"Used for politics"? Who wrote this, a 10 years old?
The whole mission of Wikipedia is nothing but politics.
Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
21–30 of 34 posts
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#22[flagged]
Please define “corporate fascist”.
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#23"Used for politics"? Who wrote this, a 10 years old? The whole mission of Wikipedia is nothing but politics.
Some would say wikis mission is to be a global encyclopedia, but those people are also old enough to remember when not everything was politics
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#24Yeah, uh good. Wikipedia now does two things better than anyone. Capturing and disseminating information and fundraising. I work at a nonprofit that has pivoted from surplus to deficit. We stored up a cash reserve in the fat years, misspent a bunch of it on ostensibly beneficial endeavors that ended up being kinda worthless and now we're eating our reserves to stay alive. Our fundraising operations are functional but withered and we're definitely leaving money on the table by not having the wherewithal to reach donors. I can only say I'm jealous of WMF and wish they'd come give us some lessons.
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#25"Used for politics"? Who wrote this, a 10 years old? The whole mission of Wikipedia is nothing but politics.
Some would say wikis mission is to be a global encyclopedia, but those people are also old enough to remember when not everything was politics
Those people should also be aware of all the motivations behind creating, providing and maintaining a free encyclopedia.
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 som…
When I give money to a charity, I don't expect anything in return, I'm entrusting that money to them for purposes that they see fit. I choose a charity based on its works and mission.
If people have chosen to donate to the WMF because they think all they do is run the English Wikipedia, and haven't done their due diligence, then that's not the WMF's fault. Sure, I suppose that a constant stream of hitpiece articles raises awareness, but they're so biased that it should only be the first step on a long process of due diligence.
Biased negative reporting on charities often proves useful to the people who wish to support such causes. So if you run an exposé on how evil empires carry water for X, Y, and Z, then be prepared to attract people who love X, Y, and Z, and enthusiastically begin to support that evil empire.
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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 som…
When I give money to a charity, I don't expect anything in return, I'm entrusting that money to them for purposes that they see fit. I choose a charity based on its works and mission. If people have chosen to donate to the WMF because they think all they do is run the English Wikipedia, and haven't done their due diligence, then that's not the WMF's fault. Sure, I suppose that a constant stream of hitpiece articles r…
Right. So if I run a charity for, say, helping low power FM community radio stations and I collect a bunch of money, and then give it to a political group advocating for legalization of cannabis, you'd think that was okay because you don't expect anything in return? It'd be your fault for not knowing I'd changed my charity's mission from the previously publicized LPFM community project to diversify out into legalization efforts. It'd be too bad that no one wrote an article updating you on the change in my hypothetical charity's "mission". And if they did do so, would you call it a hit piece?
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I give money to a charity, I don't expect anything in return, I'm entrusting that money to them for purposes that they see fit. I choose a charity based on its works and mission. If people have chosen to donate to the WMF because they think all they do is run the English Wikipedia, and haven't done their due diligence, then that's not the WMF's fault. Sure, I suppose that a constant stream of hitpiece articles r…
Right. So if I run a charity for, say, helping low power FM community radio stations and I collect a bunch of money, and then give it to a political group advocating for legalization of cannabis, you'd think that was okay because you don't expect anything in return? It'd be your fault for not knowing I'd changed my charity's mission from the previously publicized LPFM community project to diversify out into legalizat…
Yes, that'd be ok. Yes, it'd be my fault.
"Hit piece" is a value judgement on the negative tone and bias of the article. Another possibility is a "puff piece" in High Times for example, extolling the virtues of the charity's newfound cause.
However, you've nearly constructed a strawman, because nobody would expect an LPFM charity to diversify into cannabis, yet nothing the WMF does is inconsistent with their mission from the start. They've simply expanded, globalized, and broadened in scope; that's the way I see it.
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#29Wikimedia is a 501(c)(3) organization, a type of NPO, that is exempt from federal income tax and as such is prohibited by law from making political donations.
C'mon guys. This stuff is easy to verify for yourselves. I expect better from HN.
Re: Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia
#30Wikimedia is a 501(c)(3) organization, a type of NPO, that is exempt from federal income tax and as such is prohibited by law from making political donations. C'mon guys. This stuff is easy to verify for yourselves. I expect better from HN.
While 501(c)(3) orgs are prohibited from making electoral office campaign donations, they may engage in many other political activities and expenditures. Some of the ways they may engage with politics and public policy include lobbying (within limits) and support of ballot initiatives.
See the IRS for additional info: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...