Every time I see a request for donations from Wikipedia I ignore it an just assume Philip Cross will cover the shortfall.
Wikipedia is not short on cash
141–150 of 500 posts
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#142The criticism that too much goes to fundraisers is meaningless without an explanation of how much would be optimal. If spending an additional $1m on fundraising meant an additional $1.1m in donations, then that's $100k more for Wikipedia that wouldn't have been there before. If huge profit-making companies like Disney, Coca-Cola and McDonald's spend so much on marketing and sales, then it must be profitable. Similarl…
Spending on adversiting is wasteful and socially destructive. It's deception to donors to not tell them that only 10% of their donation goes toward the mission, and 90% is wasted that could be directed elsewhere.
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#143Wikipedia is far too important as a dataset and knowledge base for companies such as Google. They will never let it fail, and are already funding it. Your donations can make a bigger difference elsewhere.
Yes, b/c we want wikipedia to become google dependent, just like firefox's mozilla?
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#144Is this the same person who every now and then appears on HN utterly outraged by Wikipedia's fundraising? I donate to Wikipedia. And I am glad they have lots of money. I do not feel outraged about it, I feel happy about it. I do not feel outraged that they use whatever persuasive tactics that they use - this is necessary in the modern world. Wikipedia is a great service, it should be valued. They should not always be…
"Wokepedia". This guy certainly has an axe to grind. Looks like urging people not to donate is in fact a right wing attack on Wikpedia - "The Daily Telegraph" of course being a Murdoch newspaper. From the authors Wikpedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski "Writing for The Daily Telegraph in May 2021, Orlowski said that the Wikimedia Foundation was "flush with cash" and passing money to the Tides N…
>Looks like urging people not to donate is in fact a right wing attack on Wikpedia
That's muddying the waters. If Wikipedia has deceptive donation drives, then who reports it should be completely irrelevant.
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#145Note the top comment on the article is someone complaining about political activists highjacking editorial positions.
That's a very good reason to not contribute.
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
It's fine to pursue projects outside the core mandate, but don't do it with money you were given under the pretense that the core mandate was at risk.
I'm entirely fine for funds to be spend on developing technology or even hosting of such resources.
On other hand, as any of it is spend on political propaganda while they have huge reserves... No money from me. If you want to do lies and propaganda start a new charity.
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#147Unheard doesn't want you using Wikipedia because they are a "post-Liberal" organization.
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some ways Charity Navigator is like the BBB, and people need to take those ratings with a grain of salt. What is not said here, but I think it was started this article there was a break-down on Twitter [2] recently where someone broke down the grants Wikimedia Foundation gives to other charities, A lot of Wikimedia has become advocacy for social issues not the spread of free information. Some of those Social issue…
That twitter thread is garbage start to finish. It starts with 'wikipedia started out in a basement on a shoestring, so clearly all the millions spent two decades later is being pissed into the wind', which is absurd. ...then attacks SERCH claiming they've done nothing but release 'youtube videos with 50 views', attacks them for not having produced any within the last year (maybe their grant ended?) when if one googl…
>>>really blows its dog whistle
if you want to know where you lost me, this is where....
Anyone talking about "dog whistle" gets an instant ignore from me.
At the end of the day, my problem with wikimedia is the same problem I have with United Way, and other such "charities". I do not support charities of charities. I want to give directly to a cause I support, The fact that wikimedia is soliciting donations for one thing, then using that money for another is very misleading and IMO unethical, People do not donate to Wikipedia to support SERCH or any of the other organizations, they do so to support wikipedia, that is where the money should be spent.
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
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&...
You have a strange definition of far-left, didn't see a single Maoist insurrection in that Twitter link.
Curse of American politics, I guess, when one considers the Democrats to be "left leaning", then your whole political perception is skewed.
(The Democrats are significantly to the right of our centre-right party. People who call them lefties or socialists or commies amuse, confuse, and bemuse me.)