Thursday, March 08, 2007
Guardian smears Wikipedia, Wikipedians, Peer Production
Yet another infuriatingly misdirecting article about Wikipedia has appeared, this time in The Guardian, about Wikipedia contributor Essjay, named Ryan Jordan in real life, who misrepresented his academic credentials. This is really bad. Jordan, meet Bob Cringely.
But then the article goes on to tar all the thousands of good Wikipedians -- and Wikia management, and (by direct implication) Jimbo Wales, AND all peer production! -- with the Essjay brush.
Sure, anytime you have thousands of loosely vetted volunteers working on a project, the chances of coming up with one or two bad actors is high. But the Guardian takes the low road, smearing the efforts of the thousands who apply their expertise for the love of their craft, calling them "wrapped up in delusion," subject to "old fashioned cult appeal," dupes that "work for free" with "a dream that their donated effort will give them the prestige of an academic."
As if there's no motive but money paid for work done, and no elevation of reputation not mediated by The Academy!
Shame, Guardian. Shame.
[UPDATE: My, my, there are some vehement anti-Wikipedians out there! So many negative comments! I had no idea. Wonder what's the underlying beef?]
But then the article goes on to tar all the thousands of good Wikipedians -- and Wikia management, and (by direct implication) Jimbo Wales, AND all peer production! -- with the Essjay brush.
Sure, anytime you have thousands of loosely vetted volunteers working on a project, the chances of coming up with one or two bad actors is high. But the Guardian takes the low road, smearing the efforts of the thousands who apply their expertise for the love of their craft, calling them "wrapped up in delusion," subject to "old fashioned cult appeal," dupes that "work for free" with "a dream that their donated effort will give them the prestige of an academic."
As if there's no motive but money paid for work done, and no elevation of reputation not mediated by The Academy!
Shame, Guardian. Shame.
[UPDATE: My, my, there are some vehement anti-Wikipedians out there! So many negative comments! I had no idea. Wonder what's the underlying beef?]
Technorati Tags: Press, SocialProduction, Wikipedia
Comments:
Jimbo Wales knew Essjay was a fraud long before he employed him. So if anyone should be leaving Wikipedia, it should be Jimbo.
# posted by 
: 3/08/2007 5:46 PM
: 3/08/2007 5:46 PM
If surgery was like Wikipedia: Surgipedia.
Several surgipedians have gathered in an operation theater. On the table lies an unconscious man whos left leg looks dark. Surgipedian #1 grabs a sheet prepared by the patient’s doctor that details the problem.
Surgipedian #1: “Whoa, he’s been lying here for 26 hours, we sure got a backlog again. It also says on this that he has a ‘claudication’ and a ‘chronic venous insufficiency’ in the left leg”, looks at right leg, “and we are asked to do a ‘leg segmental arterial doppler ultrasound exam’. Whatever that is. His leg looks pretty good to me”.
Surgipedian #2: “You looked at the wrong leg. It says the left one”.
Surgipedian #1: “I looked at the left and it’s looking totally normal!”
Surgipedian #2: “The left from his point of view! Do you know where your left leg is?”
Surgipedian #3: “No need for shouting, #2, please remember Surgipedia guideline ‘Assume Good Faith’. #1 was just trying to be constructive!”
Surgipedian #2: “I was only trying to be constructive, too!”
Surgipedian #3: “Well, let’s just get to back to this guy.”
Surgipedian #1, feeling securely at the helm again: “I remember something I read once on a website about heart diseases; when your arms or legs turn dark, you got a heart problem”.
Surgipedian #3: “Yup, you are right. It’s something about the veins in the heart being clogged up.”
Surgipedian #2, feeling outdone: “I think it’s something about having not enough oxygen in your blood!”
Surgipedian #1: “Can you cite a source for that?”
Surgipedian #2: “My aunt Thelma had something like that and I wrote a paper about it for my biology class at school!”
Surgipedian #3: “Please remember Surgipedia guideline: No Original Research! Let’s get back to the man’s heart problem! What should we do?”
Surgipedian #1: “I think you need to cut open his ribs and give him a heart massage or clean the veins or something”.
Surgipedian #3: “Sounds reasonable. After all, when you get a massage to your back, the blood there flows better as well. I just wrote an article about it”.
Surgipedian #2: “Heh, that is original research, too!”
Surgipedian #3: “Several surgipedians agreed on that article to be correct. Are you trying to be a nuisance or do you want to do that man some good?”
Surgipedian #2: “Of course!”
Surgipedian #3: “Then please stay constructive! How do we cut the man’s ribs?”
Surgipedian #1: “You need a saw or something.”
Surgipedian #3: “A saw? Surgeons use scalpels when they operate. I think you just need to cut a hole and poke your fingers through”.
Without further ado, he grabs a scalpel and cuts a hole approximately where the heart is and sticks two fingers through.
Surgipedian #3: “I can’t reach the heart, my fingers are not long enough!”
Surgipedian #2: “Then do that thing with the veins!”
Surgipedian #3: “How do you do that?”
Surgipedian #2 “Well, my aunt Thelma finally had something they call a bypass and they cut open the veins, I think”.
Surgipedian #3: “But that is orig…, well let’s try it. But I will have to push in the scalpel pretty deep to reach the heart. Shall we do it?”
Surgipedian #1, #2: “Support”.
Surgipedian #3 remembers Surgipedia guideline “Be Bold!”, grabs the scalpel in his fist and swings his arm in preparation of a deep push into the hole, but at that moment a surgeon comes by.
Surgeon: “Stop! What in the world are you doing?”
Surgipedian #3: The man has a problem in his leg and we are going to cut his heart veins open”.
Surgeon: “What? All I see is a man with vascular problem in his leg and another that wields a scalpel like a knife. Are you aware that pushing a scalpel into someone’s heart will kill that person?”
Surgipedian #1: “We have decided by majority that this is the proper thing to do. Besides, can you prove that pushing a scalpel into someones heart is deadly?”
Surgeon: “You decided by MAJORITY? Are you all nuts?”
Surgipedian #2 feels that there is finally someone besides him to put down: “Please, no personal attacks!”
Surgeon: “I will fucking personal attack you if you endanger someones life!”
Surgipedian #3: “We need to call an admin!”
Surgeon: “Alright, do that, but put that scalpel down!”
An admin comes by.
Admin: “I have heard that a guest is violating Surgipedia rules”.
Surgeon: “I am a surgeon and these people are about to kill this man by pushing a scalpel into his heart!”
Admin: “Reviewing the archived discussion, you are in violation of rules Surgipedia: Assume Good Faith, Surgipedia: Vandalism, Surgipedia: Neutral Point of View, Surgipedia: No Personal Attacks, Surgipedia: Avoid Weasel Words and Surgipedia: Do not disrupt Surgipedia to make a point. You will be blocked from accessing Surgipedia for one week. Please use the time to review Surgipedia guidelines and rules”.
Admin and desperate Surgeon leave.
Surgipedian #3: “Okay, where were we?”
s
Surgipedian #2: “You were about to cut his heart.”
Surgipedian #3: “Yup. I propose that so-called ’surgeon’ was just a troll and we should go ahead.”
Surgipedian #1 and #2: “Agree”.
Surgipedian #3 slams the scalpel into the man’s heart, who is dead within moments.
Surgipedian #3: “Why did he die?”
Surgipedian #1: “It’s his fault. There was nothing WE did wrong!”
[All guidelines and policies mentioned in this satire do exist in Wikipedia.]
Several surgipedians have gathered in an operation theater. On the table lies an unconscious man whos left leg looks dark. Surgipedian #1 grabs a sheet prepared by the patient’s doctor that details the problem.
Surgipedian #1: “Whoa, he’s been lying here for 26 hours, we sure got a backlog again. It also says on this that he has a ‘claudication’ and a ‘chronic venous insufficiency’ in the left leg”, looks at right leg, “and we are asked to do a ‘leg segmental arterial doppler ultrasound exam’. Whatever that is. His leg looks pretty good to me”.
Surgipedian #2: “You looked at the wrong leg. It says the left one”.
Surgipedian #1: “I looked at the left and it’s looking totally normal!”
Surgipedian #2: “The left from his point of view! Do you know where your left leg is?”
Surgipedian #3: “No need for shouting, #2, please remember Surgipedia guideline ‘Assume Good Faith’. #1 was just trying to be constructive!”
Surgipedian #2: “I was only trying to be constructive, too!”
Surgipedian #3: “Well, let’s just get to back to this guy.”
Surgipedian #1, feeling securely at the helm again: “I remember something I read once on a website about heart diseases; when your arms or legs turn dark, you got a heart problem”.
Surgipedian #3: “Yup, you are right. It’s something about the veins in the heart being clogged up.”
Surgipedian #2, feeling outdone: “I think it’s something about having not enough oxygen in your blood!”
Surgipedian #1: “Can you cite a source for that?”
Surgipedian #2: “My aunt Thelma had something like that and I wrote a paper about it for my biology class at school!”
Surgipedian #3: “Please remember Surgipedia guideline: No Original Research! Let’s get back to the man’s heart problem! What should we do?”
Surgipedian #1: “I think you need to cut open his ribs and give him a heart massage or clean the veins or something”.
Surgipedian #3: “Sounds reasonable. After all, when you get a massage to your back, the blood there flows better as well. I just wrote an article about it”.
Surgipedian #2: “Heh, that is original research, too!”
Surgipedian #3: “Several surgipedians agreed on that article to be correct. Are you trying to be a nuisance or do you want to do that man some good?”
Surgipedian #2: “Of course!”
Surgipedian #3: “Then please stay constructive! How do we cut the man’s ribs?”
Surgipedian #1: “You need a saw or something.”
Surgipedian #3: “A saw? Surgeons use scalpels when they operate. I think you just need to cut a hole and poke your fingers through”.
Without further ado, he grabs a scalpel and cuts a hole approximately where the heart is and sticks two fingers through.
Surgipedian #3: “I can’t reach the heart, my fingers are not long enough!”
Surgipedian #2: “Then do that thing with the veins!”
Surgipedian #3: “How do you do that?”
Surgipedian #2 “Well, my aunt Thelma finally had something they call a bypass and they cut open the veins, I think”.
Surgipedian #3: “But that is orig…, well let’s try it. But I will have to push in the scalpel pretty deep to reach the heart. Shall we do it?”
Surgipedian #1, #2: “Support”.
Surgipedian #3 remembers Surgipedia guideline “Be Bold!”, grabs the scalpel in his fist and swings his arm in preparation of a deep push into the hole, but at that moment a surgeon comes by.
Surgeon: “Stop! What in the world are you doing?”
Surgipedian #3: The man has a problem in his leg and we are going to cut his heart veins open”.
Surgeon: “What? All I see is a man with vascular problem in his leg and another that wields a scalpel like a knife. Are you aware that pushing a scalpel into someone’s heart will kill that person?”
Surgipedian #1: “We have decided by majority that this is the proper thing to do. Besides, can you prove that pushing a scalpel into someones heart is deadly?”
Surgeon: “You decided by MAJORITY? Are you all nuts?”
Surgipedian #2 feels that there is finally someone besides him to put down: “Please, no personal attacks!”
Surgeon: “I will fucking personal attack you if you endanger someones life!”
Surgipedian #3: “We need to call an admin!”
Surgeon: “Alright, do that, but put that scalpel down!”
An admin comes by.
Admin: “I have heard that a guest is violating Surgipedia rules”.
Surgeon: “I am a surgeon and these people are about to kill this man by pushing a scalpel into his heart!”
Admin: “Reviewing the archived discussion, you are in violation of rules Surgipedia: Assume Good Faith, Surgipedia: Vandalism, Surgipedia: Neutral Point of View, Surgipedia: No Personal Attacks, Surgipedia: Avoid Weasel Words and Surgipedia: Do not disrupt Surgipedia to make a point. You will be blocked from accessing Surgipedia for one week. Please use the time to review Surgipedia guidelines and rules”.
Admin and desperate Surgeon leave.
Surgipedian #3: “Okay, where were we?”
s
Surgipedian #2: “You were about to cut his heart.”
Surgipedian #3: “Yup. I propose that so-called ’surgeon’ was just a troll and we should go ahead.”
Surgipedian #1 and #2: “Agree”.
Surgipedian #3 slams the scalpel into the man’s heart, who is dead within moments.
Surgipedian #3: “Why did he die?”
Surgipedian #1: “It’s his fault. There was nothing WE did wrong!”
[All guidelines and policies mentioned in this satire do exist in Wikipedia.]
# posted by : 3/08/2007 7:04 PM
: 3/08/2007 7:04 PM
It's not like Wikipedia smeared anyone is it, David? Ask Daniel Brandt or Andrew Orlowski.
http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Brandt_the_Boogeyman
Cults blame outsiders for their problems; cults vilify their critics. Wikipedia is a cult by most definitions.
You're defending the indefensible.
http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Brandt_the_Boogeyman
Cults blame outsiders for their problems; cults vilify their critics. Wikipedia is a cult by most definitions.
You're defending the indefensible.
# posted by : 3/09/2007 8:42 AM
: 3/09/2007 8:42 AM
Hello,
The rise of Wikipedia is an indication of deeper issues. 'Peer Production' is an old idea that is supposed to be fundamental to our education and research systems. We are living in the beginning of a new Dark Ages. Wikipedia is not the solution, it is a symptom. You're trying to tell me that a man who goes by the name of 'Jimbo', who prior to founding Wikipedia, ran a relatively unpopular web site known by most as a porn index, now presides over the most important compendium of knowledge on the planet?
Wikipedia is not only inaccurate, it is outright deceptive due to its total susceptibility to influence by PR consultants and the like. Why not look up your peer produced article on G.W. Bush and let me know what you think?
If you are such a proponent of peer review, why not let everyone just edit your articles, after all when the mob is consulted, only truth and accuracy emerge. The internet was supposed to be a solution to mass marketing stupidity not an accelerator.
I believe that the problem lies not in Wikipedia, but in the failure of our schools to evolve.
-Joshua Zeidner
The rise of Wikipedia is an indication of deeper issues. 'Peer Production' is an old idea that is supposed to be fundamental to our education and research systems. We are living in the beginning of a new Dark Ages. Wikipedia is not the solution, it is a symptom. You're trying to tell me that a man who goes by the name of 'Jimbo', who prior to founding Wikipedia, ran a relatively unpopular web site known by most as a porn index, now presides over the most important compendium of knowledge on the planet?
Wikipedia is not only inaccurate, it is outright deceptive due to its total susceptibility to influence by PR consultants and the like. Why not look up your peer produced article on G.W. Bush and let me know what you think?
If you are such a proponent of peer review, why not let everyone just edit your articles, after all when the mob is consulted, only truth and accuracy emerge. The internet was supposed to be a solution to mass marketing stupidity not an accelerator.
I believe that the problem lies not in Wikipedia, but in the failure of our schools to evolve.
-Joshua Zeidner
# posted by : 3/09/2007 5:33 PM
: 3/09/2007 5:33 PM
Sorry, one more comment. Jimbo's recent project Wikia, is even more ridiculous. Who is going to contribute to a system where whatever work they may do will inadvertently be claimed/edited by the resident payed 'expert'? Jimbo needs to consider the motives behind the people who submit in the first place.
The thing that really formed my current impression of Wikipedia was my attempts to get the information concerning the legal status of the term 'Web 2.0' into the Web 2.0 wikipedia article. I later found out that there were paid professionals monitoring this information under a number of handles. The 'Surgipedian' comment definately rings true for anyone who has actually used Wikipedia. jmz
The thing that really formed my current impression of Wikipedia was my attempts to get the information concerning the legal status of the term 'Web 2.0' into the Web 2.0 wikipedia article. I later found out that there were paid professionals monitoring this information under a number of handles. The 'Surgipedian' comment definately rings true for anyone who has actually used Wikipedia. jmz
# posted by : 3/09/2007 5:46 PM
: 3/09/2007 5:46 PM
I find it very ironic that people overlook the fact that the fact checker at The New Yorker was also taken in by Essjay's fraud. For a longer tome on my views, please see my recent blog post.
Wonder what's the underlying beef?
the underlying beef is that Wikipedia is run by an oligarchy of appointed domain 'experts' and 'wikilawyers' who hone their rhetoric skills by mastering the various 'wikilaws' and using them to persuade. Wikipedia is far from accurate, what semblance of accuracy there is conforms to 'common knowledge' that exists both prior and separate from the phenomenon of 'Wikiknowledge'.
what gets the anti-wiki people riled up is that so many people actually make excuses for wikipedia. This may be due to a number of things, but most importantly it is a 'source' that is highly manipulatable and has high credibility. In the case of the Web 2.0 article, this information was finally admitted to the article only after the owners, CMP Media, LLC. sued an unsuspecting European conference for using the term Web 2.0 without their permission. In other words, the information is only added after it becomes glaringly obvious to the public. Wikipedia is not a good source of information.
the sad part is, the American scientific research enterprise[1] does not rate much higher.
-jmz
[1]the one that will boldly drive us into economic victory for the 21st century.
the underlying beef is that Wikipedia is run by an oligarchy of appointed domain 'experts' and 'wikilawyers' who hone their rhetoric skills by mastering the various 'wikilaws' and using them to persuade. Wikipedia is far from accurate, what semblance of accuracy there is conforms to 'common knowledge' that exists both prior and separate from the phenomenon of 'Wikiknowledge'.
what gets the anti-wiki people riled up is that so many people actually make excuses for wikipedia. This may be due to a number of things, but most importantly it is a 'source' that is highly manipulatable and has high credibility. In the case of the Web 2.0 article, this information was finally admitted to the article only after the owners, CMP Media, LLC. sued an unsuspecting European conference for using the term Web 2.0 without their permission. In other words, the information is only added after it becomes glaringly obvious to the public. Wikipedia is not a good source of information.
the sad part is, the American scientific research enterprise[1] does not rate much higher.
-jmz
[1]the one that will boldly drive us into economic victory for the 21st century.
# posted by : 3/09/2007 10:11 PM
: 3/09/2007 10:11 PM
Whatever the beefs, I find Wikipedia to be a valuable resource, especially when loooking up stuff normal encyclopedia wouldn't cover---e.g. pop culture stuff.
The problem with Wikipedia is that it insists on a "neutral" point of view, and one article on something. In essence, it's not possible to fork an article. Wikipedia would be much better if people who have a point of view were able to create a new article (with automagic disambiguation). People could then link directly to the article that they felt best described the subject matter. So, instead of having an "Anarchist" page where the left-anarchists and right-anarchists fight over who should be in control (all humor intended), there would be an "Anarchist+Left", and an "Anarchist+Right". If you go to the "Anarchist" page, you'll be told about the Left and Right pages. Instead of having monopoly pages which get fought over, better to have authors competing for the best description even given their point of view.
russel, I'd like to chat... please email me jjzeidner - at - gmail.com
# posted by : 3/16/2007 3:04 AM
: 3/16/2007 3:04 AM
Up to 9 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time - using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.
Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, 'Jimbo's second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is ultimately at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.
For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter 'Scientific Discovery'. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with 'Jimbo' and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to 'Jimbo's' opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball home and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time - the web link is http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk.
Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity (reg. no. CH-035.7.035.277-9 - 11th July 2005)
Bern, Switzerland
Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, 'Jimbo's second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is ultimately at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.
For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter 'Scientific Discovery'. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with 'Jimbo' and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to 'Jimbo's' opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball home and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time - the web link is http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk.
Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity (reg. no. CH-035.7.035.277-9 - 11th July 2005)
Bern, Switzerland
I notice that Dr. Hill has spammed over 20 blogs with his comment, but I figured that I should respond anyway. :)
For some reason, it appears that Dr. Hill believes that if he provides the Wikimedia Foundation with money, then his charity will be automatically guaranteed a spot on Wikipedia. I am happy to say that this is not the case. While I have nothing personally against World Innovation Foundation Charity, Wikipedia's neutrality and impartiality is very important.
I have reviewed the original article. There are absolutely no references in the final revision before it was deleted. The main reason that it was deleted was because we didn't believe that the organisation was notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. This was done through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Innovation_Foundation - I will let the reader judge whether this was a fair process. I should also note that if someone believes and can demonstrate that they are notable, then there is a deletion review process.
Dr. Hill should also be aware of our suggested guidelines that deal with potential conflicts of interest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Though it isn't prohibited on Wikipedia, it is clearly a conflict of interest to write about your own organisation. It is thus frowned upon. I think that given the goals of Wikipedia, this is pretty reasonable.
Personally, I don't believe that Wikipedia editors or the Wikimedia Foundation has anything against this charity. In my dealings with Wikipedia and the WMF, I have always found that they welcome contructive dialogue with organisations and individuals.
Chris Sherlock
User:Ta bu shi da yu
English Wikipedia Administrator (writing in personal capacity)
Post a Comment
For some reason, it appears that Dr. Hill believes that if he provides the Wikimedia Foundation with money, then his charity will be automatically guaranteed a spot on Wikipedia. I am happy to say that this is not the case. While I have nothing personally against World Innovation Foundation Charity, Wikipedia's neutrality and impartiality is very important.
I have reviewed the original article. There are absolutely no references in the final revision before it was deleted. The main reason that it was deleted was because we didn't believe that the organisation was notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. This was done through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Innovation_Foundation - I will let the reader judge whether this was a fair process. I should also note that if someone believes and can demonstrate that they are notable, then there is a deletion review process.
Dr. Hill should also be aware of our suggested guidelines that deal with potential conflicts of interest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Though it isn't prohibited on Wikipedia, it is clearly a conflict of interest to write about your own organisation. It is thus frowned upon. I think that given the goals of Wikipedia, this is pretty reasonable.
Personally, I don't believe that Wikipedia editors or the Wikimedia Foundation has anything against this charity. In my dealings with Wikipedia and the WMF, I have always found that they welcome contructive dialogue with organisations and individuals.
Chris Sherlock
User:Ta bu shi da yu
English Wikipedia Administrator (writing in personal capacity)
