5 ms·

> Pretty sure this article could have been called "Wikipedia's Costs Growing Unsustainably" instead of the clickbait headline. That's not what I got at all. A

by JackFr 10y ago

> Pretty sure this article could have been called "Wikipedia's Costs Growing Unsustainably" instead of the clickbait headline. That's not what I got at all. And that's why the article is interesting. Wikipedia's funding is what's growing unsustainably. It's higher funding that's pushing the costs higher. And that's what makes it interesting (and only a little click-baity.) It seems, having taken people's money for a charity, you have a moral obligation to spend the money on the charity, whether it needs it or not. And as a manager of said charity, it's very easy to believe (or to convince yourself) it needs the money. Or otherwise why were we making plaintive pleas for money? (And that happens in a world of good intentions. When fundraisers become cynical, you end up with the US political outrage machine, which operates simply to raise money rather than to effect political change....)

ordinaryperson 10y ago
Huh? From the OP: "After we burn through our reserves, it seems likely that the next step for the WMF will be going into debt to support continued runaway spending, followed by bankruptcy." If it was just about wasting donations, they'd never go into debt. It's costs, and specifically costs-to-income ratio he seems perturbed about.
- smsm42 10y ago
  > If it was just about wasting donations, they'd never go into debt. But there's no debt. The whole argument is pure conjecture based on imagination. Using it as if it were a fact that proves something makes little sense.
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    The author imagines that the funding will not grow forever. That's almost a certainty, as the article describes carefully.
    - narrowrail 10y ago
      While it's a good warning to WMF, it's not currently a problem. With longevity, they are in for some large endowments. I think those giving a certain amount (?) should have a vote on various directions of the org, like shareholders but, for the common good that supports their mission statements, instead of shareholder value. Edit: Punctuation.
      - mst 10y ago
        > While it's a good warning to WMF, it's not currently a problem. I believe the author's thesis is that by the time "it's not currently a problem" is no longer an argument that makes sense, it will also no longer be possible to effectively correct the WMF's course in a way that will solve it. I'm not sure I have any idea how to effectively determine if the author is correct about that, but certainly I don't think "it's not currently a problem" actually contradicts anything he's saying.
        jawbone3 10y ago
        Ecxept for the correction that it is the authors unsupported assertion, not any actually argued thesis, I think you summarized it nicely.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      Funding will not grow forever, neither would expense. There's no danger it would consume whole world's GDP and would require us to acquire an intergalactic loan from Arcturian Galactic Bank. https://www.xkcd.com/605/ https://www.xkcd.com/605/
- JackFr 10y ago
  From the table in the OP, reserves have gone up every year. The point isn't that the donations are wasted, its that in spending them, you create an organism that needs to be fed.
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  In most non-profit organizations, costs never go down. Once a budget is set for programs, staffing, etc, they don't just go away and in fact, they often continue to grow without bound. See any government budget ever for evidence. So if donations don't continue to grow to match or at least keep pace, they could start running a deficit to eat away those reserves in no time. And once a non-profit organization starts running at a deficit, some contributors will question their contributions and they may shrink accordingly. Those reserves could disappear in just a few years.. unless there's a change, two years should show the direction and another couple years, the course will be set one way or another.
  - JackFr 10y ago
    > And once a non-profit organization starts running at a deficit, some contributors will question their contributions and they may shrink accordingly. That's backwards though. It's not unusual for a non-profit to run a deficit. A donor will question a non-profit that's running a surplus - why am I giving you money you don't need.
    - mattnewton 10y ago
      Apparently not in the case of WMF.
    - narrowrail 10y ago
      How many people that give to charities look at their balance sheets before hand?
      - caseysoftware 10y ago
        Most don't as long as everyone is getting paid, the galas and events continue, and outward appearances are fine. Once invoices or paychecks are delayed, people stop and question why the leadership is "making so much money" and the ROI on galas and events. And once a few donors see the deficits, the questions get harder and money slows down.. making the next round of invoices a little harder.
  - 10y ago
- mattnewton 10y ago
  He's expected a future where the growth in fundraising declines, but the costs they have committed to are unable to decline at the same rate.
- emmelaich 10y ago
  > If it was just about wasting money people give you, you'd never go into debt. The point is that costs will continue to rise (or not fall) after the funding inevitably falls (or fails to rise enough)

by JackFr 10y ago

ordinaryperson 10y ago

Huh? From the OP: "After we burn through our reserves, it seems likely that the next step for the WMF will be going into debt to support continued runaway spending, followed by bankruptcy." If it was just about wasting donations, they'd never go into debt. It's costs, and specifically costs-to-income ratio he seems perturbed about.

smsm42 10y ago
> If it was just about wasting donations, they'd never go into debt. But there's no debt. The whole argument is pure conjecture based on imagination. Using it as if it were a fact that proves something makes little sense.
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  The author imagines that the funding will not grow forever. That's almost a certainty, as the article describes carefully.
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    While it's a good warning to WMF, it's not currently a problem. With longevity, they are in for some large endowments. I think those giving a certain amount (?) should have a vote on various directions of the org, like shareholders but, for the common good that supports their mission statements, instead of shareholder value. Edit: Punctuation.
    - mst 10y ago
      > While it's a good warning to WMF, it's not currently a problem. I believe the author's thesis is that by the time "it's not currently a problem" is no longer an argument that makes sense, it will also no longer be possible to effectively correct the WMF's course in a way that will solve it. I'm not sure I have any idea how to effectively determine if the author is correct about that, but certainly I don't think "it's not currently a problem" actually contradicts anything he's saying.
      - jawbone3 10y ago
        Ecxept for the correction that it is the authors unsupported assertion, not any actually argued thesis, I think you summarized it nicely.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    Funding will not grow forever, neither would expense. There's no danger it would consume whole world's GDP and would require us to acquire an intergalactic loan from Arcturian Galactic Bank. https://www.xkcd.com/605/ https://www.xkcd.com/605/
JackFr 10y ago
From the table in the OP, reserves have gone up every year. The point isn't that the donations are wasted, its that in spending them, you create an organism that needs to be fed.
caseysoftware 10y ago
In most non-profit organizations, costs never go down. Once a budget is set for programs, staffing, etc, they don't just go away and in fact, they often continue to grow without bound. See any government budget ever for evidence. So if donations don't continue to grow to match or at least keep pace, they could start running a deficit to eat away those reserves in no time. And once a non-profit organization starts running at a deficit, some contributors will question their contributions and they may shrink accordingly. Those reserves could disappear in just a few years.. unless there's a change, two years should show the direction and another couple years, the course will be set one way or another.
- JackFr 10y ago
  > And once a non-profit organization starts running at a deficit, some contributors will question their contributions and they may shrink accordingly. That's backwards though. It's not unusual for a non-profit to run a deficit. A donor will question a non-profit that's running a surplus - why am I giving you money you don't need.
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    Apparently not in the case of WMF.
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    How many people that give to charities look at their balance sheets before hand?
    - caseysoftware 10y ago
      Most don't as long as everyone is getting paid, the galas and events continue, and outward appearances are fine. Once invoices or paychecks are delayed, people stop and question why the leadership is "making so much money" and the ROI on galas and events. And once a few donors see the deficits, the questions get harder and money slows down.. making the next round of invoices a little harder.
- 10y ago
mattnewton 10y ago
He's expected a future where the growth in fundraising declines, but the costs they have committed to are unable to decline at the same rate.
emmelaich 10y ago
> If it was just about wasting money people give you, you'd never go into debt. The point is that costs will continue to rise (or not fall) after the funding inevitably falls (or fails to rise enough)