Wikipedia is swimming in money–why is it begging people to donate?

Post by h_anna_h » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

nonameiguess wrote: post #359

paxys wrote: post #75

> But keeping Wikipedia online is a task that the WMF could comfortably manage on $10 million a year This part is disingenuous and bordering on malicious. The linked email ( https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March... ) has so much more nuance, and in typical fashion a single number from it is taken completely out of context to push a certain narrative. It is also an estimate from almost a decade…

Note this part: > 43% Direct support to communities > The Wikimedia projects exist thanks to volunteer communities around the world that create and maintain them. We strengthen these communities through grants, programs, events, trainings, partnerships, tools to augment contributor capacity, and support for the legal defense of editors. My wife's friend just came to stay with us. He worked for the Wikimedia foundatio…

Post by slightwinder » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

mhh__ wrote: post #230

paxys wrote: post #75

> But keeping Wikipedia online is a task that the WMF could comfortably manage on $10 million a year This part is disingenuous and bordering on malicious. The linked email ( https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March... ) has so much more nuance, and in typical fashion a single number from it is taken completely out of context to push a certain narrative. It is also an estimate from almost a decade…

People seem to want these foundations to not only spend the absolute bare minimum but also don't like them paying their staff properly or even at all. So many times I've read people grumbling about expenses, only when you work out it out per employee it's completely reasonable for a small business let alone one of the largest brands in the world.

Post by h_anna_h » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #214

KingOfCoders wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is bleeding editors and keeping others away because of the ever more hostile environment. Try to edit something and you get blasted of Wikipeda very fast with a boatload of jargon. This is something they should work on. But as every club that get successful and was open (I attended many Wiki/Wikipedia meetups 20y ago) it gets more restricted and close to keep the masses out. What a shame.

> Try to edit something and you get blasted of Wikipeda very fast with a boatload of jargon. "Trying to edit something" is a bad idea these days - the content is far too developed for that. Instead, post on the talk page with a description of your suggested edit, wait for people to object/complain/discuss, refine the text on talk if needed, then edit. It's pretty indistinguishable from a "pull request" workflow on gi…

Post by throwaway438 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 2:01 PM UTC

cedilla wrote: post #396

apercu wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hold on there, cowboy. 100k was maybe "sky high" 20 years ago. 100k in most large cities is not. When your modest house costs $800k USD, a car costs 30k, auto insurance is $1600 a year, groceries are 10k a year (looking at you, Toronto), just how in the hell is 100k "sky high"? $80k was a decent salary in a mid-size city 15 years ago. Just because six figures seems like a lot of money to you doesn't mean it's a lot o…

It's more than twice the median salary. It is quite high. Upper class income only seem lackluster compared to the perverse 0.1% incomes and the housing bubble.

Post by apercu » Mon, May 31, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

bluescrn wrote: post #372

reader_mode wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true at all, most Western Europe 100k$ (80k EUR) is barely above average, you'd still be firmly middle class even on two such incomes, sky high would be at least twice that much.

Median income in the UK is just over £30k (about 35k EUR)