Seth, I don't want to be vain, but I think you refer to me above as one of those "some critics". I've actually known for many months now that the "business relationships" clause probably was being skirted legally because "Business relationships are employment relationships, contractual relationships, and common ownership of a business in excess of 35%."

Still, you hit the nail on the head. When we brought these questions, wouldn't the responsible, ethical, and professional thing have been to issue an informed explanation of why the "no" box was checked?

Seth, congrats -- this blog post is the #2 Google result for: "business relationship" "form 990".

Let's distinguish between whether the Yes/No answer is meaningful, versus why it was a struggle. I don't see the box's practical significance, in that the relationships were extremely well-known. Nothing was hidden in terms of the existence of Wikia and the positions there (rather the opposite ...).

I don't like to give an impression of journalistic arrogance, that someone MUST talk to a journalist, or anyone at all. So I can sort of see where the antagonism can come from. Sometimes there's just a sub-optimal situation all around.

Why doesn't wikipedia simply switch over to a "for profit" business model? They could EASILY quadruple their income, and then donate that money back to charity, whether it be their own charity, or a different one. They could sell VERY TARGETED ads on their website.