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

Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia

lunduke.locals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia

#11

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

serf wrote: post #6
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #2

Okay, 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.

False; there are plenty of opportunities for him to contribute. He could be an editor. He could write and run bots. He could design and build tools that run on WMF's cloud platform. He could help develop the MediaWiki software itself. Myriad opportunities to contribute to a free project.

Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia

#12

Post by Kerb_ »

Overcoming systemic bias is critical for a global democratized information platform like Wikipedia, ensuring that all cultures, languages, and histories are represented fairly and comprehensively. This isn't merely a 'political' stance but a necessary step in ensuring the inclusivity and universality of knowledge.

Also, comparing the costs of the "Knowledge Equity Fund" to just server expenses is an oversimplification. The intricacies of verifying, curating, and representing diverse knowledge sources can't merely be equated to server space costs. Such comparisons seem more than a little disingenuous, given the complexity and importance of the work involved. What's the point of running a $2.4 millions server full of garbage?

Like this type of drive by analysis? Be sure to follow my HN profile and donate to my PayPal.

Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia

#13

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

kemotep wrote: post #7
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #2

Okay, 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 t…

Money is fungible, right? If I donate $5.00 then I am offseting $5.00 worth of running Wikipedia's infrastructure, whether or not they ceremoniously take my $5.00 bill and put it into the vendor's pocket.

Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia

#14

Post by qawwads »

A non profit is "trust us, we know what's best", while a cooperative is legally controlled by it's member on the basis of one member, one vote, and profits, if any, are distributed between members. I wonder how different would be a cooperative Wikipedia versus the non-profit Wikipedia we got.

Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia

#15

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

superkuh wrote: post #9
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #2

Okay, 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 comparis…

> I don't understand the comparisons to megacorps. It's not like anyone is donating to Apple or the NYT.

Consumers give them money anyway, it's known as "sales".

What happens is that when companies become large enough, it becomes prudent from a tax perpsective to "give back to the community" and practice philanthropy. Therefore, your iPhone dollars and your NYT subscriptions are going toward charitable causes. You may or may not be able to find out what they are. Many people have gone sleuthing for these links, and made much hay about them.

The other thing corporations do is support employees in various ways. For example, employees might be permitted a certain number of hours of community service for charitable volunteering. Or, employees' charitable donations may be matched by the employer, etc. These matches may be restricted to a shortlist of preferred charities. More hay can be made about all that.

Corporations are also, of course, one of the biggest and most powerful sectors of lobbyists in these United States. Corporations donate the most tax dollars to candidates and campaigns, and they actively send lobbyists to legislatures to ensure that their interests are met. Again, your iPhone dollars at work.

So while Wikipedia is free and open and requesting your donations, you're purchasing gobs of stuff every day from corporations, and that's why people these days often factor in the politics of said corporation in our decisions whether to buy or not buy, and where to buy.

Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia

#16

Post by bitshiftfaced »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #2

Okay, 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…

> 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?

When you assume it's just going to Wikipedia, you don't know not to donate. Thus, you see articles like making people aware in the first place.

Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia

#18

Post by 5555624 »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #15
superkuh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comparis…

> I don't understand the comparisons to megacorps. It's not like anyone is donating to Apple or the NYT. Consumers give them money anyway, it's known as "sales". What happens is that when companies become large enough, it becomes prudent from a tax perpsective to "give back to the community" and practice philanthropy. Therefore, your iPhone dollars and your NYT subscriptions are going toward charitable causes. You ma…

>> I don't understand the comparisons to megacorps. It's not like anyone is donating to Apple or the NYT. > > Consumers give them money anyway, it's known as "sales".

Except for "sales," you know what you are getting in return. Someone buying an iPhone knows they are getting an iPhone and that's what they care about. Many people donating to Wikipedia think they are making a donation to keep Wikipedia running, not some other cause they may or may not care about.

Perhaps they should make two huge buttons for donations, labeled "Wikipedia" and "Wikimedia Foundation, and see what happens with donations.

Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia

#20

Post by satisfice »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #2

Okay, 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 point is they are lying.

I always assumed they were lying when they put up the banners saying they needed money urgently.

Now I know.

That’s the point.

Post reply on HN