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

Ask HN: Why is the Wikipedia Foundation's begging tolerated?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 202 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why is the Wikipedia Foundation's begging tolerated?

#101

Post by andrew_ »

Nomentatus wrote: post #42
jkrauska wrote: post #37

All the other top websites [1] either are selling my information (Meta) , exist to show me ads (Google), or I pay monthly for (Netflix). Wikipedia runs one of the busiest websites in the world with a staff much smaller than any of those other sites. Like any company -- there's going to be priorities different than mine and waste. But I'm ok being asked to chip in for what I get. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_…

I was okay 'till I donated and got thoroughly spammed by them after that. Not okay with donating there now.

Same here. Donated once and had to setup filters for the subsequent flood of email. I'd be more inclined to ignore that annoyance if they could get a handle on activist editing, which exists across the entire political spectrum for pages that touch on social or political adjacent topics. But I suppose that's what you get with volunteers. Just can't bring myself to support it.

Re: Ask HN: Why is the Wikipedia Foundation's begging tolerated?

#102

Post by jfghi »

flipbrad wrote: post #60

The Foundation is my client, but these views are only my own: This is not to say there's no excess, or that resources couldn't be allocated internally more effectively - I'm not going to put up some kind of strawman - but: 1. I took a 20% pay cut so that I could do more work for the Foundation. Worth it. 2. Posts that say "Wikipedia only has [x] more articles but budget has gone up [y]" are beyond stupid. Any idea ho…

Although I’ve seen some banners that were on the aggressive side, the site to me is infinitely better than ones that deploy modern adtech, it’s almost like those practices can be intuitively felt when navigating leading to a worse experience.

Re: Ask HN: Why is the Wikipedia Foundation's begging tolerated?

#104

Post by andrew_ »

shp0ngle wrote: post #87
Nomentatus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was okay 'till I donated and got thoroughly spammed by them after that. Not okay with donating there now.

That happens if you donate to ANY cause, ever. If you give money to, I don’t know, a charity for hungry kids in , they will send you MORE begging mails, not less.

I donate yearly to the Purple Heart Foundation and they're quite respectful in communications.

Re: Ask HN: Why is the Wikipedia Foundation's begging tolerated?

#105

Post by constantcrying »

seattle_spring wrote: post #94
constantcrying wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Supporting charitable giving is what qualifies as an "awful organization" nowadays?

Donate to a real charity instead of the intransparent mess which is the Wikimedia foundation. It is an awful charity from any point of view, your money does not go to Wikipedia (the website), in fact it just enters a web of different undisclosed charities.

Re: Ask HN: Why is the Wikipedia Foundation's begging tolerated?

#106

Post by selfmodruntime »

flipbrad wrote: post #60

The Foundation is my client, but these views are only my own: This is not to say there's no excess, or that resources couldn't be allocated internally more effectively - I'm not going to put up some kind of strawman - but: 1. I took a 20% pay cut so that I could do more work for the Foundation. Worth it. 2. Posts that say "Wikipedia only has [x] more articles but budget has gone up [y]" are beyond stupid. Any idea ho…

All that but I have yet to get what the foundation spends 155 MILLION dollars on - each year. Even with your arguments that number seems to be wildly inflated.

Also, the Wikimedia Foundation explicitly asks for funding for Wikipedia. As far as I know, no one asked the Wikimedia Foundation to perform anything past that. This seems to be comparable to Mozilla‘s situation, who try to grow past Firefox with ideas nobody asks for but they lose sight of what their main product.

50% of money goes towards staffing. WF just overhired and pays ludicrous exec salaries, so now they must pay the price.

Re: Ask HN: Why is the Wikipedia Foundation's begging tolerated?

#107

Post by satvikpendem »

constantcrying wrote: post #99
satvikpendem wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's okay, I have money to spare.

Then donate to a real charity which is open about where the money goes? As far as "general charities" go Wikimedia foundation is pretty awful and your money doesn't help Wikipedia (the website) in any case. I would never donate to such a shady organization, using such disingenuous tactics and awful transparency.

Hence why I said I have money to spare.

Re: Ask HN: Why is the Wikipedia Foundation's begging tolerated?

#108

Post by CJefferson »

brookst wrote: post #80
jkrauska wrote: post #37

All the other top websites [1] either are selling my information (Meta) , exist to show me ads (Google), or I pay monthly for (Netflix). Wikipedia runs one of the busiest websites in the world with a staff much smaller than any of those other sites. Like any company -- there's going to be priorities different than mine and waste. But I'm ok being asked to chip in for what I get. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_…

It’s the dishonesty of Wikipedia that bothers me. The implication is that donations are urgently needed to keep the website running. In reality they have $300m in the bank and revenue is growing every year[0]. Even Wikipedia says only 43% of donations are used for site operations[1], and that includes all of their sites, not just Wikipedia. Fully 12% of the money they collect from you is. . . used to ask you for more…

What is your problem with [1]?

I think almost every charity, or business, ever created spends some proportion of it's income on advertising / outreach, to increase future income. If they cut that 12%, and it decreased their income to half, or a third, of it's current value, would that make you happy?

Also, please point me to "The implication is that donations are urgently needed to keep the website running.". I've not seen anything like that in any banner I've seen this year. I'd be interested to know if you get different banners to me? Or, are you just assuming the banner says that?

Re: Ask HN: Why is the Wikipedia Foundation's begging tolerated?

#109

Post by hbrn »

Just to clarify, there's no Wikipedia Foundation, there's Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikipedia is owned by Wikimedia Foundation.

You can't donate to Wikipedia, the banners on Wikipedia lead to Wikimedia donations.

It is quite unethical:

1. They have enough donations to keep Wikipedia running for decades, yet each year banner gets more and more manipulative, pretending WP is on the brink of collapse.

2. IIRC less than 5% of money are actually used towards Wikipedia needs.

3. Not to mention that WP authors essentially work for free.

Why is it tolerated? Because most people don't even know you're not donating to Wikipedia. And the product is just too good to care.

Post reply on HN