Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

Post by Cipater » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 11:33 AM UTC

jokethrowaway wrote: post #82

feoren wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you see false information on Wikipedia, go and correct it!

There is an entire industry of fact checkers and editors highlighting the side of the news their party like and hiding the opposite's viewpoint. Wikipedia's bias is well known. From the page on abortion: > When properly done, induced abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine. Mind you, not too safe for the baby.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy so it's obvious that the "safest" is referring to maternal mortality.

Instead of pretending to be foolish, why not give a better example?

Post by ckoerner » Mon, Sep 26, 2022, 5:48 PM UTC

akolbe wrote: post #83

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They took in $162 million, against an $111 million operating budget, The giant operating budget is what people take issue with. People see these banners on the website and assume that their donations are going to fund the website . However, the Wikimedia Foundation has been inexplicably expanding their budgets to match whatever amount of money comes in each year, leading them to this endless cycle of needing ever-i…

Bingo. You can't grow your revenue tenfold and still claim you are asking for money to ensure your bare survival. Remember: the WMF less than ten years ago themselves said they could survive quite well on "$10M+/year". https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March... Now they ask for $160M+. At some point the message has to change. It has to become something a little more like: Look, so far we've done…

At some point the message has to change. It has to become something a little more like: Look, so far we've done this which you thought was cool. Now we want to do X, Y and Z. Will you support us?

I think this is a perfectly valid idea and would encourage you to lead with this sort of approach in trying to get the Foundation to change strategy. It's straightforward and constructive. Pointing out all the ways the fundraising is bad is not nearly as useful as suggesting ways to approach it differently and improve it.

(I normally don't talk about Fundraising stuff as a volunteer, but the Meta thread where I was pinged led me here).

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved