Perhaps I've missed it, but there's nothing about donating to Wikipedia on the front page, or anywhere in the FAQ. The site does often seem slow, and so the question arises naturally. Of course, donations may be impossible because of the corporate origins of Wikipedia, etc, or they might be possible in the future. Could the answer be added to the FAQ?

Pde 08:42 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

Great question! I am not a developer but I do read and contribute to the developer's mailing list. First, outside of the occasional Slashdotting or other media exposure, the slowness is not the result of our server not able to handle the load or our bandwidth pipe not being large enough. The slowness is from table locking in My-SQL and other programming inefficiencies (which are being worked-on and improved all the time - albeit slowly). So even if we were to buy a new server that is four times faster there would probably be little if any noticeable improvement in performance. What we really need is somebody with a great deal of experience optimizing databases for heavy loads. Our developers are doing a great job but they are largely learning how to do this type of optimizing as they go.

Right now Jimbo Wales is our sole benefactor. He pays for our bandwidth and for the Wikipedia domain names (which are all cheap for him since he owns an ISP) and last year he bought us a new $US 3,000 server. There are serious plans, however, about forming a non-profit organization to manage Wikipedia's and Wiktionary's finances. Such an organization would be able to accept donations but Jimbo has stated that he doesn't need any help right now supporting Wikipedia. He has also stated that he would continue to at least provide bandwidth for Wikipedia and Wiktionary even after the non-profit is set-up. So financially we are doing just fine - we just need a developer who is an expert in database optimization. --mav

Sequential searches are ineffecient at searching vast text databases. They should not be used as a primary. File Includes are a much better way to go.

I've got meetings next week with people who I might persuade to fund qualified experts ( proof is in the pudding! ) for this open source programming initiative. Rate determining steps to are unknown at this point: I don't know how long it may take to secure funding. But I have started so there will be funds made available either through an existing NGO, Canadain Government Bodies, or Venture Communists. I don't care to get an e-mail or a phone so any message should be placed on my talk page. Two16

Ah great, a foundation dedicated to creating an enyclopedia - how many years to go until Wikipedians dominate the galaxy? ;) 145.254.36.235

As the inventor of the name for this thing, I expect of course to receive fat royalty payments. ;) --Sheldon Rampton 03:41 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Of a non-profit organization? See the 12/26/99 Sluggy Freelance comic - don't get your hopes high of fat royalties of zero profit. --Geoffrey 03:25 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I expect when Wikimedia becomes a US$500b organization we will all become fabulously wealthy. --Delirium 07:51 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Removed:

The prior means of Wikipedia Governance, which had revolved around the Wikipedia mailing list and Wales' own decisions, are to be replaced by a new method negotiated probably among more frequent contributors.

"Are to be replaced"? I must have missed something here while reading the mailing list posts. This topic has not been raised yet there (which, now at least, is the only place any policy is decided). --mav

You didn't miss anything. Re-reading the announcement, the only commitment is to a board. That does imply however some shift to governance, that should start to be discussed. Mention of board and board procedures is enough, as those make mention of many governance concerns, for those interested. However, it may be valuable to elaborate on the history of m:Wikipedia Governance and the disputes thereon, since, this is what the new Wikimedia now takes over.

Also, this is not an issue, but, given that the fact removed happened to be about yourself, don't you think someone else, not yourself, should be the one to decide if it matters to every reader? We are all prone to a lack of objectivity regarding the importance of facts about ourselves, and certainly, you have removed facts or quotes you considered irrelevant, and would like that judgement to not be challenged by those quoted, creating endless edit war. I leave that to your judgement.

Imply yes, but nothing has been decided yet. And if I hadn't reserved the domain name then a squatter would have taken it (I didn't reserve the .com counterpart and that domain name was taken by a squatter). That alone would have rendered any choice in the name "wikimedia" to have much less value (and may have resulted in us dropping the idea of naming the Foundation "Wikimedia"). So the name was Seldon's idea but I followed through to make sure his name choice was possible (any foundation would need a web presence). All that is relevant to any discussion about the name. --mav

Yes, this sounds like advocacy, but I wonder if Wikimedia has a position on the [Public Domain Enhancement Act] of 2003. The act would require copyright holders of works over 50 years old to register their interest in a work with a $1 payment to the PTO every 10 years. Works for which the copyright holder doesn't register interest would fall into the public domain.

Is it/are we supporting the act? Would a position on the act be appropriate for the front page? -- ESP 14:56 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I support it and I'm sure many other Wikipedians would too if they knew about it but the Wikimedia Foundation only really exists in name and on paper right now so it cannot really have such a postion. But in the future I do foresee Wikimedia becoming a very important leader in the free/open content cause (similar to role that the Free Software Foundation plays for free/open source software). Baby steps until then, though. --mav

Hmm. I wonder if it would help or hurt to write up a draft of Wikipedia:Public Domain Enhancement Act (as opposed to Public Domain Enhancement Act) talking about what the effects of the act would be on Wikipedia. I realize that this is a politically charged issue, but if it seems like the free use of public domain sources (up to 1942! WOOHOO!) would be really helpful for the project. -- ESP 17:20 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Seems premature to create an article about an Act that is only proposed. I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the Wikipedia namespace proposal since we try to steer clear of political issues (esp. in the encyclopedias). But discussing this on meta seems to be a good idea. --mav

Also, if Wikimedia wants 501(c)(3) tax exempt status there are limitations on lobbying activities, though just supporting proposed legislation is not usually considered lobbying. Alex756 20:36, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps I have missed something, but what are "wikimedia peices"? Is this some kind of terminology that has been thought up that I am not aware of. It sounds kind of strange. — Alex756 19:51, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fixed: piece -> project - Patrick 22:50, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

They are really not projects, they are realities ;) . The pieces are :

1. Wikipedia: encyclopedia
2. Wiktionary: dictionary
3. Wikibooks: free source books
4. Wikiquote
5. Nupedia

One thing is the wikimedia (foundation) and another thing is a wikimedia (piece) . Mac 10:36, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

They are projects. The main page says "Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate free content encyclopedia...." etc. Pieces makes no sense. Angela. 01:12, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Why is In Memoriam not listed here as a Wikimedia project ? Kpjas 09:28, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As I have visited various wiki's, including the Wikimedia peices, it occured to me that all the WikiMedia foundation wiki's need to have the WikiMedia logo as part of the page layout. This is expecially important when other Wiki's are using the WikiMedia Wiki software. I have visited a few wiki's that use WikiMedia software, but that are not associated with WikiMedia. I can recognize the WikiMedia software, so the assumption is that it is associated. --Jim 22:44, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See the new skin at http://test.wikipedia.org/ . Perhaps the Wikimedia logo could be the background image. The phrase "A Wikimedia project." can and, IMO, should also be right under the logo of each Wikimedia project's logo in their sidebars.[Control] --mav 03:43, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)