To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

1905 Chicago mayoral election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1905 Chicago mayoral election
← 1903 April 4, 1905 1907 →
Portrait of Edward Fitzsimmons Dunne.jpg
John Maynard Harlan 1905 (1).png
Nominee Edward F. Dunne John Maynard Harlan John Collins
Party Democratic Republican Socialist
Popular vote 326,378 277,096 46,068
Percentage 49.74% 42.23% 7.02%

Mayor before election

Carter Harrison Jr.

Elected Mayor

Edward F. Dunne

Campaign poster for Republican nominee Harlan promising a Square Deal
Campaign poster for Republican nominee Harlan promising a Square Deal

In the Chicago mayoral election of 1905 Democrat Edward F. Dunne defeated Republican John Maynard Harlan and Socialist John Collins.

Republican John Maynard Harlan was an Alderman, and the son of then-sitting United States Supreme Court Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan. John Manyard Harlan had previously been an unsuccessful candidate for mayor in 1897.[1] John Manyard Harlan's own son would also later serve as a United States Supreme Court Associate Justice.

This was the final regularly-scheduled Chicago mayoral election for a two-year term. Subsequent elections have been for four-year terms.[2][3]

The general election took place on April 4.[4][5]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    2 191 035
    4 444
    1 887
    1 509
  • ✪ The Progressive Era: Crash Course US History #27
  • ✪ John V. Lindsay : Transit Strike : 1966
  • ✪ Judge Alton B. Parker and Guests
  • ✪ Regina in a Nutshell
  • ✪ Lynching in the United States | Wikipedia audio article


Episode 27: Progressive Era Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. history, and today we’re gonna talk about Progressives. No Stan Progressives. Yes. You know, like these guys who used to want to bomb the means of production, but also less radical Progressives. Mr. Green, Mr. Green. Are we talking about, like, tumblr progressive where it’s half discussions of misogyny and half high-contrast images of pizza? Because if so, I can get behind that. Me from the past, your anachronism is showing. Your Internet was green letters on a black screen. But no, The Progressive Era was not like tumblr, however I will argue that it did indirectly make tumblr and therefore JLaw gifsets possible, so that’s something. So some of the solutions that progressives came up with to deal with issues of inequality and injustice don’t seem terribly progressive today, and also it kinda overlapped with the gilded age, and progressive implies, like, progress, presumably progress toward freedom and justice, which is hard to argue about an era that involved one of the great restrictions on freedom in American history, prohibition. So maybe we shouldn’t call it the Progressive Era at all. I g--Stan, whatever, roll the intro. Intro So, if the Gilded Age was the period when American industrial capitalism came into its own, and people like Mark Twain began to criticize its associated problems, then the Progressive era was the age in which people actually tried to solve those problems through individual and group action. As the economy changed, Progressives also had to respond to a rapidly changing political system. The population of the U.S. was growing and its economic power was becoming ever more concentrated. And sometimes, Progressives responded to this by opening up political participation and sometimes by trying to restrict the vote. The thing is, broad participatory democracy doesn’t always result in effective government--he said, sounding like the Chinese national Communist Party. And that tension between wanting to have government for, of, and by the people and wanting to have government that’s, like, good at governing kind of defined the Progressive era. And also our era. But progressives were most concerned with the social problems that revolved around industrial capitalist society. And most of these problems weren’t new by 1900, but some of the responses were. Companies and, later, corporations had a problem that had been around at least since the 1880s: they needed to keep costs down and profits high in a competitive market. And one of the best ways to do this was to keep wages low, hours long, and conditions appalling: your basic house-elf situation. Just kidding, house elves didn’t get wages. Also, by the end of the 19th century, people started to feel like these large, monopolistic industrial combinations, the so-called trusts, were exerting too much power over people’s lives. The 1890s saw federal attempts to deal with these trusts, such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but overall, the Federal Government wasn’t where most progressive changes were made. For instance, there was muckraking, a form of journalism in which reporters would find some muck and rake it. Mass circulation magazines realized they could make money by publishing exposés of industrial and political abuse, so they did. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? I bet it involves muck. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I’m either correct or I get shocked. “Let a man so much as scrape his finger pushing a truck in the pickle-rooms, and all the joints in his fingers might be eaten by the acid, one by one. Of the butchers and floormen, the beef-boners and trimmers, and all those who used knives, you could scarcely find a person who had the use of his thumb; time and time again the base of it had been slashed, till it was a mere lump of flesh against which the man pressed the knife to hold it. ... They would have no nails – they had worn them off pulling hides.” Wow. Well now I am hyper-aware of and grateful for my thumbs. They are just in excellent shape. I am so glad, Stan, that I am not a beef-boner at one of the meat-packing factories written about in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. No shock for me! Oh Stan, I can only imagine how long and hard you’ve worked to get the phrase “beef-boner” into this show. And you finally did it. Congratulations. By the way, just a little bit of trivia: The Jungle was the first book I ever read that made me vomit. So that’s a review. I don’t know if it’s positive, but there you go. Anyway, at the time, readers of The Jungle were more outraged by descriptions of rotten meat than by the treatment of meatpacking workers: The Jungle led to the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. That’s pretty cool for Upton Sinclair, although my books have also led to some federal legislation, such as the HAOPT, which officially declared Hazel and Augustus the nation’s OTP. So, to be fair, writers had been describing the harshness of industrial capitalism for decades, so muckraking wasn’t really that new, but the use of photography for documentation was. Lewis Hine, for instance, photographed child laborers in factories and mines, bringing Americans face to face with the more than 2 million children under the age of 15 working for wages. And Hine’s photos helped bring about laws that limited child labor. But even more important than the writing and photographs and magazines when it came to improving conditions for workers was Twitter … what’s that? There was no twitter? Still? What is this 1812? Alright, so apparently still without Twitter, workers had to organize into unions to get corporations to reduce hours and raise their pay. Also some employers started to realize on their own that one way to mitigate some of the problems of industrialization was to pay workers better, like in 1914, Henry Ford paid his workers an average of $5 per day, unheard of at the time. . Whereas today I pay Stan and Danica 3x that and still they whine. Ford’s reasoning was that better-paid workers would be better able to afford the Model Ts that they were making. And indeed, Ford’s annual output rose from 34,000 cars to 730,000 between 1910 and 1916, and the price of a Model T dropped from $700 to $316. Still, Henry Ford definitely forgot to be awesome sometimes; he was anti-Semitic, he used spies in his factories, and he named his child Edsel. Also like most employers at the turn of the century, he was virulently anti-union. So, while the AFL was organizing the most privileged industrial workers, another union grew up to advocate for rights for a larger swath of the workforce, especially the immigrants who dominated unskilled labor: The International Workers of the World. They were also known as the Wobblies, and they were founded in 1905 to advocate for “every wage-worker, no matter what his religion, fatherland or trade,” and not, as the name Wobblies suggests, just those fans of wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey. The Wobblies were radical socialists; ultimately they wanted to see capitalism and the state disappear in revolution. Now, most progressives didn’t go that far, but some, following the ideas of Henry George, worried that economic progress could produce a dangerous unequal distribution of wealth that could only be cured by … taxes. But, more Progressives were influenced by Simon W. Patten who prophesied that industrialization would bring about a new civilization where everyone would benefit from the abundance and all the leisure time that all these new labor-saving devices could bring. This optimism was partly spurred by the birth of a mass consumption society. I mean, Americans by 1915 could purchase all kinds of new-fangled devices, like washing machines, or vacuum cleaners, automobiles, record players. It’s worth underscoring that all this happened in a couple generations: I mean, in 1850, almost everyone listened to music and washed their clothes in nearly the same way that people did 10,000 years ago. And then BOOM. And for many progressives, this consumer culture, to quote our old friend Eric Foner, “became the foundation for a new understanding of freedom as access to the cornucopia of goods made available by modern capitalism.” And this idea was encouraged by new advertising that connected goods with freedom, using “liberty” as a brand name or affixing the Statue of Liberty to a product. By the way, Crash Course is made exclusively in the United States of America, the greatest nation on earth ever. (Libertage.) That’s a lie, of course, but you’re allowed to lie in advertising. But in spite of this optimism, most progressives were concerned that industrial capitalism, with its exploitation of labor and concentration of wealth, was limiting, rather than increasing freedom, but depending on how you defined “freedom,” of course. Industrialization created what they referred to as “the labor problem” as mechanization diminished opportunities for skilled workers and the supervised routine of the factory floor destroyed autonomy. The scientific workplace management advocated by efficiency expert Frederick W. Taylor required rigid rules and supervision in order to heighten worker productivity. So if you’ve ever had a job with a defined number of bathroom breaks, that’s why. Also “Taylorism” found its way into classrooms; and anyone who’s had to sit in rows for 45 minute periods punctuated by factory-style bells knows that this atmosphere is not particularly conducive to a sense of freedom. Now this is a little bit confusing because while responding to worker exploitation was part of the Progressive movement, so was Taylorism itself because it was an application of research, observation, and expertise in response to the vexing problem of how to increase productivity. And this use of scientific experts is another hallmark of the Progressive era, one that usually found its expression in politics. American Progressives, like their counterparts in the Green Sections of Not-America, sought government solutions to social problems. Germany, which is somewhere over here, pioneered “social legislation” with its minimum wage, unemployment insurance and old age pension laws, but the idea that government action could address the problems and insecurities that characterized the modern industrial world, also became prominent in the United States. And the notion that an activist government could enhance rather than threaten people’s freedom was something new in America. Now, Progressives pushing for social legislation tended to have more success at the state and local level, especially in cities, which established public control over gas and water and raised taxes to pay for transportation and public schools. Whereas federally the biggest success was, like, Prohibition, which, you know, not that successful. But anyway, if all that local collectivist investment sounds like Socialism, it kind of is. I mean, by 1912 the Socialist Party had 150,000 members and had elected scores of local officials like Milwaukee mayor Emil Seidel. Some urban progressives even pushed to get rid of traditional democratic forms altogether. A number of cities were run by commissions of experts or city managers, who would be chosen on the basis of some demonstrated expertise or credential rather than their ability to hand out turkeys at Christmas or find jobs for your nephew’s sister’s cousin. Progressive editor Walter Lippman argued for applying modern scientific expertise to solve social problems in his 1914 book Drift and Mastery, writing that scientifically trained experts “could be trusted more fully than ordinary citizens to solve America’s deep social problems.” This tension between government by experts and increased popular democratic participation is one of the major contradictions of the Progressive era. The 17th amendment allowed for senators to be elected directly by the people rather than by state legislatures, and many states adopted primaries to nominate candidates, again taking power away from political parties and putting it in the hands of voters. And some states, particularly western ones like California adopted aspects of even more direct democracy, the initiative, which allowed voters to put issues on the ballot, and the referendum, which allows them to vote on laws directly. And lest you think that more democracy is always good, I present you with California. But many Progressives wanted actual policy made by experts who knew what was best for the people, not the people themselves. And despite primaries in direct elections of senators it’s hard to argue that the Progressive Era was a good moment for democratic participation, since many Progressives were only in favor of voting insofar as it was done by white, middle class, Protestant voters. Alright. Let’s Go to the Thought Bubble. Progressives limited immigrants’ participation in the political process through literacy tests and laws requiring people to register to vote. Voter registration was supposedly intended to limit fraud and the power of political machines. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar, but it actually just suppressed voting generally. Voting gradually declined from 80% of male Americans voting in the 1890s to the point where today only about 50% of eligible Americans vote in presidential elections. But an even bigger blow to democracy during the Progressive era came with the Jim Crow laws passed by legislatures in southern states, which legally segregated the South. First, there was the deliberate disenfranchisement of African Americans. The 15th amendment made it illegal to deny the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude but said nothing about the ability to read, so many Southern states instituted literacy requirements. Other states added poll taxes, requiring people to pay to vote, which effectively disenfranchised large numbers of African American people, who were disproportionately poor. The Supreme Court didn’t help: In 1896, it made one of its most famous bad decisions, Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that segregation in public accommodations, in Homer Plessy’s case a railroad car, did not violate the 14th amendment’s Equal Protection clause. As long as black railroad cars were equal to white ones, it was A-OK to have duplicate sets of everything. Now, creating two sets of equal quality of everything would get really expensive, so Southern states didn’t actually do it. Black schools, public restrooms, public transportation opportunities--the list goes on and on--would definitely be separate, and definitely not equal. Thanks, ThoughtBubble. Now, of course, as we’ve seen Progressive ideas inspired a variety of responses, both for Taylorism and against it, both for government by experts and for direct democracy. Similarly, in the Progressive era, just as the Jim Crow laws were being passed, there were many attempts to improve the lives of African Americans. The towering figure in this movement to “uplift” black southerners was Booker T. Washington, a former slave who became the head of the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, a center for vocational education. And Washington urged southern black people to emphasize skills that could make them successful in the contemporary economy. The idea was that they would earn the respect of white people by demonstrating their usefulness and everyone would come to respect each other through the recognition of mutual dependence while continuing to live in separate social spheres. But Washington’s accommodationist stance was not shared by all African Americans. WEB DuBois advocated for full civil and political rights for black people and helped to found the NAACP, which urged African Americans to fight for their rights through “persistent, manly agitation.” So I wanted to talk about the Progressive Era today not only because it shows up on a lot of tests, but because Progressives tried to tackle many of the issues that we face today, particularly concerning immigration and economic justice, and they used some of the same methods that we use today: organization, journalistic exposure, and political activism. Now, we may use tumblr or tea party forums, but the same concerns motivate us to work together. And just as today, many of their efforts were not successful because of the inherent difficulty in trying to mobilize very different interests in a pluralistic nation. In some ways their platforms would have been better suited to an America that was less diverse and complex. But it was that very diversity and complexity that gave rise and still gives rise to the urge toward progress in the first place. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week there’s a new caption for the libertage. You can suggest captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course. If you like it, and if you’re watching the credits you probably do, make sure you’re subscribed. And as we say in my hometown don’t forget to be awesome...That was more dramatic than it sounded. Progressive Era -



Chicago held mayoral primary elections.[6] These were indirect primaries.[7]

Democratic primary

The Democratic primary held on February 24.[6]

Incumbent Democrat Carter Harrison Jr. was facing declining prospects for winning nomination to a fifth consecutive term.[8] Labor unions had come out in support of municipal ownership of the city's streetcars, a stance that Harrison had neither adopted nor was keen on adopting.[8] He had also fractured the political relations during the course of the 1904 elections, particularly having made an enemy of William Randolph Hearst and his allies by opposing Hearst's campaign for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.[8] Additionally, many Chicagoans were growing impatient with his inability to resolve the city's traction issue.[8][9] Even before this rise in public dissatisfaction towards his mayoralty, Harrison had only eked out a relatively narrow margin of victory in the city's previous mayoral election.[10] Thus, Harrison decided to announce that, in 1905, he would not be seeking a fifth consecutive term as mayor.[8]

At the same time that Harrison was seeing a decline in his political prospects, Edward F. Dunne began to rise in prominence.[8] On June 26, 1904, at a Democratic Party picnic, Dunne delivered a speech in which he criticized Harrison for not towing the party's line in its support municipal ownership.[8] Rumors immediately arose that he would challenge Harrison by running as an independent candidate, but Dunne denied this, declaring that he was a loyal Democrat.[8] Former judge William Prentice (a leader of the Chicago Federation of Labor) said that he would run as an independent candidate in support of municipal ownership unless Dunne was the Democratic nominee.[8] In November 1904 Dunne declined a nomination from the Municipal Ownership League to run for mayor as a third-party candidate under their banner.[11]

Murray D. Tuley of the Municipal Ownership League heralded a January draft effort to convince Dunne to run for the Democratic nomination [8] On January 23, 1905 delegations from 23 of Chicago's 35 wards urged Dunne to run.[8][11] Dunne declared he was willing to accept the nomination, but that he would not resign his seat as a judge until he began campaigning.[8] He also pledged to accept no corporate donations.[8]

Dunne had an easy path to the nomination. While the Harrison-aligned Democratic Central Committee did not issue any endorsement, Dune was strongly supported by both the Bryan-Altgeld and Hearst wings of the party.[8] He experienced no strong opposition from the ward bosses or from the Sullivan-Hopkins wing of the party.[8] Despite receiving strong buzz as a prospective candidate, alderman William Emmett Dever did not run against Dunne.[12]

In his acceptance speech he declared that his central issue as mayor would be implementing municipal ownership of the city's streetcars.[8]

Republican primary

The Republican primary was held on February 13.[6]

To compete with Dunne, then the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Republicans nominated maverick Republican John Maynard Harlan.[8] Republicans hoped that Harlan might be able to capture some of the support that Dunne would otherwise capture from supporters of municipal ownership.[8] Harlan had campaigned in 1897 on a platform strongly supporting municipal ownership.[8] However, unlike Dunne, Harlan did not back immediate municipal ownership in 1905.[8]

In addition to previously having run a third-party effort 1897, Harlan had run for the Republican nomination in 1901.

Socialist primary

The Socialist primary was held on March 4.[6]

The Socialists were coming off of a strong performance 1904 United States presidential election in Illinois.[11] Despite this, the party had initially pledged that it would not run its own mayoral candidate if Dunne were to run.[11] However, despite Dunne's presence atop the Democratic ticket, the party nominated John Collins for mayor.

Collins had received the same nomination in 1901.

Prohibition nomination

Oliver W. Stewart received the Prohibition Party nomination.[citation needed]


Edward F. Dunne
John Maynard Harlan
  • Civic Federation[8]
  • Municipal Voters League[8]

General election


A judge on the Cook County Circuit Court, Dunne had no prior executive experience.[8] His positions were relatively mainstream among municipal reformers ("social reformers" and "urban liberals") .[8] Like other municipal reformers, Dunne favored having political power be shared with the lower echelons of society rather than being exclusively held by the upper echelons.[8] He also was supportive of labor unions.[8] He was tolerant towards ethnic and cultural diversity and also tolerant towards those with disabilities and impairments.[8] He was a contemporary with progressive leaders in other American cities, including Tom L. Johnson, Samuel M. Jones, Mark Pagan, Hazen Pingree, and Brand Whitlock.[8] He was also a contemporary of progressive Republicans such as Jersey City mayor Mark Pagan.[8][13]

Dunne was so passionate about municipal ownership that he aspired to, ultimately, have his life be remembered most for two things: being the mayor that would bring municipal ownership to Chicago's transit system and for being the father to his thirteen children.[8] He strongly favored immediate municipal ownership.[8]

Dunne's lack of campaign experience did not hamper him, as he ran a very strong and well-organized campaign.[8] To drive turnout among Democratic voters, Dunne held party rallies in each of the city's wards and delivered remarks aimed at appealing towards strong-Democrats, as well as remarks aimed at winning over the city's ethnic voters.[8] Dunne worked to unite the various wings of the party around support for immediate municipal ownership.[8] Dunne also made active efforts to court independent voters, with the goal of winning-over at least 50,000.[8]

A number of political action committees supported Dunne's candidacy.[8]

Dunne largely avoided endorsing or opposing the reelection campaigns of several ward bosses. However, he did endorse a few that had strongly supported immediate municipal ownership and oppose a few that had opposed it.[8] For instance, in the 19th Ward he supported immediate municipal ownership proponent Simon O'Donnell's challenge to John Powers, an opponent of immediate municipal ownership. Even then, however, he only went as far as lending his support to O'Donnell, and did not directly criticize Powers.[8] In the First Ward, where Michael Kenna enthusiastically backed both Dunne and immediate municipal ownership, Dunne returned the favor by endorsing Kenna.[8]

Some reformers supported and campaigned on behalf of, Harlan. However, many reformers that had supported Harlan's previous 1897 campaign supported Dunne's candidacy instead.[8] Many were dissatisfied with his sudden change in position on the traction issue.[14]

Harlan garnered the support of Harold L. Ickes, William Kent, Raymond Robbins, and Graham Taylor, who together formed the "Non Partisan Harlan Club" to support his candidacy.[8] They supported Harlan due to his strong support for a new municipal charter and out of disapproval of Dunne's political alliances with the Democratic political bosses of the city's wards.[8]

Not only was Harlan opposed by notable figures that had endorsed him in 1897, but he also found significant levels of support from groups which had opposed him in 1897.[8] These included the city's business and banking community, establishment members of the Republican Party, and Republican-leaning newspapers.[8]


1905 Chicago mayoral election[15][4]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Edward F. Dunne 326,378 49.74
Republican John Maynard Harlan 277,096 42.23
Socialist John Collins 46,068 7.02
Prohibition Oliver W. Stewart 3,294 1.00
Turnout 228,065

Dunne received 64.99% of the Polish-American vote, while Harlan received 29.73% and Collins received 4.78%.[16]

See also


  1. ^ "RaceID=486004". Our Campaigns. Retrieved December 4, 2018.
  2. ^ Weber, Lara (September 7, 2018). "Commentary: Chicago's mayors: As Rahm Emanuel completes his mark, a look back at his 44 predecessors". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  3. ^ "ContainerID=2705". Our Campaigns. Retrieved December 6, 2018.
  4. ^ a b The Chicago Daily News Almanac and Year Book. Chicago: Chicago Daily News. 1911. p. 538.
  5. ^ Currey, Josiah Seymour (1912). Chicago: Its History and Its Builders, a Century of Marvelous Growth. S. J. Clarke publishing Company.
  6. ^ a b c d John, Derek (18 February 2015). "No Conspiracy Required: The True Origins Of Chicago's February Elections". WBEZ. Retrieved 4 December 2018.
  7. ^ "The Telegraph - Google News Archive Search". Retrieved 2019-09-06.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az The Mayors: The Chicago Political Tradition, fourth edition by Paul M. Green, Melvin G. Holli SIU Press, Jan 10, 2013
  9. ^ "Political History of Bridgeport". Retrieved 4 January 2019.
  10. ^ The Public, Volume 14 edited by Louis Freeland Post, Alice Thatcher Post, Stoughton Cooley (page 243)
  11. ^ a b c d Experts and Politicians: Reform Challenges to Machine Politics in New York, Cleveland, and Chicago Front Cover Kenneth Finegold Princeton University Press, Feb 13, 1995 (page 256)
  12. ^ Schmidt, John R. (1989). "The Mayor Who Cleaned Up Chicago" A Political Biography of William E. Dever. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press.
  13. ^ Cape May County, New Jersey: The Making of an American Resort Community by Jeffery M. Dorwart (page 168)
  14. ^ Yarbrough, Tinsley E. (1992-03-12). John Marshall Harlan: Great Dissenter of the Warren Court. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195362978.
  15. ^ "RaceID=123304". Our Campaigns. Retrieved December 4, 2018.
  16. ^ Kantowicz, Edward. “The Emergence of the Polish-Democratic Vote in Chicago.” Polish American Studies, vol. 29, no. 1/2, 1972, pp. 67–80. JSTOR, JSTOR,
This page was last edited on 6 September 2019, at 09:33
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.