There's an interesting discussion going on at the Wikimedia Foundation page, about who founded Wikipedia? Here's my recent entry there:

I'm with Wales here, not because I understand all your arguments, but because an employee can't found a for-profit business, which is what Wikipedia was before it was Wikimedia. I am an accountant, and strongly believe that an entity must be something (Am I sounding like Rand here?). Wikipedia was a for-profit before it was Wikimedia. There aren't any mushy definitions of something other than a for-profit or a non-profit. Wikipedia was owned by Wales (perhaps with Bomis), and not Sanger as I understand it. If Sanger had negotiated a future equity stake in Wikipedia, he could have been the founder, but I haven't heard that he did. Sticking to the facts and possibilities arising from those facts, Sanger can't be the co-founder in my opinion.

As far as relying on sources, that policy while part of Wikipedia, fails the article. Someone writing for MSNBC or whoever, that doesn't understand that an employee can't found a for-profit company, that an entity must be either for or non profit, and who hasn't spent a lot of time with the issue, isn't worth citing.

Someone above had mentioned something about implies a business. If it wasn't a business, then what for goodness sakes was it? Up until the day it got Florida's non-profit status, it was a for-profit. I think it's relevant that when the time came to give stuff (domain names, etc.) to the just born Wikimedia, it was Wales doing it, while Sanger was doing whatever Wikipedia says he was doing that day. (end of comment)

Have a look at the complete discussion. (Criticism) I don't want to quote anyone, though the material is open and transparent. I have come take Wales side for the most part. It's partly to do with my dealings with a lot of new businesses and non-profits as a CPA. It's my opinion that the IRS gives no quarter on the issue. I read their rules to say that if you aren't a recognized non-profit (with a letter from them saying so) you are a for-profit. To be honest, many small entities fly under the radar, for example youth booster clubs. But Wikipedia was too big to do that and I suspect looked too much like a business.

You'll also read at the discussion about intangibles. Wikipedia, which is really a part of Wikimedia, is mostly intangible. The value of its servers is dwarfed by the parts of Wikimedia that accountants have a hard time valuing. I'd guess Wikimedia is worth a billion dollars while it's servers are valued at around a million. The difference between these two numbers are called intangibles, plus there's a little cash laying around. So Wikimedia is much more than some hardware. Wales does make a comment to the discussion, and feel I should disclose that I am not a sock puppet of Jimbo Wales nor has he ever contacted me, and most importantly, his lawyers have never contacted me.

I think there's value in watching this article along with the Criticism of Wikipedia article. Wikipedia looking at itself, with noobs, veterans, and even the founder weighing in. I think we will see more of this type of thing. One example would be a governmental Wiki. Perhaps about a town with council people and citizens contributing. Wikipedia has a form of communication that most aren't familiar with. No emails, but with the ability to contact anyone who is active. Plus its openness slants things towards civility.