11–20 of 252 posts
I didn't know my Wikipedia donations funded parties in Accra, Berlin and Chandigarh. I think that should be been in the fundraising statement.
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim... (page 13)
ffs.
I didn't know my Wikipedia donations funded parties in Accra, Berlin and Chandigarh. I think that should be been in the fundraising statement.
Yeah, I wish there were a way to support just Wikipedia. I don't really care about a lot of Wikimedia Foundation's other pet projects, but the way they phrase their banners and emails, you'd think we are always a razor's edge from Wikipedia servers shutting off...
I didn't know my Wikipedia donations funded parties in Accra, Berlin and Chandigarh. I think that should be been in the fundraising statement.
Yeah, I wish there were a way to support just Wikipedia. I don't really care about a lot of Wikimedia Foundation's other pet projects, but the way they phrase their banners and emails, you'd think we are always a razor's edge from Wikipedia servers shutting off...
I think that Wikipedia just doesn't need that much money. If people just let them fail their fundraising goals, the core service will likely continue to get the same budget, but they'll cut their pet projects and parties.
I didn't know my Wikipedia donations funded parties in Accra, Berlin and Chandigarh. I think that should be been in the fundraising statement.
So if you see from the money side of things, you can get/keep (more) highly talented people for less money.
I didn't know my Wikipedia donations funded parties in Accra, Berlin and Chandigarh. I think that should be been in the fundraising statement.
They also spent $2.8m on travel and conferences in 2019 [0], which is more than they spent on internet hosting... [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim... (page 13)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are welcome to, just declare it upfront.
I have a hard time imagining something more destructive to the ability to run an organization than putting forward all managerial initiatives for public consent, just in case some portion of the public disagrees with that choice. Talk about design by committee.
aka Wikipedia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For profit entities use parties to bond teams and accomplish a goal. Non profit entities ought to have that freedom as well.
They are welcome to, just declare it upfront.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are welcome to, just declare it upfront.
I have a hard time imagining something more destructive to the ability to run an organization than putting forward all managerial initiatives for public consent, just in case some portion of the public disagrees with that choice. Talk about design by committee.
How about eroding public trust? I can think of a lot more. Perhaps your imagination is subject to a hidden bias.