It's very easy to throw shade at other providers, then not provide those assurances in your own service.
It seems like a weak attempt to throw shade at other providers without substantiated claims. Take Quad9 for instance, they have plenty of information in their transparency report regarding their service, over and above what Wikimedia has provided.
Wikimedia hasn't actually formally launched or announced this project. We've been working on it in the background for a long time, and we've just recently reached the point of wanting to do a slightly-broader round of both beta-testing the service and soliciting other meta-feedback on the plans with our Wikipedia editor and reader communities.
Unfortunately, the only way we can do this testing and feedback round is through a public interface like meta-wiki. And of course, once we've put out public information on how to use and access it, it's being picked up on various social media and news sites and publicized beyond what we desired at this stage. We knew that was a risk, but it's still a little jarring how fast it has shown up in places like this HN thread.
We absolutely plan to have a published privacy policy and other such things in place when the service is actually, officially launched. Launching some time in the future is not yet certain to even happen, as there is still internal evaluation/debate of the project's various costs and risk/benefit going on during this phase as well.
Does wikimedia have an IRC server?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC has more detail.
But I would refrain from commenting on other services, if you don't have those assurance in place yourself.
I find it very ironic that Wikipedia themselves talk about the privacy/logging practices of other DNS services but neglect to indicate a clear policy for their own service. I would imagine it's based off the regular Wikipedia privacy policy but they should clearly indicate that.