“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 encyclopedia 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.”

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 this 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)

Dear Mr. Ta bu shi da yu,

Please visit our website at the end of the month and read the overall story between Wikipedia and the WIF. This gives all emails from Wikipedia's executive director and Wikipedia editors involved. You will see that Wikipedia people do not tell the truth and that when they say that they are going to do something, they do nothing at all. Also we were totally blocked in replying to Wikipedia and could not defend ourselves. When we found out that we had been unblocked, it was to late to do so. If that is democracy I would rather live in China where at least people still have a right of reply even though it is a country not as open as we in the West.
If notoriety is the only reason for insertion in Wikipedia, then the reason again why Wikipedia can never be relied upon as it never has the full picture. In this respect I am aware personally of a several organizations that do immense work around the world but for specific reasons do not make themselves known.
Wikipedia has therefore a great deal to learn about life in general and the bigger picture as it appears to be fundamentally flawed in this respect. I do not believe therefore that Wikipedia editors are at all neutral and impartial. It respectfully appears that to a great extent you have been completely taken in (like we were) I am afraid to say Mr. Ta bu shi da yu by the Wikipedia situation and where you should look deeper and further into the the whole process of how Wikipedian editors conduct themselves. If you do this you will see that they do not do this in a civilized way and act to a very great extent like a 'pack of wolves', devouring everything in sight due to their own personal convictions.

In respect of donations I personally paid monies into Wikipedia myself, so I know that this is also the case. Check with Wikipedia if you do not believe me for I am sure that as a so-called bone-fide organization, they will keep records. Or do they I might ask? Please get back to me when they have found the donation or come back and state that they cannot. I will then give you full details to show if this is the case, and that Wikipedia do not keep records of donations. I could only come to this conclusion if you cannot find the evidence of our donation. Of course this would raise all sorts of questions with those who constantly donate to the Wikipedia Foundation and whether like ourselves, they should refrain from doing so.

Dr. David Hill
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland