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

171–180 of 202 posts

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

#171

Post by thatswrong0 »

charcircuit wrote: post #127
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…

2. All of those are either unnecessary or could be done much cheaper. Why does facilitating discussions even cost money when Wikipedia is already a platform that facilitates discussions? >many people working here will be dealing with actual cancer Just because cancer is a real thing doesn't mean it can not be used as a metaphor. Death is similarly used as a metaphor all of the time.

Seriously, the whole argument is so flimsy. Very few people know or care about all of the extraneous arbitrary make-work causes and movements that Wikipedia donations are actually being used to fund rather than the core site.

And that’s the whole crux of the argument that OP conveniently ignored: that the banners make it seem like Wikipedia needs the money, when it doesn’t. WMF, on the other hand, does need it so it can continue to grow its spending exponentially on causes no one cares about and have nothing to do with Wikipedia itself (which is what people actually care about and probably think their donations are being used to support).

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

#172

Post by pwinnski »

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…

I think you're conflating a few things.

On your point 1, it is incredible normal for non-profit organizations to spend quite a bit of money on fundraising. They do this because spending less brings in less, and bringing in less means they cease to exist. As weird as it is to spend a million throwing a party to bring in five million, it works, and it brings in money from different people than letters in the mail or banners on a website do. 12% is half of what Charity Watch still deems "highly efficient" and earns them an A-[0].

On your points 0 and 2, I'm puzzled about what you suggest as an alternative. Should they fire all but a skeleton staff and only operate the website as-is on as little as possible with no expansion into other languages or areas of interest? Maybe that's your implied suggestion, but they clearly disagree.

If the once-a-week banners bother you that much, it suggests that you are using the site very, very frequently. You can either support their mission or not, as you wish, and all of the banners are easily dismissed or ignored. I don't think they're nearly as dishonest as you do, but then, I've worked for non-profits in the past and can read a Charity Watch page.

0. https://www.charitywatch.org/our-charity-rating-process

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

#173

Post by pwinnski »

diggernet wrote: post #154
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…

> the drafting and design of the banners is much softer this year than the last Doubtful. But even if true, they are still ridiculous. I load a page and start reading. Suddenly the text I am reading is replaced by that huge begging message that takes up basically my entire screen. So I scroll down (sorry, Jimmy "Please don't scroll past this" Wales) and find my place again. As I scroll down, hey presto, the beg scree…

Your experience seems very, very different from mine. Why scroll past banners rather than closing them?

Every time I see a banner, I dismiss it for a week, and I don't see one again for a week.

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

#174

Post by pwinnski »

frozencell wrote: post #170
shp0ngle wrote: post #75

Despite all the negative about wikipedia, it’s still sort of part of “old internet” that I don’t want to die. Even wikia, which was spun at first as “slightly more commercial wikipedia”, later became Fandom, which is something so horrible that I don’t want to look at Look at WikiTravel which is more commercial WikiVoyage… they immediately went and stuffed it with ads and trackers. And I mean wikimedia is fine NOW, bu…

> wikipedia, it’s still sort of part of “old internet” what sort of new internet are you living in?

The ad-filled internet being pushed by Google and crew, overtaking everything, it sounds like.

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

#175

Post by pwinnski »

constantcrying wrote: post #157
JoeyBananas wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they have more money than they need, it is natural to expand the scope of the mission. You could argue that they are doing a poor job at this, but I don't see any case that they shouldn't be continuing to collect more donations. It's better to have the money and waste it than not have the money and not waste it.

I am asking for honesty and accountability. If you are going to use that money to give it to random undisclosed charities advertise that. Have the pop-up say "The Wikimedia foundations desperately needs your donations, so that we finally can give your money to undisclosed charities.", don't pretend like Wikipedia is about to die, the organization is extremely well off and you should be honest about that. >It's better…

It sounds like we are not seeing the same banners. You keep paraphrasing, definitely not quoting, what sound like dire pleas for survival, and yet any banner I see lacks any of that.

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

#176

Post by pwinnski »

constantcrying wrote: post #113
satvikpendem wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence why I said I have money to spare.

Then just burn it or give it to some homeless guy to buy vodka with.

Your hatred for Wikipedia is driving you to make extreme statements.

In case you're not aware, this might be time to step away from the subject. Or not, live your life.

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

#177

Post by howenterprisey »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #100
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…

People losing their jobs sucks, but I highly doubt it could even remotely be a result of an ongoing donation drive . You might be able to plan around a specific drive and change plans as a result of it tanking, but that wouldn’t happen in the middle of the drive. If it did, that screams of mismanagement far more than anything else. Furthermore, the WMF fundraised $165 million in FY 2021-2022 already. That should more…

If the money only comes from donations, and the donations start drying up, every area of the budget gets impacted, including salaries. The WMF could not have foreseen the current campaign making much less than expected.

"Abysmally small" is a bizarre and uninformed characterization. Please read anything written on the topic; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022_ban... is a fine starting point.

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

#178

Post by mynameisvlad »

howenterprisey wrote: post #177
mynameisvlad wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People losing their jobs sucks, but I highly doubt it could even remotely be a result of an ongoing donation drive . You might be able to plan around a specific drive and change plans as a result of it tanking, but that wouldn’t happen in the middle of the drive. If it did, that screams of mismanagement far more than anything else. Furthermore, the WMF fundraised $165 million in FY 2021-2022 already. That should more…

If the money only comes from donations, and the donations start drying up, every area of the budget gets impacted, including salaries. The WMF could not have foreseen the current campaign making much less than expected. "Abysmally small" is a bizarre and uninformed characterization. Please read anything written on the topic; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022_ban... is a fine starting point.

The majority is spent on wages, as evidenced by the consolidated statement of activities of the WMF. I severely doubt that $88 million worth of people is required to run Wikipedia, nor that Wikipedia gets much benefit from things like “Awards and grants” (to the Tides foundation), “Travel and conferences”, or “special event expenses”.

In fact, only 2.7 million dollars is spent on the actual hosting, you know, that thing that is absolutely drop dead required to run a site. That is 1.8% and is split amongst the various sites other than English Wikipedia. That sounds a hell of a lot like “abysmally small” to me.

And, as I said, it wouldn’t be a part of a currently running donation campaign. Maybe it would affect budgets years from now, but the foundation is not running at the equivalent of paycheck to paycheck. The current donation drive would in no way shape or form impact the current projects that are being run, and if they are, then that’s indicative of massive mismanagement more than anything.

So please, show me exactly where I’m wrong, with explicit sources, instead of claiming I’m uninformed and pointing me to the most generic of pages on this.

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

#179

Post by howenterprisey »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #178
howenterprisey wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the money only comes from donations, and the donations start drying up, every area of the budget gets impacted, including salaries. The WMF could not have foreseen the current campaign making much less than expected. "Abysmally small" is a bizarre and uninformed characterization. Please read anything written on the topic; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022_ban... is a fine starting point.

The majority is spent on wages, as evidenced by the consolidated statement of activities of the WMF. I severely doubt that $88 million worth of people is required to run Wikipedia, nor that Wikipedia gets much benefit from things like “Awards and grants” (to the Tides foundation), “Travel and conferences”, or “special event expenses”. In fact, only 2.7 million dollars is spent on the actual hosting, you know, that th…

Ops people cost money, and MediaWiki is a flaming garbage heap to operate (with utmost respect to those who tirelessly work on it). Developers who work on editor tools also cost money, as do lawyers for major jurisdictions in which Wikipedia operates (hint: there are many). Grants and appointments provide essential depth to Wikipedia; what's a history article without historians helping out?

Re paycheck to paycheck: look, I'm not a finance guy, but I have it on good authority (sorry, no links) that the current campaign's performance is having _some_ effect; you're welcome to tell them it shouldn't, I guess?

Sure, there's some stupid money (and the recent upheaval is helping with that), but there's a lot of non-stupid money, and it's not like they're epically mismanaging the money.

Apologies for the lack of sources, but everything relevant is public, I think, and you've found the budget already.

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

#180

Post by mynameisvlad »

howenterprisey wrote: post #179
mynameisvlad wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority is spent on wages, as evidenced by the consolidated statement of activities of the WMF. I severely doubt that $88 million worth of people is required to run Wikipedia, nor that Wikipedia gets much benefit from things like “Awards and grants” (to the Tides foundation), “Travel and conferences”, or “special event expenses”. In fact, only 2.7 million dollars is spent on the actual hosting, you know, that th…

Ops people cost money, and MediaWiki is a flaming garbage heap to operate (with utmost respect to those who tirelessly work on it). Developers who work on editor tools also cost money, as do lawyers for major jurisdictions in which Wikipedia operates (hint: there are many). Grants and appointments provide essential depth to Wikipedia; what's a history article without historians helping out? Re paycheck to paycheck: l…

MediaWiki is open source. Developers getting paid is great, but things would still eventually go in even without them getting paid.

Ops might be essential, but it’s not $88 million dollars. Nowhere near.

It’s your responsibility to back up your claims with links. Telling someone it’s all public and to trust you and your good authority is, frankly, not enough.

Post reply on HN