Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Relationship with Wikipedia in Disputes Section

The "Relationship with Wikipedia" subsection in the Disputes Section is a critique from the Telegraph about how Jimmy Wales was wrong to say that Wikipedia is not for sale as his Wikimedia Foundation doesn't control the communities that use the site. Would this mean that those who edit Wikipedia could theoretically propose to make it private? I doubt this is the case. If this isn't the case, this critique should probably be deleted. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^blather 23:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Removed. The content was just incoherent. —Alalch E. 02:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Space?

Hi, In my opinion there ought to be a mention of https://space.wmflabs.org/ because it is a significant WMF production? Victor Grigas (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Victorgrigas 2407:C00:6003:22D:1:0:E1DD:4ED0 (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

"Knowledge equity grants"

Where is the dispute? Trade (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I second this inquiry. I see no reason this should be listed under the "Disputes" section. AshVPW (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia now eighth (not seventh) most visited website

In the first paragraph, it claims that Wikipedia is the seventh most visited website. However, according to the source used in the original article, Wikipedia is now #8 on that list, as Chat GPT has succeeded it. EverettRichards (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Peaceray (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Write endowment in one line only, not two line

Regarding the highlighted inconsistency among articles, there should be a revamp in which the sentence will be inputed as a line only. And more importantly, show the newest statistics as of 2025, not 2023 or earlier. 14.176.186.71 (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean an edit request? Worgisbor (congregate) 15:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Worgisbor: FYI, user pings (in their various template forms) don't work for IPs, at least it won't notify them - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Talkback it is then. Worgisbor (congregate) 19:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes! 14.243.22.42 (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

kindly change the endowment section to one line only per consistency among other articles like Wikipedia and so on depicting the newest statistics as of 2025. 14.243.22.42 (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

That section is four well-sourced paragraphs. How exactly would you reduce it to one line? Please restate your request more specifically, in the form "change X to Y". ~Anachronist (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

More

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2024/11/07/highlights-from-the-fiscal-year-2023-2024-wikimedia-foundation-and-wikimedia-endowment-audit-reports/ is a way to check the endowment in the endowment section in the infobox. Hope you repair the current statistics to the newest ones in the endowment section in the infobox. Thanks anyway! It may take a while to search, but with your dedicated patience, you will soon achieve it!14.185.37.16 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

I mean in the revenue and expenses sections in the infobox, it shows two statistics data, which is even unhelpful in most cases among Wikipedia articles in terms of consistency. As a result, I would like to change from two lines of those in the infobox to only one line depicting the latest statistics. 14.185.37.16 (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Marking as "answered" until consensus for this change is demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Knowledge equity grants

As a layman I have no idea what a "knowledge equity grant" is or why it would be controversial. The section makes no attempt to explain this.

Reading the source it's clear these are some kind of social justice grants, that the source argues is outside the scope of where Wikipedia funding should go to.

This should probably be put into the article. 195.99.42.18 (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that you may be right. 2A02:3030:A92:9B2B:AC8B:8E0C:91D2:CD04 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

prorata.ai / gist.ai / Wikipedia finances

As I understand prorata.ai's claims about it business model, using gist.ai as a search engine and finding content from Wikipedia should result in a financial transfer to (probably) the Wikimedia foundation.

Is there a good way of testing whether that's true? If it is, what are the advantages and disadvantages to Wikipedia from publicising it?

If the disadvantages are sufficiently severe, then someone should delete this section and tell me about it, possibly citing 'your edit to Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation', to avoid repeating the details.

ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Political science

I found this subject really hard please help me to understand easily 2409:408A:8E37:586F:32A6:E0D0:AD80:4571 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? What are you having difficulty with? 🌊 oceanloop 16:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you can have a look at wikibooks:Subject:Political science. Peaceray (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Donate

The built-in graphics aren't up to date. This one is. See commons-description.

84.56.216.238 (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

revenue 2023/24

I learn: the revenue 2023/24 was $185,383,511. But in this statistic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AFundraising_statistics the revenue for 2023/24 is $180,174,103. (and the revenue for 22/23 is $185,383,511. What ist correct? ~2025-36803-18 (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2025

In the article, it says: > later switched to CirrusSearch which is based on Elasticsearch for searching

but as far as it seems, CirrusSearch is now using OpenSearch under the hood (which is a fork of Elasticsearch, since the license changes).

This should be amended. ~2025-38762-03 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 21:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 January 2026

Change the target to Wikimedia Foundation#Staff as the section has been renamed. HKLionel TALK 17:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Financing

Feel free to continue on AI training, licensing revenue as a source of financing https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/wikipedia-seeks-more-ai-licensing-deals-similar-google-tie-up-co-founder-wales-2025-12-04/#:~:text=Summary,a%20different%20matter%2C%20Wales%20said. WikiGrower1 (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 04:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Add a link to donate now

This page (or the home page) could use a permanent link to make a donation. ChgoJohn (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTAD and maybe WP:NOHIDDENADS. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 05:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

People already can donate to Wikipedia if they want to WikiGrower1 (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The 'Donate' link is already on the main navigation column on the left, visible on every page. No additional soliciting is needed (i.e. those appeals for $2.79 are so embarrassing and really should be better thought-out). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Bernadette Meehan

Bernadette Meehan is in the navbox but never mentioned in the article. Could be improved. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Alternative name - Wikimediasphere

Can someone add the alternative name Wikimediasphere in this article? I'm unsure where to place it. I think it is a cool name that we can use, about the projects that belongs to Wikimedia. Vannucci (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Vannucci: interesting. How is that name cited in independent sources? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:27, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: Easy to understand for wiki-based projects within Wikimedia, with a few mentions in some documents, after a check on Google. We should start to use this expression, I guess many will pick it up. --Vannucci (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The image of logos of different wiki-based projects, belonging to Wikimedia, in this article, is also illustrated as a sphere. --Vannucci (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Uh... I mean, how do reliable and independent sources cover this? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:27, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a logical expression, not necessary well established, but still reliable. The goal is to make it so established as possible. Take a look around on Google, by searching the word Wikimediasphere, and be familiar with the word. Try to seperate it for better understanding. --Vannucci (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

You know how Wikipedia doesn't work that way, right? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Soetermans In the Wikimediasphere, as I call it, it does. There are a plenty of examples. Visit such pages in Wikimedia. We name a lot. For example, I probably coined the expression interwiki links. I have about 25 years of experience in Swedish Wikipedia and other wiki-based projects, that belong to Wikimedia. --Vannucci (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

This talk page is about an article, which should be properly sourced. A behind the scenes look or your personal experience isn't a proper source. Wikipedia can't be used as a source for Wikipedia. If you can't come up with a source that uses the term Wikimediasphere, there's zero reason to include it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Soetermans, @Whyiseverythingalreadyused: ResearchGate, among others, mention ”the Wikimedia sphere”. It is safe to say, to include this alternative name in the article, which is supported by sources outside Wikipedia. Are we ready to include it in the article? --Vannucci (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Not him, and not me Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Could you maybe link to, say, three independent, reliable sources that use the term? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Soetermans: cis-india - Centre for Internet and Society (India). , - Berlin & Harvard, (use the tool in Edge to search quickly). Google "wikimedia sphere" researchgate to find the many results. Also the book Wikipedia, Work and Capitalism: A Realm of Freedom?, page 70, mention the ”Wikimedia Sphere”. Are we ready or what? --Vannucci (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Those use "Wikimedia sphere" (and not Wikimediasphere) once. That's no reason to mention it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Soetermans: Nice try but no cigar. You asked for reliable sources and here you go. The expression can be spelled in different ways. Do you master the English language? The expression ”the Wikimedia Sphere” is probably the more correct one or usual, without doubt supported by reliable sources, and thus approved, and hence included in this article. --Vannucci (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Using an unnecessary hostile tone will get you nowhere. Don't get pissy with me because you can't find the sources I oh so politely asked you for. And do you master the English language? Because Wikimediasphere is one word, a proper noun, a compound word of 'Wikimedia' and 'sphere'. Wikimedia sphere, two words, is a descriptive phrase, like 'political sphere' or 'sphere of influence'. That you claimed to coin a Wikipedia slang term a million years ago does not give you seniority here. You don't see me bragging about being here twenty years either, so get off your high horse. Wikipedia is about verifiability, so find some reliable sources and stick to the discussion or move on. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The question is proven, and therefore as you asked (therefore what I meant with ”and here you go”). It is unnecessary to question this fact furthermore, and to make it difficult and unlogical for other users (therefore what I meant with ”Do you master the English language?” ). Your tone is more hostile (check your words above) but I don’t care so much about it. And by the way, I don't find my tone hostile at all. --Vannucci (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, sourcing is required. But just because we have a source doesn't mean we automatically include it. Generally, you want to show it's a prominent nickname. Otherwise you're going to end up with a laundry list of examples of every time someone called it an alternate name. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah lol

In such a world, if I called the WMF the WikiNEETia Foundation, maybe the article should say "The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., also known as the Wikimedia Foundation, WMF, Wikimedia sphere, Wikimediasphere, WikiNEETia Foundation..." Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Source requested

Epicnedd, what's your source for the WMF headquarters being moved to One Montgomery Tower in 2018 instead of 2017? — One Reaction was here. (Got a complaint?) 11:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

All of my evidence is based though weeks of thorough, professional research and constant fine tuning to make sure my editing is as refined as it can possibly be. The reference is from a news article published at the time.

Thanks, EpicNedd Epicnedd (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Epicnedd: no one requests your "weeks of thorough, professional research" on Wikipedia

It is instead requested that you cite the content you add to independent and reliable sources

On that note, you are not contributing to Wikipedia, what with your wall of warnings for vandalism Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah, looking at this guy's warnings and edits, i'm just gonna revert that and warn. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 11:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

what news article? your edit history shows you have a record of making unsourced edits and vandalism. unless you can link this "news artice" I do not believe you are trying to help. I have reverted your edit as such. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2026

Change from:

"with over 800 community members signing a petition in support of the Wiki Workers United (WWU) union as of May 30"

to this:

"with over 900 community members signing a petition in support of the Wiki Workers United (WWU) union as of June 3"

Difference is the number itself. ~2026-33106-46 (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33106-46: and how do you intend to cite that? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 23:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused The signatures, here. In the future, update to 1,000. ~2026-33106-46 (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 23:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)