingly easy to ignore awkward questions, or indeed everything, from a newspaper which an infinitesimally small number of their members happen to dislike.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... genda.html
----
The salaries WMF is paying to its employees seem to be substantially higher than an ordinary non-profit. Aside from the salaries are there any other sources of financial remuneration for these people?
1. Paid editing
2. Free sex (otherwise they'd have to pay for it)
3. Free travel junkets ( -ditto-)
4. Hefty "fake" awards from shitpot dictators
5. Fees to ban editors / Fees to unban editors
6. Kickbacks from fat unjustified salaries for otherwise unemployable parasites
7. Finder's fees of upto 35% on donations brought in by them
8. Kickbacks from grant awardees
9. Kickbacks from lawyers fees (no wonder WMF's litigation is increasing exponentially)
10 Kickbacks from Chapter funding
Re: Daily Mail hits back at Wikipedia/Wikimedia
.
Last edited by Soham321 on Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Sucks Warrior
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Daily Mail hits back at Wikipedia/Wikimedia
Wales charged a massage to the WMF credit card when he was in Russia. It's also possible he just charged the credit card for travel expenses on the way to the massage. This is bad enough. Free sex does not make sense and some of the other allegations are likewise patently spurious.Soham321 wrote:<snip>
that's quite an amazing list. thanks for sharing. the first time i recall reading something related to the free sex part was something Vigilant had written on WO. Something about Jimbo getting free massages. Do we have any evidence for the free sex and free massages allegation?
-
- Sucks Admin
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
- Location: The ass-tral plane
- Has thanked: 1168 times
- Been thanked: 1870 times
Re: Daily Mail hits back at Wikipedia/Wikimedia
(no wonder WMF's litigation is increasing exponentially)
And you will NEVER read ANY serious discussion of this, anywhere online. Especially not on Wikimedia's websites. All you can find is this, which is pathetically incomplete.
It's one of the happy little things Mike Godwin and Philippe Beaudette implemented when they worked for WMF: secrecy with regard to lawsuits against the WMF. Given that so many damn fools file libel/defamation suits against the WMF in places without jurisdiction, and Section 230 makes the majority of libel claims go away anyhow, it is truly amazing how rarely we read about them being sued. Searching the San Francisco superior-court records for such suits is kind of fruitless because most of them were filed in other places--all over the world.
-
- Sucks
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:33 am
Re: Daily Mail hits back at Wikipedia/Wikimedia
ericbarbour wrote:(no wonder WMF's litigation is increasing exponentially)
Given that so many damn fools file libel/defamation suits against the WMF in places without jurisdiction, and Section 230 makes the majority of libel claims go away anyhow, it is truly amazing how rarely we read about them being sued.
Section 230 only operates within the US. The advice for defamed "fools" would be to get an order blocking the import of the libellous content into their territories, and make the DOTCOM (in this case DOTORG) operator a party and get the domain disabled. Whereas WMF would normally not contest most defamation suits, the DOTCOM operator invariably does so because of the risk to their domains not being saleable in that territory.
-
- Sucks
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:33 am
Re: Daily Mail hits back at Wikipedia/Wikimedia
We weren't referring only to Jimbeau.Flip Flopped wrote:Wales charged a massage to the WMF credit card when he was in Russia. It's also possible he just charged the credit card for travel expenses on the way to the massage. This is bad enough. Free sex does not make sense and some of the other allegations are likewise patently spurious.Soham321 wrote:<snip>
that's quite an amazing list. thanks for sharing. the first time i recall reading something related to the free sex part was something Vigilant had written on WO. Something about Jimbo getting free massages. Do we have any evidence for the free sex and free massages allegation?
But since you asked for the evidence for free sex @aka "money for nothing chicks for free"
https://web.archive.org/web/20080305115 ... -free.html
http://web.archive.org/web/201111220317 ... /statement
https://www.wired.com/2008/03/scandal-in-wiki/
http://www.smh.com.au/news/biztech/wiki ... 16874.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/049422_Jimmy ... _king.html
http://gawker.com/362564/transcripts-of ... -sex-chats
http://mashable.com/2008/03/02/ebay-wales-auction/
http://mashable.com/2008/03/02/wikipedia-gossip/
https://web.archive.org/web/20080306083 ... shing.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ia.scandal
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/03/17 ... iki-world/
Last edited by Wikipediacritics on Sun Mar 05, 2017 10:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Sucks
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:33 am
Re: Daily Mail hits back at Wikipedia/Wikimedia
Flip Flopped wrote:<snip>
Free sex does not make sense and some of the other allegations are likewise patently spurious.
Aren't you just a fine one to say so. Your avatar has a Wikipedia tattoo and purple talons.
(I like these better though)
[img]https://s3.postimg.org/e2ye4eusz/ello_hdpi_78805a22.jpg[/img]
-
- Sucks Warrior
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Daily Mail hits back at Wikipedia/Wikimedia
My avatar is a Commons image of someone's ill-conceived Wikipedia tattoo.Wikipediacritics wrote:Flip Flopped wrote:<snip>
Free sex does not make sense and some of the other allegations are likewise patently spurious.
Aren't you just a fine one to say so. Your avatar has a Wikipedia tattoo and purple talons.
(I like these better though) <snip>
-
- Sucker
- Posts: 463
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 am
- Has thanked: 582 times
- Been thanked: 264 times
- Contact:
Re: Daily Mail hits back at Wikipedia/Wikimedia
Flip Flopped wrote:My avatar is a Commons image of someone's ill-conceived Wikipedia tattoo.Wikipediacritics wrote:Flip Flopped wrote:<snip>
Free sex does not make sense and some of the other allegations are likewise patently spurious.
Aren't you just a fine one to say so. Your avatar has a Wikipedia tattoo and purple talons.
(I like these better though) <snip>
Could be worse: