I would absolutely donate to Wikipedia if there was a dedicated donation account for just the core product (hosting + related dev) without any money going to activist stuff and similar non-essential overhead.
Wikipedia is not short on cash
371–380 of 500 posts
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#372Isn't it obvious that Wikipedia is no longer a site updated by amateurs these days? It's heavily pushing agendas and is likely financed by those pushing such agendas. Even the founder says that it is heavily biased these days.
Always check the talk tab.
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#373Eh. 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…
So, are web-admins and WP contributors getting to "snort blow off hookers" then?
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
I mean, it's basic English. "Independence" doesn't mean "just enough for server maintenance" and "thriving" doesn't mean "barely surviving".
They have enough money to fund wikipedia in perpetuity several times over. Wikipedia's independence and thrivingness aren't at any risk whatsoever, even if donations were to completely stop immediately.
The donations are used for side projects almost all donors are completely unaware of, whose existence and nature are not hinted at in the ads soliciting donations.
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#375I give money to Wikipedia occasionally and will gladly continue, thanks. Wikimedia makes the world a much better world place. They should have the funds to do whatever they want. You’re mad at them for some reason because they have 400 mil? That’s not even half a billion. I want a world where the Wikimedia foundation is a multi-billion dollar entity.
Problem isn't Wikimedia and the world might be a better place if they had a trillion dollars.
The problem is that the donation campaign is falsely being advertised as if to keep Wikipedia, the site itself, alive but is instead given to Wikimedia
Isn't that misleading, even if you support Wikimedia and what they do?
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A lot of right wingers believe that most news sources are grossly misleading or lying Not just right-wingers. With few exceptions, Wikipedia "reliable sources" are mostly mainstream media, which most lefties regard as locked-down, neo-liberal propaganda cannons.
"the mainstream media" is a right-wing dogwhistle; their own media outlets is mainstream: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_C...
It's also a term used by non-right wing people to mean, well, media that is mainstream as opposed to some small time youtuber.
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
In this case far-left mean groups that are opposed to objectivity and support adding bias to science. This is the 2+2=5 crowd. They can believe whatever they want, but this is not science and is born out of neo-Marxist ideology.
Where can I read more about this neo-Marxist ideology, that apparently borrows from Marx (certainly pro-science) to somehow become anti-science?
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really believe these claims of "Wokepedia", because no-one making these claims has presented actual evidence. I'm sure you have some though, otherwise commenting as you did would mean you'd be as guilty of "not keeping your politics in your pants" as you accuse Wikipedia of being.
> I don't really believe these claims of "Wokepedia" I expect this would qualify. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund which also links to: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2020/06/03/we-stand-for... Most people would probably place a lot of this firmly in the "woke" category.
> The Wikimedia Foundation defines racial equity as shifting away from Eurocentricity, White-male-imperialist-patriarchal supremacy, superiority, power and privilege
Well then. That makes it perfectly clear that Wikimedia is under the sway of partisan activists.
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#379Ohh my, is Andrew Orlowski still crusading against Wikipedia? He's been at it since the early 2000s while at The Register.
[deleted]
Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash
#380Eh. 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 Wikimedia Foundation is still small as far as charities go
That’s just a damning argument against most charities. Like, you can say “the US is still a good place as far as human rights go”, yeah, ok, is it a good reason to stop talking about rights?