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.

United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 1822

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 1822

← 1821 November 4-6, 1822 1824 →

All 34[1] New York seats to the United States House of Representatives

  Majority party Minority party
Party Democratic-Republican Federalist
Last election 19 8
Seats won 30[2] 4[3]
Seat change Increase 11 Decrease 4

The 1822 United States House of Representatives elections in New York were held from November 4 to 6, 1822, to elect 34 U.S. Representatives to represent the State of New York in the United States House of Representatives of the 18th United States Congress.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    2 577 827
  • Latin American Revolutions: Crash Course World History #31
  • Matthew Wasniewski - Hispanic Americans in Congress 1822 - 2012
  • The Representative of Christ in This World - Theodore Cuyler (Christian devotional reading)
  • Forgiveness in the African American Religious Tradition
  • Theodore Cuyler - The Profligate's Doom (Christian devotional)


Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course World History and today things are going to get a little bit confusing, because we’re going to talk about revolution and independence in Latin America. It’s a bit confusing because 1. Latin America is big, 2. It’s very diverse, 3. Napoleon makes everything complicated and 4. As we’ve seen in the past, sometimes revolutions turn out not to be not that revolutionary. [why a solid marketing dept. is key] Witness, for instance, the New England Revolution, who instead of, like, trying to form new and better governments are always just kicking balls around like all the other soccer [futbol] teams. [Intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] Right, so before independence, Latin American society was characterized by three institutions that exercised control over the population. The first was the Spanish Crown, or if you are Brazilian, the Portuguese crown. So, as far as Spain was concerned, the job of the colonies was to produce revenue in the form of a 20% tax on everything that was called “the royal fifth.” So government administration was pervasive and relatively efficient— because it had to be in order to collect its royal fifth. I mean, the church even controlled time – the church bells tolled out the hours and they mandated a seven day work week so that people could go to church on Sunday. [so HobbyLobby store hours aren't super inconvenient, they're just old skool?] And finally, there was patriarchy. [yeuup, there's a shocker] In Latin America, like much of the world, husbands had complete control over their wives and any extra-or-pre-marital skoodilypooping was severely punished. I mean, when it was the women doing the illicit skoodilypooping. Men could basically get up to whatever. [RIP Helen Gurley Brown. much love] This was mainly about property rights because illegitimate children could inherit their father’s property, but it was constructed to be about, you know, purity. To get a sense of how patriarchy shaped Latin American lives, take a gander at Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz, whose name I’m actually abbreviating. A child prodigy who spoke five languages by the age of 16, de la Cruz wanted to disguise herself as a boy so she could attend University, [plot of 80's flick Just One of the Guys] but she was forbidden to do so. Still, she wrote plays and poetry, she studied math and natural science, [Girls do Get Curves, Danica McKellar!] and for being one of the leading minds of the 17th century, she was widely attacked, and eventually forced to abandon her work and sell all 4,000 of her books. That’s a shame because she had a great mind, once writing that “Aristotle would have written more if he had done any cooking.” [oooh, snap!] Couple other things: First, Latin America led the world in transculturation or Cultural Blending. A new and distinct Latin American culture emerged mixing 1. Whites from Spain called Peninsulares, 2. Whites born in the Americas called creoles, 3. Native Americans, and 4. African slaves. This blending of cultures may be most obvious when looking at Native American and African influences upon Christianity. The Virgin of Guadalupe, for instance, was still called Tonantzin, the indigenous earth goddess, by Indians, and the profusion of blood in Mexican iconography recalls the Aztec use of blood in ritual. But transculturation pervaded Latin American life, from food to secular music to fashion. Somewhat related: Latin America had a great deal of racial diversity and a rigid social hierarchy to match. There were four basic racial categories: white, black, mestizo –a mix of white and American Indian- and mulatto, a mix of white and black. We try not to use that word anymore because it’s offensive, but that’s the word they used. And from the 16th century on, Latin America had a huge diversity of mixed race people, and there were constant attempts to classify them and divide them into castes. You can see some of these in so called casta paintings, which attempted to establish in a very weird and Enlightenment-y way all the possible racial combinations. But of course that’s not how race works, as evidenced by the fact that successful people of lower racial castes could become “legally white” by being granted gracias al sacar. [pretty jacked up, white? right, I mean..] So by 1800, on the eve of Latin America’s independence movements, roughly a quarter of the population were mixed race. So Brazil… he said as thousands of Argentinians booed him— is obviously different because it was ruled, not by Spain, but by Portugal. But like a lot of revolutions in Latin America, it was fairly conservative. The creoles wanted to maintain their privilege while also achieving independence from the Peninsulares. And also like a lot of Latin American revolutions, it featured Napoleon. [forever makes me think of Bill &Ted] Freaking Napoleon. You’re everywhere. [except in line for certain roller coasters] He’s behind me, isn’t he? Gah. So when Napoleon took over Portugal in 1807, the entire Portuguese royal family and their royal court decamped to Brazil. And it turned out, they loved Brazil. King Joao loved Brazil so much. Off topic, but do you think that J-Woww named herself after King Joao? I mean, does she have that kind of historical sensibility? I think she does. [that whole bit really just happened, btw] So King Joao’s life in Rio was so good that even after Napoleon was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo, he just kind of stayed in Brazil. And then, by 1820, the Portuguese in Portugal were like, “Hey, maybe you should come back and, like, you know, govern us, King of Portugal.” So in 1821, he reluctantly returned to Lisbon, leaving his son Prince Pedro behind. Meanwhile, Brazilian creoles were organizing themselves around the idea that they were culturally different from Portugal, and they eventually f ormed a Brazilian Party— no, Stan not that kind of party, come on— yes. That kind. A Brazilian party to lobby for independence. Then in 1822, they convinced Prince Pedro of boring, old Portugal that he should just become King Pedro of sexy, big Brazil. So Pedro declared Brazil an independent constitutional monarchy with himself as king. [as one does, naturally] As a result, Brazil achieved independence without much bloodshed and managed to hold on to that social hierarchy with the plantation owners on top. And that explains why Brazil was the last new world country to abolish slavery, not fully abandoning it until 1888. Right, so even when Napoleon wasn’t forcing Portuguese royals into an awesome exile, he was still messing with Latin America. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. So Latin America’s independence movements began not with Brazil, but in Mexico when Napoleon put his brother on the Spanish throne in 1808. [nepotism; always a classy move] Napoleon wanted to institute the liberal principles of the French Revolution, which angered the ruling elite of the Peninsulares in what was then called New Spain. They were aristocrats and they just wanted to go back to some good old-fashioned divine right monarchy with a strong church. So the Mexican Creoles, seeking to expand their own power at the expense of the Peninsular elite saw an opportunity here. They affirmed their loyalty to the new king, who was French even though he was the king of Spain. I told you this was complicated. Then, a massive peasant uprising began, led by a renegade priest Padre Hidalgo, and supported by the Creoles because it was aimed at the Peninsulares, even though they weren’t actually the ones who supported Spain. This was further complicated by the fact that to the mestizo peasants led by Hidalgo, Creoles and Peninsulares looked and acted basically identical— they were both white and imperious— [preferable to avada kedavrious?] so the peasants often attacked the Creoles, who were, technically on their side in trying to overthrow the ruling peninsulares. Even though it had tens of thousands of supporters, this first peasant uprising petered out. But, a second peasant revolt, led by another priest, Father Morelos, was much more revolutionary. In 1813, he declared independence and the revolt lasted until his death in 1815. But since he was a mestizo, he didn’t gain much Creole support, so revolutionary fervor in Mexico began to fade until … 1820, when Spain, which was now under the rule of a Spanish, rather than a French king, had a REAL liberal revolution with a new constitution that limited the power of the church. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, in the wake of Spain’s liberalizing movements, the Mexican elites, who had previously supported Spain, switched sides and made common cause with the creoles in the hopes that they could somehow hold onto their privileges. And pushing for independence together, things went very well. [stay together to stay alive, just like L4D!] The Creole general Iturbide and the rebel mestizo commander Guerrero joined forces and won independence with most of the Peninsulares returning to Spain. Iturbide –the whiter of the two generals – became king of Mexico in 1822 (remember, this was a revolution essentially AGAINST representative government). But that didn’t work out and within a year he was overthrown by the military and a republic was declared. Popular sovereignty was sort of victorious, but without much benefit to the peasants who actually made independence possible. This alliance between conservative landowning elites and the army - especially in the face of calls for land reform or economic justice— would happen over and over again in Latin America for the next century and a half. But before we come to any conclusions, let’s discuss one last revolution. But, the interior of Venezuela was home to mixed-race cowboys called llaneros who supported the king. They kept the Caracas revolutionaries from extending their power inland. And that, is where Simon Bolivar, “el Libertador,” [young portrait w foppish 'stache is fave] enters the picture. Bolivar realized that the only way to overcome the various class divisions (like the one between the Caracas creoles and llaneros) was to appeal to a common sense of South American-ness. I mean, after all, the one thing that almost all South Americans had in common: they were born in South America, NOT SPAIN. So then, partly through shows of toughness that included, like, crossing flooded plains and going without sleep, Bolivar convinced the llaneros to give up fighting for Spain and start fighting against them. He quickly captured the viceregal capital at Bogota and by 1822 his forces had taken Caracas and Quito. Hold on, hold on. Lest I be attacked by Argentinians [to get back the plutonium you stole?] who are already upset about what I said about their really good soccer team, I want to make one thing clear. Argentina’s general Jose de San Martin was also vital to the defeat of the Spanish. He led an expeditions against the Spanish in Chile and also a really important one in Lima. [helping McKinley advance to Nationals over dreaded rivals, Vocal Adrenaline] And then, in December of 1824, at the battle of Ayacucho, the last Spanish viceroy was finally captured and all of Latin America was free from Spain. Oh, it’s time for the open letter? That’s A chair, Stan, but it’s not THE chair. [damp spirit kicks internal pebble] [rolls with broken heart to unimpressive leather-not-puce-velvet club chair sub] An Open Letter to Simon Bolivar. [part-time purple pieman impersonator] But first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. Oh, llanero. I wonder if his hips swivel when I wind him up. [sorry, Meatwad, night-vision goggles & action bills not included.] Context is everything. They do! Hey there, cowboy. Dear Simon Bolivar, First, you had fantastic [legit] muttonchops. It’s as if you’re some kind of handsome Martin Van Buren. [surely an original sentence there] You were a man of immense accomplishments, but those accomplishments have been richly rewarded. I mean, you have a country named after you. Not to mention, two different currencies. [Canadian loonie pwns, regardless] But for my purposes, the most important thing you ever did was die. You may not know this, Simon Bolivar, but when I'm not a world history teacher sitting next to a fake fireplace, I am a novelist. [young adult + Dawson's Creek FanFic] [tell you his pen names for a price] And your last words, “Damn it, how will I ever get out of this labyrinth,” feature prominently in my first novel, Looking for Alaska. [ sup, Nerdfighteria? xoxo, dj ] Except it turns out, those weren’t your last words. [d'oh?] Your last words were probably, “Jose, bring the luggage.” [alt: "Hey, watch this!"] But I decided to use your fancy, romantic, inaccurate last words. It’s called artistic license. Put that in your luggage. [my, Johnny Bookwriter is saucy today] Anyway, fantastic life. I just wish you’d nailed it a little bit better with your last words. Best wishes, John Green So by 1825, almost the entire western hemisphere – with a few exceptions in the Caribbean —was free from European rule. Oh, right. And Canada. [Oh, Canada!] I’m just kidding, Canadians. It’s so easy to make fun of you because you’re so nice. So I tease you and then you’re like, “Aw, thanks for noticing that we exist.” My pleasure. Anyway, this is pretty remarkable, especially when you consider that most of this territory had been under Spanish or Portuguese control for almost 300 years. The most revolutionary thing about these independence movements were that they enshrined the idea of so called popular sovereignty in the New World. Never again would Latin America be under the permanent control of a European power, and the relatively quick division of Latin America into individual states, despite Bolivar’s pan South American dream, showed how quickly the people in these regions developed a sense of themselves as nations distinct from Europe, and from each other. This division into nation states prefigures what would happen to Europe in the mid-19th century, and in that sense, Latin America is the leader of 19th century world history. And Latin American history presages another key theme in modern life— multiculturalism. And all of that makes Latin America sound very modern, but in a number of ways, Latin American independence wasn’t terribly revolutionary. First, while the Peninsulares were gone, the rigid social hierarchy, with the wealthy creoles at the top, remained. Second, whereas revolutions in both France and America weakened the power of the established church, in Latin America, the Catholic Church remained very powerful in people’s everyday lives. And then, there is the patriarchy. Although there were many women who took up arms in the struggle for independence, including Juana Azurduy who led a cavalry charge against Spanish forces in Bolivia, patriarchy remained strong in Latin America. Feminist ideas like those of Mary Wollstonecraft would have to wait. Women weren’t allowed to vote in national elections in Mexico until 1953. And Peru didn’t extend voting rights to women until 1955. Also, Latin America’s revolutionary wars were long and bloody: 425,000 people died in Mexico’s war for independence. And they didn’t always lead to stability: Venezuela, for instance, experienced war for much of the 19th century, leading to as many as a million deaths. And it’s important to note that fighting for freedom doesn’t always lead to freedom, the past two centuries in Latin America have seen many military dictatorships that protect private property at the expense of egalitarian governance. “Freedom,” “independence,” and “autonomy” are complicated terms that mean different things to different people at different times. So too with the word “revolutionary.” Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Location change because I forgot to record the credits, and my shirt matches the wall. Probably should have thought about that one a little bit harder. [DFT record the credits, next time then?] Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Danica Johnson, [!] the show is ably interned by Agent Meredith Danko, TVCS and it’s written by my high school history teacher Raoul Meyer and myself. Our graphics team is Thought Bubble. Last week’s phrase of the week was "giant squid of anger." If you want to suggest a future phrase of the week or guess at this week’s, you can do so in comments, where you can also ask questions that will be answered by our team of historians. Look at the beautiful Crash Course poster! [nice job, ThoughtBubblers!] Available now at link in the video description. Thanks for watching, and as we say in my home town, Don’t Forget they can’t get your goat if they don’t know where you keep it.



27 U.S. Representatives had been elected in April 1821 to a term in the 17th United States Congress which had begun on March 4, 1821. Selah Tuthill died on September 7, 1821, before Congress met, and Charles Borland, Jr. had been elected to fill the vacancy. Solomon Van Rensselaer resigned his seat in January 1822, and Stephen Van Rensselaer had been elected to fill the vacancy. The representatives' term would end on March 3, 1823. Most previous congressional elections in New York had been held together with the annual State elections in late April, but under the New York Constitution of 1821, the elections were moved permanently to November: about four months before the congressional term began, and a little more than a year before Congress actually met on December 1, 1823.

At this time the Democratic-Republican Party in New York was split into two opposing factions: on one side, the supporters of DeWitt Clinton and his Erie Canal project; on the other side, the Bucktails (including the Tammany Hall organization in New York City), led by Martin Van Buren. At the same time, the Federalist Party had already disbanded, and most of its former members had joined the Clintonians.

Congressional districts

On April 17, 1822, the New York State Legislature re-apportioned the congressional districts according to the figures of the 1820 United States census. The number of district was increased to 30, creating eight new districts; the number of seats was increased to 34, creating for the first time a triple-seat district, and keeping two double-seat districts.

Note: There are now 62 counties in the State of New York. The counties which are not mentioned in this list had not yet been established, or sufficiently organized, the area being included in one or more of the abovementioned counties.


23 Bucktails and 11 Clintonian/Federalists were declared elected. The incumbents Wood, Morgan, Cambreleng, Van Wyck, Van Rensselaer, Taylor, Litchfield, Rochester and Tracy were re-elected; the incumbents Ruggles, Dickinson, Campbell and Woodcock were defeated.

1822 United States House election result
District Democratic-Republican/Bucktails Clintonian/Federalist also ran
1st John P. Osborn[4] 1,353 Silas Wood 1,383
2nd Jacob Tyson 1,754 Jacob Patchen[5] 174
3rd John J. Morgan 4,428
Churchill C. Cambreleng 4,389
Peter Sharpe 4,199
4th Joel Frost 2,214 Abraham Smith 678 Peter A. Jay (Fed.) 333
5th William W. Van Wyck 3,119 Derick B. Stockholm[6] 1,265
6th Charles Ludlow 1,617 Hector Craig 2,191
7th Lemuel Jenkins 2,864 Charles H. Ruggles 2,153
8th Joseph D. Monell[7] 1,940 James Strong 2,647
9th James L. Hogeboom 3,241 John D. Dickinson 2,859
10th Stephen Van Rensselaer 2,725
11th Charles A. Foote 3,184 John T. More 2,698
12th Lewis Eaton 2,800 Nicholas F. Beck[8] 1,549
13th Isaac Williams, Jr. 2,343
14th Ezekiel Bacon 2,632 Henry R. Storrs 2,687
15th John Herkimer 2,050 Simeon Ford[9] 1,390
16th Alexander Sheldon 2,148 John W. Cady 2,215
17th George Palmer 2,115 John W. Taylor 2,505
18th Henry C. Martindale 2,424 David Russell 1,979
19th John Richards 2,234 Ezra C. Gross 1,962
20th Egbert Ten Eyck 6,455
Ela Collins 6,407
21st Lot Clark 2,265 Samuel Campbell 821
22nd Justin Dwinell 2,911
23rd Elisha Litchfield 2,042 Asa Wells[10] 1,387
24th Rowland Day 2,622 Jonathan Richmond 1,804
25th David Woodcock 2,215 Samuel Lawrence 2,449
26th Micah Brooks 1,418 Dudley Marvin 4,511 John Price (C/F)[11] 1,866
Robert S. Rose 3,046 William Thompson[12] 2,563
27th John H. Jones[13] 2,023 Moses Hayden 3,117
28th William B. Rochester 3,426
29th Isaac Wilson 2,093 Parmenio Adams 2,077
30th Augustus Porter 2,091 Albert H. Tracy 3,516

Note: In Congress both Bucktails and Clintonians aligned with the Democratic-Republicans from the other States. Of the Anti-Bucktails Wood, Ruggles, Strong, Dickinson, Van Rensselaer, Storrs and Russell were old Federalists; Stockholm, Craig, Beck, Cady, Taylor, Gross, Richmond, Lawrence, Marvin, Thompson, Hayden, Adams and Tracy were Clintonians.

Aftermath, special election and contested election

William B. Rochester, re-elected in the 28th District, was appointed Judge of the Eighth Circuit Court on April 21, 1823, and resigned his seat before Congress met. A special election to fill the vacancy was held, and was won by William Woods, of the same faction.

1823 United States House special election result
District D-R/Bucktail D-R/Clintonian
28th William Woods 834 Daniel Cruger 789

The House of Representatives of the 18th United States Congress met for the first time at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C., on December 1, 1823, and 30 of the representatives, among them Isaac Wilson and William Woods, took their seats on this day. Lawrence took his seat on December 5; Herkimer on December 8; Tracy on December 16; and Morgan on December 18.[14]

A petition on behalf of Parmenio Adams was presented to contest the election of Isaac Wilson in the 29th District. On December 30, 1823, the Committee on Elections submitted its report. They found that in the town of China by mistake 67 votes had been returned for Wilson, although he had polled only 45. They also found that in the town of Attica by mistake 98 votes had been returned for Adams, although he had polled only 93. The Secretary of State of New York, receiving the abovementioned result, issued credentials for Wilson who took his seat when Congress met on December 1. Correcting the mistakes in the China and Attica returns, Adams had 2,072 and Wilson 2,071 votes. Wilson also claimed that he had received 1 vote in Middlebury which was counted as a "blank vote" by the election inspectors because the name printed on the ballot was "partially erased with the stroke of a pen," and that he had received 2 votes in the Town of Stafford and 4 votes in the Town of Byron which were not counted by the election inspectors because the ballots were folded together in pairs.[15] The committee upheld the decision of the election inspectors in both cases, and declared Adams entitled to the seat, winning the election by a single vote.[16] On January 7, 1824, after much debate, the House declared Parmenio Adams entitled to the seat instead of Wilson, and Adams took it.[17]

During this congressional term party lines broke down while four candidates lined up to succeed President James Monroe. At the United States presidential election, 1824, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay and William H. Crawford received electoral votes, but no candidate received a majority. Thus the election was referred to the House of Representatives, to choose among the three most voted candidates: Adams, Jackson and Crawford. Henry Clay supported Adams, so that after the election on February 9, 1825, one month before the end of the term, the members were back-labeled (according to their actual vote) as "Adams-Clay Democratic-Republicans" (Sharpe, Van Wyck, Williams, Herkimer, Cady, Taylor, Martindale, Lawrence, Marvin, Rose, Hayden, Woods, Adams and Tracy), "Jackson Democratic-Republicans" (Morgan and Craig), "Crawford Democratic-Republicans" (Tyson, Cambreleng, Frost, Jenkins, Hoogeboom, Foote, Eaton, Richards, Ten Eyck, Collins, Clark, Dwinell, Litchfield, Day) and "Adams-Clay Federalists" (Wood, Strong, Van Rensselaer, Storrs).


  1. ^ 7 new seats gained in reapportionment
  2. ^ 14 Adams-Clay, 14 Crawford, 2 Jacksonian
  3. ^ All 4 Adams-Clay
  4. ^ John P. Osborn, of Suffolk Co., assemblyman 1814-15, 1818, 1819 and 1820-21
  5. ^ Jacob Patchen, butcher, of Brooklyn, see A History of the City of Brooklyn by Henry R. Stiles (pages 67ff)
  6. ^ Derick B. Stockholm, publisher of the Republican Herald at Poughkeepsie since 1811; Surrogate of Dutchess Co. 1815-1819
  7. ^ Joseph D. Monell, Recorder of Hudson 1811-1813 and 1815-1821; DA of Columbia Co. 1818-1819; assemblyman 1824; supervisor of Hudson 1830, 1831 and 1847
  8. ^ Nicholas F. Beck (ca. 1796 - June 30, 1830 Albany); Union College graduate 1813; admitted to the bar 1817; City Clerk of Schenectady 1820; Adjutant General of the State Militia 1825-1830 (died in office)
  9. ^ Simeon Ford, DA of Herkimer Co. 1818-23, assemblyman 1820-21 and 1822
  10. ^ Asa Wells, assemblyman 1816-17 and 1818
  11. ^ John Price, of Ontario Co., assemblyman 1814-15 and 1820
  12. ^ William Thompson; assemblyman 1816, 1816-17, 1818, 1819 and 1820-21; Surrogate of Seneca Co. 1815-1819 and 1821-1827
  13. ^ John H. Jones (ca. 1770 - Jan. 4, 1856 Leicester); First Judge of the Genesee County Court 1812-1823. Livingston Co. was separated from Genesee Co. in 1821, and Jones's victorious opponent Hayden was the First Judge of the Livingston County Court.
  14. ^ Abridgment of the Debates in Congress (Vol. VII; pages 592ff and 599f)
  15. ^ Folding two ballots closely together gives the opportunity for one person to put two ballots in the ballot box without being noticed by the election inspectors. The fraud is easily detected if there are more ballots in the box than voters in the register. The election law at the time expressly forbade the counting of any of the ballots if they were folded together, although it was sometimes claimed that the ballots might have been folded together by mistake, and one vote should be counted instead of the two.
  16. ^ Cases of Contested Elections in Congress 1789 to 1834 compiled by Matthew St. Clair Clarke and David A. Hall (Washington, D.C., 1834; Case XLIX, pages 369ff)
  17. ^ Abridgment of the Debates in Congress (Vol. VII; page 617)


This page was last edited on 8 August 2017, at 14:14
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.