* Posts by Gregory Kohs

54 posts • joined 8 Jan 2008


Golden handshakes of almost half a million at Wikimedia Foundation

Gregory Kohs

Re: An unpleasant surprise

How could you have been "surprised" by this? For at least 10 years a quick search on "reasons not to donate to Wikipedia" or something similar would have returned at least a half-dozen sites that carefully explain the fraud at Wikimedia Foundation. Sadly, you're like most donors -- too trusting of a highly manipulable reference site, and too lazy to check where you're sending your money?

Jimbo announces Team Wikipedia: 'Global News Police'

Gregory Kohs

Just like CiviliNation

Remember CiviliNation? That was Jimbo's attempt with his girlfriend Andrea Weckerle to "fix" the "broken" world of mean and nasty Internet comments.

Let's be clear... the president of CiviliNation, Andrea Weckerle, was definitely Jimmy's girlfriend:


Further, a couple of days ago on Reddit, Jimbo asserted that he was the "primary funder" of CiviliNation. It can be deduced that at least part of the CiviliNation scheme was to bankroll a girlfriend in a tax-deductible way. How charitable. But where are the facts?

Let's see... 2010 Form 990: $25,420 in contributions; 2011: $12,240; 2012: $15,500; 2013: $24,568; 2014: $4,700. All summarized here:


That's a total of $82,428.

If Jimbo was the "primary funder", let's say that's at least 50% of collected donations, or $41,215. During that period, Weckerle took $63,228 in salary, on total contributions of $82,428. Thus, Jimbo is saying that he basically bankrolled most of Andrea Weckerle's personal income from CiviliNation, which accomplished what? CiviliNation.org is barely a functioning website any more -- their blog hasn't been updated in over 13 months. And this proves what? That Jimbo was so charitably inept that he forked over -- at a minimum -- $41,215 to a failed attempt to "fix" online civility that ultimately accomplished not much more than keeping his girlfriend Andrea in food, clothes, and shelter for a few years. With tax-deductible dollars, no less! And now he's asking the community of gullible WikiLovers to fund his for-profit plan to "fix" journalism?

It's just sad. And pathetic.

Facebook, Mozilla and Craigslist Craig fund fake news firefighter

Gregory Kohs

The irony

There's a subtle irony in calling Jimmy Wales "founder" of Wikipedia, when Dr. Larry Sanger pitched the idea to Jimbo, Sanger named it 'Wikipedia', Sanger issued the first public call for participation on the new project, and Sanger's early edits to the encyclopedia outnumbered Jimmy's by a factor of seven. Years after the founding of Wikipedia by (mostly) Larry Sanger, Jimbo went on a personal tirade, modifying Wikipedia entries to minimize or eliminate Sanger's contribution to the project. Yeah, Jimbo is a great candidate to make the case against fake news.

The Mail vs Wikipedia: They're more alike than they'd ever admit

Gregory Kohs

Trying to improve reliability?

You *still* think Wikipedians are "trying to improve their reliability"? Maybe search for and read the results of a systematic experiment that revealed that not only do Wikipedians not spot obvious errors, when the errors get fixed they may even strive to return them to the erroneous version! Do a web search for "Experiment concludes most misinformation inserted into Wikipedia may persist", then read that. Learn. Don't repeat PR pablum that's been paid for with $60 million of annual donations.

Happy birthday: Jimbo Wales' sweet 16 Wikipedia fails

Gregory Kohs

Re: Citation needed

"...but back in the early days of Wikipedia there were studies done showing that it was at least as accurate, if not more so, than the Encyclopedia Britannica..."

There were no such studies. This is a perfect example of how the crowd can't be trusted, because like any game of whisper-down-the-lane, the facts get distorted into something completely wrong.

You're thinking of a Nature news project (not a "study") that found that Wikipedia had about 4 errors per science topic, versus Britannica having about 3 errors per topic. That's "less accurate" than Britannica, for those keeping score.

Also, there's this -- some measure of proof that the problem is just getting worse: http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/04/13/experiment-concludes-most-misinformation-inserted-into-wikipedia-may-persist/

Jimbo Welshes on pledge to stop fundraising

Gregory Kohs

Re: [source needed]

>> I wonder sometimes if they "contribute" enough so the pages aren't touched... <<

Wonder no longer -- enjoy the five-part series on WMF donors getting to edit their own Wikipedia articles to just how they want them: http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/03/10/the-thin-bright-line/

Will Wikipedia honour Jimbo's promise to STOP chugging?

Gregory Kohs

Re: What to do?

Gobhicks, if you don't revoke that donation, you are just PAYING for the privilege of appearing idiotic. This story and about a dozen others like it have clearly demonstrated that the Wikimedia Foundation is just wasting donor money at a rate that is at least a magnitude higher than the actual costs of maintaining the site and providing sufficient throughput to visitors. So, it's up to you. Do you want to be a useless sheep, or do you want to be a thinking individual able to form your own opinions?

Gregory Kohs

Jimmy Wales a filthy, stinking, country-fleeing liar

And with that announcement from Lisa Gruwell, Jimmy Wales is painted quite clearly as a liar:


Gregory Kohs

Re: All big non-profits have this problem

It doesn't surprise me that you find Wikipedia useful, given how easily you presented your own false dichotomy there. You know, the one where you presume that the only alternatives are:

(A) The Wikimedia Foundation must have a little extra cash, or

(B) Wikipedia must be turned over to a company that will run it with a subscription-based business model.

Erik, did it not cross your mind that maybe there are other alternatives? Namely, that the Wikimedia Foundation could publicly admit that Wikipedia site maintenance and bandwidth costs about $3 million per year, and then return to its right-sized staffing levels of 2010 or 2011, trim annual budget to $15 million per year, and have no cause whatsoever to turn over the project to a corporate overlord?

Wikimedia boss scoops $100,000 payrise – after stepping down

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Californian tycoons stole my sharing economy, says Lily Cole

Gregory Kohs

Re: Newsflash

Laughing at "according to Wikipedia". You just don't get it, do you?

It's Wikipedia mythbuster time: 8 of the best on your 15th birthday

Gregory Kohs

Re: Why the hate?

I think you might benefit from reading this:


If Wikipedia's article about Inflammation told you that pain from inflammation is caused in part by rhyolite (which is a volcanic rock), it sounds like you would have went about your merry way, believing that. That piece of misinformation stood in place for about 7 weeks (and may have gone longer, had I not ended the experiment) and the page viewed over 100,000 times.

If you're "curious", fine. If you're interested in facts, then maybe find a more reputable source.

Gregory Kohs

Re: Wikipedia = FAIL ? Hello in there...

What you're doing here is what so many people mistakenly do -- confuse "Wikipedia" for the "Wikimedia Foundation". Wikipedia is successful, amazing, etc. It was back in 2012, and it was back in 2006. Wikipedia succeeds in spite of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The problem with the *organization* -- the Wikimedia Foundation -- is that it has conned people into thinking that it is necessary for the continuation of Wikipedia.

Gregory Kohs

Re: Its founder seems like a thoroughly unpleasant and attention seeking moron

"the references at the bottom make a useful start to further fact-checking"

Like on the article about Frenum piercing?

Gregory Kohs

The money

Here's another way of looking at the financial excess at Wikipedia... In 2008, the Wikimedia Foundation's entire operating expenses were $3.5 million. That's for salaries, Internet hosting, servers, operational costs, travel, depreciation, etc. -- everything. In 2008, all Wikimedia sites served up about 8 billion page views, so that is $437 per million page views. In 2015, all Wikimedia sites served up about 19 billion page views, so if the WMF weren't growing itself at a bloated rate, we should expect a total budget of about $8.3 million. Instead, we see a 2015 budget of $58.7 million, or $3,089 per million page views. Internet hosting has actually gotten much cheaper per million page views, since 2008 -- so it only further goes to show that the Wikimedia Foundation has been spending a ton of money on things other than "keeping the encyclopedias ad-free and up & running", even though these items are core to the fundraising message each year, because that's what gullible donors seem to respond best to, through A/B testing.

Wikipedia thrives on gullibility.

Wikimedia Foundation bins community-elected trustee

Gregory Kohs

Re: What The Internet Does Best.

Dewix doesn't see any corruption here, but then again, he has no idea about the difference between its and it's -- something we're taught when we're about 10 year old.

Maybe he should read about the Stanton Foundation's funding of a Belfer Center paid writer, with payroll passed through the Wikimedia Foundation. (Hint for the clueless: the director of the Stanton Foundation is married to the director of the Belfer Center, so by laundering the $50,000 transaction through the Wikimedia Foundation, the hope was that nobody would discover that the Mrs. was granting money to the Mr.)

Gregory Kohs

Their hosting costs comprise about 6% of all the money that they take in each year. Every penny given to the Wikimedia Foundation beyond the first $3 million or $4 million is simply going to expand out an already bloated staffing empire.

Gregory Kohs

Re: Erm..?

"I get the feeling that if the trustee was fired for no reason the other two representatives would be making noises by now..."

Um, two-thirds of the community-recommended trustees voted against pushing Heilman off the board. If too loud of "noises" are made, where do you think the other community reps will be headed?

Gregory Kohs

"a general lack of due diligence"

JN points out a general lack of due diligence by the Wikimedia Foundation board. Let's remember, this is the trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation. They're the organization that appointed a two-time felon to its Chief Operating Officer position.

Court to Wikimedia: Your NSA spying evidence is inadmissable, so you can't prove NSA spying

Gregory Kohs

Another Jimbo failure

We'll mark this down in Jimmy Wales' little book of failures. Bomis.com -- went out of business. Three Apes search engine -- went out of business. Openserving.com -- went out of business. Wikimedia Foundation -- yay, a success! Wikia.com -- still running on venture capital, never went public, haven't heard any of the investors ever mark it as a financially successful venture. Wikia Search -- closed down without warning. CiviliNation.org -- on life support, its director takes 80% of its funding as a personal salary. Impossible.com -- launched to great fanfare in May 2013, got as high as 230,000th in site popularity, but since The Register discovered that it had been funded with taxpayer money, has fallen to 460,000th most popular site. Jimmy Wales Foundation -- seeded with $500,000 in Arab capital, hired one manager, who posts tweets on Twitter, no other visible accomplishments. And, The People's Operator, which was on an upward trajectory when Jimmy Wales was hired by his Labour Party crony, who then suddenly died, and now the company loses 7x more than it draws in revenue. Hard to imagine how this case against the NSA ever failed, what with the Great Jimbo on track.

Gregory Kohs

Re: Dumb Shysters and Other Criminals

You figure the government is going to send a SWAT team to "get you back" for editing a Wikipedia article about an obscure Pokemon character?

Jimbo 'Wikipedia' Wales leads Lawrence Lessig's presidential push

Gregory Kohs

More hypocrisy from Jimmy Wales

Nobody sees the hypocrisy of Lessig trying to turn America "back" into a representative democracy that will force agendas related to climate remediation and gun control, by hiring a pro-gun, anti-government Libertarian as his campaign manager? Newsflash: the $1 million will be used for the personal aggrandizement of Lessig and Wales, not so much for a political "cause". There is no shortage of stooges on the Internet willing to give money to something that they're being misled about.

Wikipedia jumps aboard the bogus 'freedom of panorama' bandwagon

Gregory Kohs

Get used to it -- Jimbo lying

Some of us are very accustomed to Jimmy Wales telling half-truths and untruths when he gets on a rail about something. Indeed, at some point, his misappropriation is going to be so trademark, he's going to be laughed off as the "Joe Isuzu" of the 21st century.

What's Jimmy Wales going to do with $500k from the UAE?

Gregory Kohs

He knows the WMF too well

Jimbo wouldn't turn the money over to the Wikimedia Foundation -- he knows all too well how inefficiently that organizational sham is actually run. He knows the money would be wasted on replacing programmers who weren't needed in the first place, all to create some silly "comment flow" system that only 1% of readers would ever see. Jimbo may be a fool, but he's no financial idiot.

Wikipedia won't stop BEGGING for cash - despite sitting on $60m

Gregory Kohs

Re: One Truly Shining Star

You are exactly the type of donor that the Wikimedia Foundation has brainwashed with their annual spin, that your money is used to keep the site working well. They do that with 10% of the money they receive. The other 90% they use to stuff savings accounts and buy treasury bonds, pay software developers to write non-functioning code, pay rent in one of America's most expensive cities, and travel the world to expensive locations like Haifa, Hong Kong, London, and Rio.

Jimbo tells Wikipedians: You CAN'T vote to disable 'key software features'

Gregory Kohs

Re: Gutenberg and Wales: Comparable? Maybe... but

Which employee of Gutenberg's actually brought the idea of movable type to Gutenberg and was credited as the "co-founder" of movable type, only to have Gutenberg (years later) claim that only Gutenberg was the "sole founder" of movable type... you know, the way Larry Sanger championed the idea of Wikipedia and brought it to life, only to have Jimmy Wales later rob Sanger of the credit where due?

Improbable: YOU gave model Lily Cole £200k for her Impossible.com whimsy-site

Gregory Kohs

Could Jimmy Wales be more of a dick?


Jimmy Wales says of this Register article:

This discussion is not relevant to Wikipedia. I recommend you take it elsewhere. The article in The Register is typical of them - lots of sneering innuendo that doesn't really stand up to a moment's scrutiny. I've reminded Lily that Andrew Orlowski once trumpted a claim that Wikipedia was "Khmer Rouge in diapers". This is not a serious debate. -- Jimbo Wales; 13:10, 26 March 2014

Gregory Kohs

Re: "Even following very heavy media promotion"

Well, consider that the PR firm was Freud Communications. That's the employer of Kate Garvey, who is Jimmy Wales' (third) spouse. Jimmy Wales was fully on this Impossible.com bandwagon as soon as he heard state money could be garnered. He's described Lily Cole as "like a daughter to me". So, it all comes full-circle, as a family affair.

Supermodel Lily Cole in Impossible partnership with Jimbo Wales, YOU

Gregory Kohs

Jimbo Wales and his usual quarter-truths

"When I started Wikipedia, I didn’t have a concern for a business model..." Oh, Jimbo -- you didn't start Wikipedia, Dr. Larry Sanger did. He's the one who asked you to install the wiki freeware; he's the one who named it "Wikipedia"; and he's the one who issued the first public call for participation on the project. As for not having a concern for a business model, is that why Jimbo publicly announced in March 2002 the following about Wikipedia?

"Just as the National Geographic Society is supported in large part by advertisments in the National Geographic Magazine, I expect this to be a potentially necessary thing at some point in the future, if we wish to have an impact beyond our own little corner of the Internet. (And, I think we all do.)"

You can tell when Jimmy Wales is fibbing, when his lips are moving.

Wikipedians say no to Jimmy's 'buggy' WYSIWYG editor

Gregory Kohs

Jimmy Wales = socialite

Orlowski has finally nailed down an accurate title for Jimmy Wales. He's not an entrepreneur. He's not a technologist. He's not even really a "former currency trader". He is a SOCIALITE. He is fond of social activity and attention, and not much else. It is the perfect label.

Jimmy Wales: 'I'm Wikipedia's monarch'

Gregory Kohs

Jimbo's giving the same speech he gave years ago

For those of us who follow Jimmy Wales' various public speaking tours (it's kind of a game, to spot how many different lies he can tell in one speech), it's very clear that this recent RSA conference talk is the very same thematic discussion that he was delivering as far back as 2010. He's like a broken record at this point. Why host him live? Just throw up an old TED or Wikimania talk of his on the video screen, and save some money.

Wikipedia's Gibraltar 'moratorium' - how's it going?

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Conflict-of-interest scandal could imperil Wikimedia charity status

Gregory Kohs

Will the sheep still donate to the Wikimedia Foundation?

It's refreshing to see the media giving this scandal the ample coverage that it deserves. Year after year, unsuspecting donors chip in $10, $25, $50, and more to support the Wikimedia Foundation, on the premise that without money, Wikipedia might have to shut down. We'll in actuality, the WMF is spending on program services only 46 cents of every dollar it receives. The rest is wasted on overhead, "staff" members who look for things to do on top of the thousands of volunteers who are really keeping Wikipedia alive.

Anyway, one thing I always am amused by -- because it is so predictable -- is this culture of denial and cover-up when the insider corruption at Wikipedia goes public. In fact, I wrote a news piece that carefully exposes the "denial" and the "cover-up" phases, with convenient links to every under-handed action of the True Believers. If you'd like to read: http://www.examiner.com/article/cover-up-begins-wikipedia-s-gibraltar-scandal

Great work, media -- keep up the pressure on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. There's plenty more just waiting for even a modestly-talented investigative reporter.

Google's Brin and wife plop half-million into Wikipedia's hat

Gregory Kohs

Errors in this coverage

Myslewski seems to have made a few mistakes with this article. First, Jimmy Wales didn't "found" Wikipedia. He's not the "founder". Wales founded a mistake of an encyclopedia project called Nupedia. Dr. Larry Sanger pushed to Wales the idea of an openly-edited wiki to help save Nupedia. Sanger named this new project Wikipedia. Sanger issued the first public call for participation on Wikipedia. And Sanger worked for the first year of Wikipedia's existence, hammering out policies and guidelines that are still in place today.

Second, a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, though it may feel good, is mostly going toward waste. According to the Form 990 filed by the WMF to the IRS, only 46 cents of every donated dollar actually get targeted to the program services that fulfill the non-profit's mission. Other legitimate educational non-profits strive for ratios of 75%, 80%, 85%, or higher. This donation is not really to be applauded until the WMF can demonstrate that they're going to get serious about not wasting everyone's money any more.

Canadian prof: Wikipedia makes kids study harder

Gregory Kohs

What an abstract!

Ah, I see in her abstract:

"..a detailed case study where student were (sic) required to produce research for Wikipedia..."

I can't wait for the whole enchilada. Sounds like a rigorous study, indeed.

Gregory Kohs


Sorry that I have reservations about the process of "outsourcing" to Wikipedia the traditional educator oversight of student's quality of research and writing. But, you miss the point of my "outburst". You mention "her initial findings". Where are these findings? They were not posted on the Congress 2011's website, she has not responded to an e-mail request for the findings, and the Congress 2011's administrative assistant said that she would try to help expedite delivery of the findings, but that hasn't seemed to pan out, either. To me, this sounds like a press release that overstates the actual "evaluation" that took place. Hmm... freshly-minted PhD discovers new way that will reduce her time interacting with students' research papers, resulting in fewer professional hours spent grading assignments, more time issuing press releases and attending conferences. There's no chance that this study's just a wee bit biased, "copsewood"?

Gregory Kohs

Where's the study?

Two days ago, I asked Dr. Gray to share the methodology and results of her study. I would like to see whether or not she employed any sort of blind test/control methodology, or whether she biased the project by anticipating an outcome then looking for confirmation through her observations and her observations alone. There was no evidence on the conference website that she presented anything to the conference. She has not replied to me. An administrative assistant at the conference also said that she would look into getting me the study report, and I'm still waiting. Invariably, these breathless Wikipedia-related studies seem to be conducted by "true believers", with little attention to whether their mode and methodology will align with reality.

Wikifounder reports Wikiparent to FBI over 'child porn'

Gregory Kohs

Way to go The Grump

I liked how you spelled "religeon" and "obcessed" and "baning". Thanks for proving my point. Law-abiding taxpayers, for the most part, aren't commenting or thumb-voting here, because they have jobs to go to and families to raise, and they wouldn't want to BOTHER debating people who are afraid of "religeon".

Gregory Kohs

Sorry you're unable to "get" this

The problem is that there is no level of child protection on either end.

On the upload end, photos of children in compromised situations and poses are uploaded frequently, and even if they are "deleted", they are still available to volunteer administrators -- some of whom are... wait for it... children!

On the user/viewer end, Wikipedia's trustees often tout the usefulness of Wikipedia in schools. I have heard Jimmy Wales say that he's happy to hear if 10- or 12-year-olds are "just doing research" that might include a stop at Wikipedia. Well, I for one don't want the 10- to 12-year-old kids in my school district that my property taxes pay for "researching" this at their school library:


Thumb me down all you want, you Free Culture types with no kids and no jobs and no substantial tax contributions to your governments.

Gregory Kohs

Wikimedia is tax-exempt porn server

Here's what most of the comments seem to be missing. If you look at the top 25 most-viewed images on Wikimedia Commons, they are not "made-up drawings", and many of them are themed as such:

5 Category:Shaved genitalia (female) 231062 views

6 Category:Vulva 204043

11 Penis 129794

12 Category:Female genitalia 115613

13 Category:Ejaculation 107525

14 Category:Sex positions 107061

16 Category:Vagina 98422

17 Category:Erotic 95543

18 Category:Oral sex 92525

19 Category:Masturbation 92416

21 Category:Penis 90955

22 Category:Female masturbation 85930

23 Category:Sex 84217

25 Category:Male masturbation 77042

The evidence clearly indicates that what Commons is, is a porn gallery server. Why is it that my government allows Google, Omidyar Network, Hewlett Foundation, Stanton Foundation, and Sloan Foundation to ENJOY A TAX BREAK when they donate money to this particular porn gallery? The fact that the Wikimedia Foundation is allowed to operate as a 501-c-3 "charity" makes me puke a little in my mouth.

Jimbo asks online folk to play nice, be civil

Gregory Kohs

My experience with online venom

Back in 2006, the co-founder of a popular website publicly announced that my approach to the site (one he had helped shape) was “deeply unethical and inappropriate”, and he deleted an article that I had authored. Even though it wasn’t written for payment, and the subject company wasn’t even aware of the article, the co-founder mistakenly assumed it was paid content and thusly labeled it “corporate spam”. Then he indefinitely blocked my user account on the popular website, so that it could not edit any more. Some hours later, the co-founder returned to the popular website to further blast my article, calling it a “travesty of NPOV [neutral point of view]” and “corporate fluff”.

It took him about two years to finally work up the courage to publicly apologize to me for how poorly he handled the situation, but he continued on being a prick to many others besides me.

The website? Wikipedia. The prickly co-founder? Jimmy Wales.

Byrne's naked shorting crusade outs Yahoo! security vuln

Gregory Kohs
Thumb Up

Judd Bagley is a genius

I'm sure glad Judd Bagley is on my side, serving on the board of directors of the non-profit Internet Review Corporation (publisher of Akahele.org), and not working against me. Dang, what that guy can do with simple hacks!

Wikipedia's Gallery guy hung up to dry?

Gregory Kohs

Once again -- the Wikimedia Foundation enjoys the benefits of a volunteer theif

Like worker bees, the Wikipediot volunteers take copyrighted material, chew it up in their little bee mouths, carry it back to the Hive, then spit it out in freely-licensed form onto Wikipedia. And then they expect us to applaud them and pay more money into their little Foundation that already is guilty of spending only 31.6% of incoming revenue on actual program services.

Soon, they will agonize about how all the quality copyrighted content seems to be disappearing (newspapers going out of business, talented musicians being drowned by Hannah Montana CDs, etc.).

I hope somebody goes to 39 Stillman Street in San Francisco and gives Sue Gardner the berating diatribe she deserves.

Sockpuppeting British politico resigns from Wikisupremecourt

Gregory Kohs

Encyclopedia Boothroyd

While the Wikipedia drones have swarmed in to "protect their own" and have deleted David Boothroyd's encyclopedia article, they seem to forget that it was released to the public under the terms of the GFDL open license. Therefore, the article is bound to show up somewhere else on the Internet.

Indeed, it already has:


This post has been deleted by a moderator

Jimbo Wales kills 'Google killing' Wikia Search

Gregory Kohs

Told ya so...

Strange. I said from Day One that Wikia Search would not work, because its leader isn't reliable and transparent.

In fact, my letter to the editor of Fast Company appeared in the second issue after the "Google Killer" claptrap cover story.

I got called a "troll", for being right. Once again.

Maybe people will start listening to me now?



'Like pedos in a playground' - the media and Web 2.0

Gregory Kohs

A little Akahele goes a long way

A very enthusiastic "hooray" for a piece like this, showcasing the efforts of James Harkin.

A tiny "boo" for the several typographic mistakes found throughout the piece.

And a modest plug of my own for the new non-profit-backed blog, Akahele.org, that will be taking on issues similar to those raised by Harkin, on a week-to-week basis. We hope you'll continue these conversations with us at Akahele (a Hawaiian word meaning the opposite of 'wiki').


'Lord of the Universe' disciple exits Wikipedia

Gregory Kohs

Conflict of Interest was crafted for me

Come on, Cade -- how could you mention that the Conflict of Interest policy was drafted in October 2006, without even mentioning that it was the SAME MONTH that Jimbo banned MyWikiBiz from editing Wikipedia.

I was the CAUSE of the Conflict of Interest policy!

Your readers want to know things like that.

Wikipedia self-flagellates over vanishing 'farmsex'

Gregory Kohs

Arf arf arf!

The canine community honors your work, Cade!

Wikimedia Foundation muzzles Wikinews

Gregory Kohs

Things will change

When I win the open WMF Board seat, I promise that things will change in San Francisco. Yes, I'm actually running.



Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021