Is wikipedia socialist?

The information in wikipedia is democratically controlled and commonly owned. Or more precisely the information is consensus controlled and owned as YoungMasterSmeet explained it best.But the hardware for wikipedia and the electricity comes from somewhere else. Donations I think. Someone owns them just like somoene ones the tractor and electricity they use for running a farm in communist russia.  Or maybe not. could I just walk around russia and take any farm equipment I wanted from anyone and then walk into their house and eat their food?  I'm pretty sure I can't just walk into wikipedia and take there servers and use their printers for free. 

@Robbo203,Thanks for contrubiting what I consider the most insightful supporting information. Are their any good reference sources to support a theory about when and why Socialistic forms of exchange will emerge from a capitalist society?  My personal opinion is that capitalism at a society scale will voluntarily cede the power to socialistic forms of exchange more redily (or with less resistance) in sectors of the economy based primarily on these critera. 1) fully non-capital based produciton such as itellectual property like media production, knowledge production, or other products where the reproduction price is negligible are more likely to convert to socialistic forms of exchange. 2) Capital based production with a large R&D requirement but low capital resource requirements such as medicine, or technology intensive are more likely to convert to socialistic forms of exchange.3) Commodity Capital products with a high markup value will be more likely to convert to socialistic forms of exchange than Commodity capital products with low profit margins.  4) Raw materials and low labor products will be least likely to convert to socialistic forms of exchange in a capitalist based ecoomy. So if you can point me to to some good writing on that topic, then I'd be much appreciative.  

@mcolome1,thanks, I read the links.  Can you tell me if you think the Argentina example resulted in progress towards true communism, or would you say that it set back the progress towards true communism?  Was it a step in the right direction but not enough to pass a critical tipping point?  or was it a step in the wrong direction?  It occurs to me to question your claim that communism and capitalsim have never existed togetehr on the planet at the same time.  When I read about the gifting economy of pre-currency civililazations I noticed the argument that capitalism seems ot have a corrosive effect on gifting economies.  Also the argument that the Gifting economy has some traits of communism and has lessons for communism to learn from.  When capitalism is introduced to a gifting economy, it seems to start to spread within the gifting economy and weeken the institions of the gifiting economy till the gifting economy fails and is replaced by capitalism. That seems to support your contention that capitalism and socialism can not both exist at the same time, but sadly it suggest that communism going by the name of a gifting economy withers in the presence of capitalism. So by that reasoning everyone started out as communist, and for a brief time during which a few capitalist existed, there were both socialism (as a gifting economy) and capitalism. then capitalism ate most of communism, but still a few tribes exist that are isolated and operate on a gifting economy, so if you consider a gifting economy isolated from capitalism to communism, then they would still both exist on the planet.  But that's nitpicking the definition of both existing onthe plannet at the same time and not really the focus of my interest.  BUT, what does interest me and comes to my mind is that,  I really don't like that conclusion, because it only takes two people to start a capitalist economy that then Grows and spreads and devours the gifting economy.  Meenwhile, communism can only come into existence if a majority of the world seize power and enforce communism on everyone or else a massive majority of the population are somehow (magically?) convinced to all start behaving as communist.  So my reasoning seems to be saying that the result of your definitions of communism is that even a little capitalism will consume socialism (assuming it works like the gifting economy as studied in pre-currency societies).  That's an unpleasant conclusion and one that I hope you can clear up or dispel for me.