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

181–190 of 500 posts

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#181

Post by stewx »

andrewstuart wrote: post #61

Is 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…

The issue isn't "Wikipedia" having lots of money and using it to run their site. It's Wikimedia having the money and using it for stuff that has no direct connection to Wikipedia.

From a Twitter thread on a scientific research project funded through Wikimedia:

> In deciding who to fund, the key criteria was use of the Intersectional Scientific method. Everything else - a scientific background, data - was optional. What could possibly go wrong?

> One of the projects was into spatial learning in the California Two-Spot Octopus, for which the researcher got 12 hatchling octopuses.

> Unfortunately, the lab experiment went horribly wrong, killing the poor creatures before the research could be concluded.

https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579888630868611073

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#182

Post by allisdust »

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…

They will do this to all (relatively) open systems because its easier to criticise when things are open. Wait till they get ad enabled version of Gikipedia (by Google) shoved down their throats in the future.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#183

Post by tlb »

bjourne wrote: post #156

> Top tier managers earn between $300,000 and $400,000 a year, and dozens are employed exclusively on fund-raising. Can someone corroborate this claim? Cause any way you look at it, these salaries are unethical for a non-profit organisation.

Those salaries are at or below market for high-level execs in Silicon Valley, especially considering they can't offer stock options. The people capable of managing the large software projects Wikimedia needs can make more at other tech companies.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#184

Post by katamarimambo »

Applejinx wrote: post #92
andrewstuart wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I'd wondered whether it was a clever ploy to GET me to donate to Wikipedia/media/whatever, what with all the comments ranting in right-wing style. Kind of like Nike or whoever, gesturing to causes they don't really do anything to support, in order to goad political rants against then and elicit a larger backlash and more money they'd have had if they kept quiet. HBomberguy has a good video on the subject. You can use…

After reading the article and others on that website I'm donating to Black Lives Matter and some LGBT org.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#185

Post by vultour »

bjourne wrote: post #156

> Top tier managers earn between $300,000 and $400,000 a year, and dozens are employed exclusively on fund-raising. Can someone corroborate this claim? Cause any way you look at it, these salaries are unethical for a non-profit organisation.

These people can earn millions in executive positions of for-profit companies, why would they work for this supposed company of yours that pays "ethical" salaries?

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#186

Post by concordDance »

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 outrage is over misleading donators. Wikipedia is very cheap and in no danger of running out of money, but the ads make people think otherwise.

Additionally, only a small fraction of the money goes to wikipedia (including software dev for it).

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#187

Post by Ekaros »

tlb wrote: post #183
bjourne wrote: post #156

> Top tier managers earn between $300,000 and $400,000 a year, and dozens are employed exclusively on fund-raising. Can someone corroborate this claim? Cause any way you look at it, these salaries are unethical for a non-profit organisation.

Those salaries are at or below market for high-level execs in Silicon Valley, especially considering they can't offer stock options. The people capable of managing the large software projects Wikimedia needs can make more at other tech companies.

And why should Silicon Valley be any benchmark? Shouldn't they aim to some cheaper locale? Maybe Eastern Europe or Africa?

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#188

Post by Turing_Machine »

klelatti wrote: post #158
fluoridation wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

It's relevant because he's not really disclosing his motivations. He clearly has other reasons for disliking wikipedia but he fails to disclose them in this article.

If he's presenting a factual summary of what's going on, his "motivations" are irrelevant.

If he's not presenting a factual summary of what's going on, his "motivations" are likewise irrelevant.

If you can refute his claims, by all means do so, but vague ad hominems don't impress me.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#189

Post by kordlessagain »

LightG wrote: post #135
zelphirkalt wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half-truths. They hired someone with half-truths (bordering on lies) experience.

So. Marketing?

It is possible to raise interest in something without lying about it. Whether you will fully understand it or not is up to you.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#190

Post by petercooper »

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 agree, but with a warchest of $400m, their budget can seemingly be funded at 2.5% withdrawal per year, so there may be no need to ask anymore. (Though personally I'd rather they spent even more and had more full time editors and researchers improving the site.)
Post reply on HN