Google Quietly Drops $2 Million into Wikipedia Coffers

February 17, 2010 By Nick Mokey

In an uncharacteristically low-key bit of philanthropy, Google has donated a cool $2 million to the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent of Wikipedia.

Feeling a little guilty after ignoring Wikipedia’s donation drive all holiday season? You probably should, but consider your debt (and guilt) assuaged by the massive $2 million Google plunked into the Wikimedia Foundation piggy banks on Tuesday.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales broke the news in the most understated way possible: a simple tweet. Advisory board member Mitch Kapor confirmed it with his own tweet, and a formal announcement should be forthcoming sometime Wednesday.

The out-of-the-blue donation seems at odds with some of Google’s previous stances on Wikipedia. In 2007, it introduced Knol, a competitor to Wikipedia that never quite made it off the ground. Although pushing $2 million to a direct competitor would seem to represent a giant white flag, Knol is still alive and kicking.

Showing 17 comments

Google kills seven more projects including Renewable Energy and Knol at 8:20am 23rd November 2011 [...] required. Goole will continue renewable energy efforts on a smaller scale.Next on the cut list is Knol, launched in 2007, an open-source Wikipedia challenger that never made it off the ground. Knol will [...]
Analysts advise Wikipedia to stop asking for donations at 4:24pm 15th December 2010 [...] the same request for donations last year, and failed to meet the company’s goal. However, Google stepped in with a $2 million gift to the foundation. What also could be causing a bit of consumer skepticism is some background about [...]
Ian Bell at 8:51pm 17th February 2010 Well this clears up a lot of the questions I had. Thank you Greg for taking the time to share this.
Gregory Kohs at 8:37pm 17th February 2010 As far as we can tell (those of us who follow Wales' mysterious income trail), he certainly no longer abuses the Wikimedia Foundation expense roll, and it is possible that (to help the bottom line) he draws little to no salary from Wikia, Inc. So, that leaves the most lucrative opportunity for Wales -- his personal speaking fee. His speaking fees have run in the $60,000 to $100,000 per engagement range (according to several verified sources). That's substantial, and it's one clear reason why Wales made it very clear to other Foundation staff and board, quite a number of years ago, that when he went to speak somewhere, and the speech included discussion of Wikipedia, Wales still had no intention to return any of his speaking fee to the Foundation. He set down a de facto policy that Jimmy Wales shall be the only person who is expected to keep all of his speaking fees for himself. Because he described himself as a "volunteer" of the Foundation (that he founded).

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foun...

Jimbo also discovered a neat trick, that if you lie to everyone and say that you were the "founder" or (even more ridiculously) the "sole founder" of Wikipedia, you'll earn more as a public speaker.

http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=470

There's no "character assassination" when you just back up the claims with the publicly-accessible evidence. The evidence shows that you need not be a marksman to "assassinate" Jimmy Wales' character.
Gregory Kohs at 8:24pm 17th February 2010 So, Mike Godwin, you are here on record saying that Danny Wool, the second employee hired by the Wikimedia Foundation, was utterly lying about Jimmy Wales' attempted expense reimbursements through the Foundation? If that is the case, considering all of the damage that Wool caused Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation alike, why was it that the allegations were not sufficiently DISproved with any evidence? No, instead, executive director Sue Gardner went on CNET video news and assured us, new as she was to the job, and not having even been around at the time of the incidents that Wool alleged, that (and this is a direct quote) "Jimmy has never done anything wrong."

That's how the Foundation took care of the allegations? Why is it, then, that the public record does indeed show that Jimmy Wales paid back several thousand dollars to the Foundation for improperly submitted expenses? Or, are you prepared to deny that now, too? (Be careful here.) Why did the previous Chair of the Foundation board feel moved to say about Wales, "I find (it) tiring to see how you are constantly trying to rewrite the past. Get a grip!"?

You say that there is "no overlap" between Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation.

Who did the Wikimedia Foundation write office space rent checks to between January and about August 2009? Wikia, Inc.

Who was the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board? Angela Beesley, the co-founder of Wikia, Inc.

Who was a sponsor of recent Wikimania conferences hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation? Wikia, Inc.

Who said that he wouldn't be comfortable renting office space to the Wikimedia Foundation unless they went back and obtained competitive quotes from other area landlords? Gil Penchina, CEO of Wikia, Inc.

You have a very bizarre and hyper-parsed way of saying two organizations have "no overlap", Mike. In fact, it's so outlandish to put it your way, one could only come away assuming that you're hiding something.
Timmothy P. at 4:18pm 17th February 2010 Are you serious? $400/bottle is not lavish? What in the hell is your deal? That is a weekly paycheck to most people...
Clark at 3:43pm 17th February 2010 Those links look like they are a bunch of claims not backed up by any evidence. I read those articles and the statement that he was "busted for using company money on lavish trips and private jets etc." is an outright lie.
Ian Bell at 3:35pm 17th February 2010 You didn't answer my question...

"Question though: If the Wiki Foundation does not pay for Jimmy's expenses, then who does? Who does he work for? How does he bring in a household income? Just curious."

I am sure others would like to know.

Thanks!
facebook-600471482 at 1:59pm 17th February 2010 "As for your response to James, I am not sure that actual research will prove that Jimmy Wales is in the clear, quite the contrary."

Provide evidence, including citations, to prove that you are in the clear.

"Your attacking behavior says a lot about you."

Yes, it says I'm impatient with character assassination.

--Mike
Ian Bell at 1:40pm 17th February 2010 Hi Mike,

I know very well who you are, no need for an explanation. I apologized in my previous post and was being sincere, not sarcastic. It was careless of me to comment without getting my facts straight.

As for your response to James, I am not sure that actual research will prove that Jimmy Wales is in the clear, quite the contrary. I was surprised to see how much negativity surrounds his name, and while the size of the tree may have been exaggerated, there is no doubt that those lies have stemmed from a seed of truth.

I don't think anyone here is trying to damage Jimmy, and personally, I never attack a person I do not know myself - it's a good rule to live by.

People are entitled to their own opinions, and often time opinions can be formed out of lies and poor reporting, maybe the media is to blame for that. But you cannot blame people for using the information that's out there for the basis of their argument.

"The fact is that you people repeat unsubstantiated allegations because it satisfies you in some sad way."

Again, this is an unsubstantiated allegation, and I am not sure anyone gets satisfaction out of this...

Question though: If the Wiki Foundation does not pay for Jimmy's expenses, then who does? Who does he work for? How does he bring in a household income? Just curious.

And for the record, if you are truly trying to defend The Wikimedia Foundation, convert people to be believers, do not burn them. Your attacking behavior says a lot about you.
facebook-600471482 at 11:33am 17th February 2010 James, I'm Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel.

The stories you cite were the result of a disgruntled former employee trying to stir up bad publicity. Actual research shows that none of the allegations were ever proved, and they originated from unreliable sources. Jimmy Wales does not get his expenses reimbursed by the Foundation. All of the allegations seem to have been made up out of thin air. People do that in the hope of damaging famous people, sometimes.

Ian, there is no overlap between Wikia and Wikimedia Foundation, except that Jimmy Wales is on the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation and continues to be active as a Wikimedian community member.

Part of the embarrassment that arises when people like Ian and James make unsubstantiated charges, or echo those of others, is that it shows how little ability you people seem to have to do substantive research beyond a Google search box. Surely you know that non-profits have reporting requirements. Surely you know that all these corporate entities must submit to scrutiny by the IRS and other agencies. The fact is that you people repeat unsubstantiated allegations because it satisfies you in some sad way. You should ask yourselves what this says about you.
James at 11:05am 17th February 2010 Ok. Here you go:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/05/jimmy_w...

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-03-05/business/...

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikipedia_founder_e...

And thats just the first three entries on Google for my search. You can figure out the rest. I am by no means a rich man, but $30K in expense reports for $400 bottles of wine? Gimme a break.
Clark at 10:40am 17th February 2010 James, I think you better provide a reliable source for "busted for using company money on lavish trips and private jets etc." because otherwise, you're a liar.
James at 10:15am 17th February 2010 I think you are both wrong. Mike is technically correct, but we are talking about Jimmy Wales here, this is the guy that was busted for using company money on lavish trips and private jets etc. I do not trust that guy at all.

Ian, look this up next time you post, it makes you look bad.
Ian Bell at 10:10am 17th February 2010 Sorry, it was not founded by Wikifoundation, it was founded by Jimmy Wales. My mistake and I apologize.

From the Wikia website:

"Wikia was founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley with a mission to enable communities to create, share and discover content on any topic in any language. Wikia's consumer publishing platform has enabled passionate communities to collaborate on everything from the latest video games, and tv series to eco-friendly living and the world's best chocolate chip recipes. With over 75,000 enthusiast communities attracting more than 25 million visitors each month, Wikia is the largest user-generated media company and a top 100 web property.

Part of the free culture movement, Wikia content is released under a license and operates on the Open Source MediaWiki software. Wikia has offices in San Francisco, California and Poznań, Poland."

I am sure there is no overlap on the two companies, there never is right? ;)
facebook-600471482 at 10:07am 17th February 2010 Ian Bell's statement is incorrect in every respect. Wikimedia Foundation does not own Wikia. Wikia revenue is not donated to Wikimedia Foundation. But you needn't take my word for it -- just do some research, which Ian Bell clearly did not bother to do in this instance.
Ian Bell at 9:46am 17th February 2010 A lot of people don't realize that the Wikimedia Foundation also owns Wikia.com which is a FOR-PROFIT company and which generates some pretty sizable revenue. Now whether it's enough to help keep Wikifoundation going is arguable.