Talk:Wikimedia Foundation

Noted issues

- Opening paragraph is directly copied from Wikipedia (unsure how this fits within CRW's policty)

- Consumer Impact Summary notes that Wikimedia is generally good with pro-consumer values yet does not describe any of it. This section needs a lot of elaboration to fairly represent the organization.

- Article consistently conflates Wikimedia with Wikipedia. These are two distinct entities. Wikimedia Foundation hosts Wikipedia, while Wikipedia itself is run by volunteer editors. There may be more nuance that I'm not aware of, but this distinction is crucial. Wikipedia may need its own section (rather than being conflated with Mediawiki) in cases where the Foundation's control is limited/blurry Beanie Bo (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Relevance

None of the incidents listed on this page are related to consumers. Nor is the consumer-impact summary related to consumer right violations. I'm adding an irrelevant notice. Beanie Bo (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

In Wikimedia/Wikipedia's case a gray area is certainly in play. The thing about Wikipedia is theoretically, any readers can become editors at any time so the lines are really blurred in that case. Maybe the Consumer Wiki policy should add some kind of exemptions regarding that case, although a prohibition against naming the defendants or the accused can be implemented to prevent any potential legal issues.2406:DA18:492:9301:7266:9698:97CA:9E35 18:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

PSA

To the user who continues to add irrelevant information under IP edits, you've been asked multiple times not to do this. Your personal gripes with your experience in Wikipedia-editing is completely irrelevant. There is no gray area and this article is irrelevant. It will be deleted in 24 hrs. Beanie Bo (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The Discord server discussion explicitly stated that "name and shame" pages are under the scope of the coverage.15.181.161.29 14:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)