Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
lunduke.locals.com
Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
1–10 of 34 posts
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#2Okay, so I read this article to the end (right down to the ironic "Become a Supporter" button, which I thought was another screenshot at first, but it's a real button.)
I kept thinking... so? What's your point?
People run these WMF hitpieces all the time, and they are absolutely enraged that Wikipedia dared to splash a dialog box asking for their money. These are the same people who regularly visit ad-infested news sites and tolerate (while still screaming about) all manner of tracking and monetization as they browse. But Wikipedia, which is 100% ad-free, and 99% free of dialogs asking for donations, how dare they!!1
So this particular hitpiece says there's a lack of transparency and that Wikimedia is doing a politics. Sure, I suppose we can all use more transparency, especially with a non-profit, but legally, they don't need to tell you more than they already do. Solution is easy: don't donate. But why write a hitpiece?
If only you knew what for-profit, opaque corporations, which never beg for donations, did with their endowments and revenue. Not just corporations, but universities too; it's not like Wikimedia is some isolated, evil money-grubbing beggar waiting to do supreme evil with your $5. Wikimedia simply wishes to pull their weight in a pond full of heavyweights. And they have the brand recognition and the influence to do some pretty amazing things, for better or worse.
Do you hate Wikipedia's politics or something? Are you envious of their highly-ranked and highly-respected position on the Web? Are you really just mad about that dialog box as you were freeloading on our freely-licensed Creative Commons content?
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#3[dead]
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#4Okay, so I read this article to the end (right down to the ironic "Become a Supporter" button, which I thought was another screenshot at first, but it's a real button.) I kept thinking... so? What's your point? People run these WMF hitpieces all the time, and they are absolutely enraged that Wikipedia dared to splash a dialog box asking for their money . These are the same people who regularly visit ad-infested news…
I think it is disingenuous to talk about "freeloading" when the license that the content was released under, was freely chosen? No one is forcing anyone to license content under Creative Commons...
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#5Another HN discussion of effectively the same thing (from 9 months ago):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33403233
They can do what they want, and caveat emptor for anyone wanting to make donations. I'm glad there are regular reminders that hopefully are well publicised that your money is not strictly going towards keeping a big free encyclopedia running.
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#6Okay, so I read this article to the end (right down to the ironic "Become a Supporter" button, which I thought was another screenshot at first, but it's a real button.) I kept thinking... so? What's your point? People run these WMF hitpieces all the time, and they are absolutely enraged that Wikipedia dared to splash a dialog box asking for their money . These are the same people who regularly visit ad-infested news…
The patrons of creative commons are by no means free loaders, and that concept being injected belittles a lot of the point.
>Do you hate Wikipedia's politics...
That's exactly the point, how would they know? What if they know they dislike the politics but wish to continue to support infra costs and the like because of the real value Wikipedia offers the world? No option.
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#7Okay, so I read this article to the end (right down to the ironic "Become a Supporter" button, which I thought was another screenshot at first, but it's a real button.) I kept thinking... so? What's your point? People run these WMF hitpieces all the time, and they are absolutely enraged that Wikipedia dared to splash a dialog box asking for their money . These are the same people who regularly visit ad-infested news…
Bryan Lunduke has kind of gone off the deep end the past few years. It does always seem bizarre that Wikimedia alone gets called out when companies like Apple alone have enough in just cash to fund Wikimedia for the next 1,000 years.
Unless you believe that any cent over the cost to do business is unethical to collect, why should Bryan Lunduke be any more qualified to be able to determine that Wikimedia is misusing their money than the people running the organization. I am assuming here that he is okay with private property rights.
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#8Okay, so I read this article to the end (right down to the ironic "Become a Supporter" button, which I thought was another screenshot at first, but it's a real button.) I kept thinking... so? What's your point? People run these WMF hitpieces all the time, and they are absolutely enraged that Wikipedia dared to splash a dialog box asking for their money . These are the same people who regularly visit ad-infested news…
I think it is disingenuous to talk about "freeloading" when the license that the content was released under, was freely chosen? No one is forcing anyone to license content under Creative Commons...
[deleted]
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#9Okay, so I read this article to the end (right down to the ironic "Become a Supporter" button, which I thought was another screenshot at first, but it's a real button.) I kept thinking... so? What's your point? People run these WMF hitpieces all the time, and they are absolutely enraged that Wikipedia dared to splash a dialog box asking for their money . These are the same people who regularly visit ad-infested news…
I agree. I'll just stop donating money like you suggest. But if you're wondering what the purpose of the article was, it was to inform people like myself who didn't know their regular donations weren't actually paying for wikipedia. It seems best to just contribute article fixes, wikimedia images, etc, and direct support of the actual wikipedia/media projects going forwards. Not money.
I don't understand the comparisons to megacorps. It's not like anyone is donating to Apple or the NYT.
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#10Okay, so I read this article to the end (right down to the ironic "Become a Supporter" button, which I thought was another screenshot at first, but it's a real button.) I kept thinking... so? What's your point? People run these WMF hitpieces all the time, and they are absolutely enraged that Wikipedia dared to splash a dialog box asking for their money . These are the same people who regularly visit ad-infested news…
Politics aside, I do think it's an incredibly bad look to regularly break out the sad eyed Jimbo Wales banner begging for money to help keep Wikipedia running when they're so far away from a shortage of funds that they feel they can give part of the donations away to other organizations.
When you accept charitable donations, you have a duty to use those donations for the intended purpose. You aren't legally required to do this, but you're expected to do it. If you don't do it, or misrepresent what you're asking for, people will get upset. They will feel like you squandered their donation. They will write about it, and tell their friends.
I don't think this is strange at all. WMF has a reasonably good name due to the value and popularity of Wikipedia. Reputation is fickle though. It doesn't take much before WMF becomes that organization that said they needed money, but gave away all the donations (even if they only gave away a small portion; but that's public perception for you).
It's also important to emphasize that for an organization like the WMF, reputation is everything. You can not do donation-based charity work without a good reputation. The entire model hinges on the organization being trusted.