Wikipedia Sucks!

.

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?

Of course there are:-
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

.

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?

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.

(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.

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.

Flip Flopped wrote:

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?

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.

We weren't referring only to Jimbeau.
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/

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]

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>

My avatar is a Commons image of someone's ill-conceived Wikipedia tattoo.

Flip Flopped wrote:

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>

My avatar is a Commons image of someone's ill-conceived Wikipedia tattoo.

Could be worse: