Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia is not short on cash

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 500 posts

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#101

Post by mgamache »

e12e wrote: post #50
mgamache wrote: post #42

It’s not just they are flush with cash. It’s they are funding and fanning the culture war despite claiming to be a neutral party. Some of their funds are being routed to political entities that are not neutral. Edit: here’s a link to a thread about what I mean: https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579776106034757633?s=46&...

Free access to knowledge isn't a neutral position. But I gather you think wmf is doing something beyond this? Which side, of which culture war do they support, in your view?

They clearly support a left ideology by the editors, but I’m not even talking about that. I mean they send money to support far left anti-science groups.

https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579779097278181378?s=46&...

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#102

Post by phpisthebest »

rany_ wrote: post #31
rippercushions wrote: post #21

Eh. If you don't want to donate, don't, but I don't quite get the outrage here. The Wikimedia Foundation is still small as far as charities go and is visibly making Wikipedia better: the new UI is a breath of fresh air, and given the insane complexity of MediaWiki markup, the visual editor is a piece of unimaginable technical wizardry. Wiktionary is an unheralded gem and even Wikidata is starting to be genuinely usef…

I don't get the outrage either. It's almost like people want Wikipedia to be barely scrapping by which isn't good. Having some money in your reserves is fine.

I want Wikimedia, and Wikipedia to be a Neutral historian of world data and events, to preserve facts and promote the free access of those facts to everyone in the world.

They have strayed far far far far far from that goal

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#103

Post by sokoloff »

_glsb wrote: post #55
akolbe wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that they make it sound like they are struggling to have enough money to keep Wikipedia running when they are actually wealthier than ever before. The whole premise of Wikipedia (or aspiration, at least, and yes, not always fulfilled ...) is that people should have information so they can't be manipulated. It kind of sucks to see the very organisation hosting the site do the opposite, don't you think?

They don't though. The banner has a whiny tone, but never do they say that they are struggling to keep the site up.

Read the donation page and see if you feel the same way:

https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Landi...

We ask you, humbly, to help.

We'll get straight to the point: Today we ask you to defend Wikipedia's independence.

We're a non-profit that depends on donations to stay online and thriving, but 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way. If everyone who reads Wikipedia gave just a little, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come. The price of a cup of coffee is all we ask.

...

We know that most people will ignore this message. But if Wikipedia is useful to you, please consider making a donation of or whatever you can to protect and sustain Wikipedia.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#104

Post by EdwardDiego »

revolutukr wrote: post #9

I've never been offered a higher salary than I was offered by wikimedia. I turned it down because their corporate culture is helllla creepy. I'm a private guy, and they expect everybody in the company to be somewhat public figures, down to the recruiters and office managers.

So, the culture wasn't a good fit for you. That's fair.

But "hel×4a creepy"? That feels like it's, just, you know, your opinion man.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#106

Post by Taywee »

threatofrain wrote: post #26
rippercushions wrote: post #21

Eh. If you don't want to donate, don't, but I don't quite get the outrage here. The Wikimedia Foundation is still small as far as charities go and is visibly making Wikipedia better: the new UI is a breath of fresh air, and given the insane complexity of MediaWiki markup, the visual editor is a piece of unimaginable technical wizardry. Wiktionary is an unheralded gem and even Wikidata is starting to be genuinely usef…

I'd also add that while arguments that Wikipedia is bloated beyond their mission is worthy of discussion, saying that Wikipedia should only be funding their current site is too narrow. I think Wikipedia should be able to pursue projects such as their wiki textbooks idea (which was ultimately a failure, but still worth trying).

I'm fine with pursuing other projects, it gets weird when they end up spending huge amounts of their money by giving grants to other organizations. I'd have no problem donating knowing they use it to fund projects, but knowing that they pretty much redonate much of it makes it feel pointless.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#107

Post by rippercushions »

foldr wrote: post #71
rippercushions wrote: post #21

Eh. If you don't want to donate, don't, but I don't quite get the outrage here. The Wikimedia Foundation is still small as far as charities go and is visibly making Wikipedia better: the new UI is a breath of fresh air, and given the insane complexity of MediaWiki markup, the visual editor is a piece of unimaginable technical wizardry. Wiktionary is an unheralded gem and even Wikidata is starting to be genuinely usef…

> the American Cancer Society gets 73/100 and spends more on fundraising than WMF's entire budget, so oncologists can snort blow off hookers in Vegas Is there a reference here that I'm missing?

Apparently medical conferences are the biggest days of the year for the sex industry, although IIRC it was actually cardiologists who held the top spot.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#108

Post by ivanjermakov »

I found Wikimedia's financial statement for 2020[1], in case anyone interested in details.

They have over 500 employees[2]. Not sure why they need so many, considering average salary is $100k/yr.

[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikim...

[2]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/#prod...

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#109

Post by EdwardDiego »

noduerme wrote: post #36

A paltry few hundred million $ in the war chest is nothing to keep open a site mainly devoted to coordinating established facts in an information landscape otherwise controlled by state actors. And I would, and I did, contribute to Wikipedia. Until it became clear to me that they'd allowed antisemitic, anti-Israeli politics to warp their articles about things like the Holocaust, the 6-day war or the Israeli-Palestini…

> Until it became clear to me that they'd allowed antisemitic, anti-Israeli politics to warp their articles about things like the Holocaust, the 6-day war or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

This claim would really benefit from some examples.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#110

Post by [deleted] »

omnicognate wrote: post #69
_glsb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't though. The banner has a whiny tone, but never do they say that they are struggling to keep the site up.

Read the screenshot: "... humbly ask you to defend Wikipedia's independence", "if you donate... Wikipedia could keep thriving for years". The question as to whether this is manipulative isn't "is there are any clear statement of fact that is unambiguously a lie even in the most charitable possible interpretation?", it's "will this make ill-informed readers think their donations are necessary for Wikipedia's survival,…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN