Looks like somebody cracked under federal pressure
Sounds to me that (thanks to Dr. Larry Sanger), a little ol' office of free culture in San Francisco got a little ol' call from the little ol' FBI, and the Wikimedia Foundation was "persuaded" to change its stance, pronto -- or else.
Yet more inability to distinguish between "Wikipedia" and "Wikimedia Commons". I think the argument I made above was referencing the amount of traffic on the top 100 pages of WIKIMEDIA COMMONS. You do understand that that's not "Wikipedia", don't you? I'm not sure how clearly I have to spell it out, since you seem particularly obtuse about this.
Mike, you showed your true colors regarding Sanger when you said, "He's often credited as being a co-founder of the site, though some dispute this."
SOME dispute this?
The only person in the world who disputes this is JIMMY WALES.
So, tell us... how recently was it that you and Jimmy had an expensive dinner together? You're obviously shilling for him. What's the catch? It's okay, you can level with us Techdirt readers.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
So, am I to understand that it is a coincidence that Jimmy Wales' immediate prior source of income before Wikipedia was hosting a site that 'The New Yorker' once described as hosting "lesbian strip-poker threesomes"?
And, is it a coincidence that the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation is a self-appointed expert in "zoophilia", so much so that he could add paragraphs of material to Wikipedia, without so much as a citation (other than a "wiki-link" pointing to Peter Singer) directing the reader to a more reliable source than his own mind?
You Wikipediots will bend, twist, and contort yourselves and your positions so that nothing could POSSIBLY be wrong with how the Wikimedia Foundation governs what it publishes. I choose to be more skeptical of their mission.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
Elsie, you seem smart. Could you explain why the Wikimedia Foundation qualifies as a 501-c-3 charitable organization?
If I endeavor to launch an "educational" website featuring pornographic images, may I also charter a business as a non-profit 501-c-3 around it, and drawing my salary from the tax-deductible donations I receive?
Okay, I've adjusted the outbound link from my real name. I see that you're hiding behind the name "Any Mouse". Typical scenario that a pro-child porn proponent would hide from accountability, while someone brave enough to point out simple facts (that Wikimedia Commons is used MOSTLY to publish and distribute sexually-themed images) uses his real name. Oh, and Wikimedia Commons is not an "online encyclopedia" -- you're confusing it with Wikipedia. I am also not prudish and narrow-minded, as I've enjoyed quite a few prurient activities in my day. I just don't recall ever going to a tax-exempt strip club or rented a tax-exempt X-rated video. Per usual, you Wikipediots entirely miss the point.
Thank you for underscoring the legitimacy of my complaint, "Any Mouse".
The Wikimedia Foundation is a tax-exempt 501-c-3 organization. It draws in over $10 million in annual revenues, though by putting much of that in the bank, its "program expenses" account for only 41 cents of every revenue dollar. (Look at their latest Form 990 filing, if you doubt this.) Most bona fide charities try to maintain program expenses ratios north of 80%, to demonstrate that they are actually serving their charitable mission. So, the Wikimedia Foundation is doing about half the job they should be.
If you look at the top 100 images accessed by users on the Wikimedia Commons site, you'll find that sex and porn dominate the list:
So, somebody explain to me how we've gotten to this point, where a sex and porn image server is granted tax exemption. Is it merely a coincidence that Jimmy Wales's business just prior to co-founding Wikipedia was operating the "Bomis Babes" adult photography site?
Masnick, I'm sorry, but you're without a clue on how deep this goes. Let me know if you're interested in talking sometime about how Jimmy Wales reacted when I pointed out to him the potentially illegal child photography on his Wikia, Inc. servers that were hosting a "Spanking Art" wiki.
Don't copyright holders lose some of their grounds to sue, if the unauthorized user is using the material for the purposes of criticism? I think that's one of the tenets of "fair use". But, that's just my gut feeling. You know, a twinge in my belie.
On the post: Disgruntled Ex-Wikipedia Guy, Larry Sanger, Accuses Wikipedia Of Distributing Child Porn
Looks like somebody cracked under federal pressure
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysu bmit&diff=38806204&oldid=35313912
Go cry to your mommies, pedo-porn supporters, one and all.
On the post: Disgruntled Ex-Wikipedia Guy, Larry Sanger, Accuses Wikipedia Of Distributing Child Porn
Re: Re:
I just wanted to point out that JAPAN HAS NO PROBLEMS with underage sexual matters!
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20100426p2a00m0na012000c.html
http://news.asiaone .com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Crime/Story/A1Story20100416-210741.html
That's just in the past month.
On the post: Disgruntled Ex-Wikipedia Guy, Larry Sanger, Accuses Wikipedia Of Distributing Child Porn
Re:
On the post: Disgruntled Ex-Wikipedia Guy, Larry Sanger, Accuses Wikipedia Of Distributing Child Porn
Re:
On the post: Disgruntled Ex-Wikipedia Guy, Larry Sanger, Accuses Wikipedia Of Distributing Child Porn
Re: Re:
Mike, you showed your true colors regarding Sanger when you said, "He's often credited as being a co-founder of the site, though some dispute this."
SOME dispute this?
The only person in the world who disputes this is JIMMY WALES.
So, tell us... how recently was it that you and Jimmy had an expensive dinner together? You're obviously shilling for him. What's the catch? It's okay, you can level with us Techdirt readers.
On the post: Disgruntled Ex-Wikipedia Guy, Larry Sanger, Accuses Wikipedia Of Distributing Child Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
And, is it a coincidence that the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation is a self-appointed expert in "zoophilia", so much so that he could add paragraphs of material to Wikipedia, without so much as a citation (other than a "wiki-link" pointing to Peter Singer) directing the reader to a more reliable source than his own mind?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=next&oldid=845413
You Wikipediots will bend, twist, and contort yourselves and your positions so that nothing could POSSIBLY be wrong with how the Wikimedia Foundation governs what it publishes. I choose to be more skeptical of their mission.
On the post: Disgruntled Ex-Wikipedia Guy, Larry Sanger, Accuses Wikipedia Of Distributing Child Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
If I endeavor to launch an "educational" website featuring pornographic images, may I also charter a business as a non-profit 501-c-3 around it, and drawing my salary from the tax-deductible donations I receive?
On the post: Disgruntled Ex-Wikipedia Guy, Larry Sanger, Accuses Wikipedia Of Distributing Child Porn
Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Can_you_lick_it_!_%28Klashorst%29.jpg
Banne d from Wikipedia since 2006 is another laughable item. Especially considering my various edits there dating 2009:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributi ons&contribs=user&target=Thekohser&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2009&month=8
...not to mention the 2010 edits (for payment) that you DON'T receive the handy link to.
Per usual, the facts are awfully difficult to grasp for the garden-variety, anonymous Wikipediot.
On the post: Disgruntled Ex-Wikipedia Guy, Larry Sanger, Accuses Wikipedia Of Distributing Child Porn
Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
Thank you for underscoring the legitimacy of my complaint, "Any Mouse".
On the post: Disgruntled Ex-Wikipedia Guy, Larry Sanger, Accuses Wikipedia Of Distributing Child Porn
Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
The Wikimedia Foundation is a tax-exempt 501-c-3 organization. It draws in over $10 million in annual revenues, though by putting much of that in the bank, its "program expenses" account for only 41 cents of every revenue dollar. (Look at their latest Form 990 filing, if you doubt this.) Most bona fide charities try to maintain program expenses ratios north of 80%, to demonstrate that they are actually serving their charitable mission. So, the Wikimedia Foundation is doing about half the job they should be.
If you look at the top 100 images accessed by users on the Wikimedia Commons site, you'll find that sex and porn dominate the list:
http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top
Notably, we see...
#5 Category:Shaved genitalia (female)
#6 Category:Vulva
#11 Penis
#12 Category:Female genitalia
#13 Category:Ejaculation
#14 Category:Sex positions
#16 Category:Vagina
#17 Category:Erotic
#18 Category:Oral sex
#19 Category:Masturbation
#21 Category:Penis
#22 Category:Female masturbation
#23 Category:Sex
#25 Category:Male masturbation
So, somebody explain to me how we've gotten to this point, where a sex and porn image server is granted tax exemption. Is it merely a coincidence that Jimmy Wales's business just prior to co-founding Wikipedia was operating the "Bomis Babes" adult photography site?
Masnick, I'm sorry, but you're without a clue on how deep this goes. Let me know if you're interested in talking sometime about how Jimmy Wales reacted when I pointed out to him the potentially illegal child photography on his Wikia, Inc. servers that were hosting a "Spanking Art" wiki.
On the post: The Jimmy Wales Strategy: Just Add Wiki (This Time To Search Engines)
Isn't this DMOZ redux?
On the post: Sued For Critiquing Maine's Tourism Campaign On A Blog
Fair use
Next >>