3 ms·

There should be a better mechanism for funding sites like Wikipedia that provide what is effectively a global, common, public good. Perhaps a budget from the UN

There should be a better mechanism for funding sites like Wikipedia that provide what is effectively a global, common, public good. Perhaps a budget from the UN or something should be set aside for funding projects like Wikimedia, Archive.org, etc. It’s a bit ridiculous that something so important to so many people relies on donations from individuals.

veridies 8y ago
One of the problems with that model is it centralizes power in one organization which is subject to the whims of its members. I’d argue that that might guarantee less stability than the current system. Perhaps a large endowment, like private universities, could work? Enough money to let them invest in a diversified portfolio and run their sites off of the profits.
isostatic 8y ago
Why? Is Wikipedia in danger of going bust?
HeadsUpHigh 8y ago
Something like what the Brave browser is trying to do with crypto could be the answer but then again it's "crypto".
repolfx 8y ago
Why is it ridiculous? Wikipedia really isn't that expensive to run and clearly they have no problem raising the money. Funding based on volunteer donations seems a very equitable and reasonable way to fund something like Wikipedia - if it were to become totally useless for some reason people would stop donating, and that's good. If it was funded by the UN it'd become a zombie organisation that could never die even if it became irrelevant. If anything Wikipedia is an example of the opposite problem - a charity that is too successful. Do you really think 300 people are needed to maintain the Wikipedia servers and software? No, of course not, the Wikimedia organisation has grown massively over time and almost all of those staff are working on things the average Wikipedia donator wouldn't even recognise. I stopped donating to Wikipedia a long time ago, because it was clear that their fund-raising drives had stopped being connected to what the organisation actually needed to perform its mission and simply become a way to channel people's love for the work they had themselves produced together into a giant and very expensive party for a self-important management class.

veridies 8y ago

One of the problems with that model is it centralizes power in one organization which is subject to the whims of its members. I’d argue that that might guarantee less stability than the current system. Perhaps a large endowment, like private universities, could work? Enough money to let them invest in a diversified portfolio and run their sites off of the profits.

isostatic 8y ago

Why? Is Wikipedia in danger of going bust?

HeadsUpHigh 8y ago

Something like what the Brave browser is trying to do with crypto could be the answer but then again it's "crypto".

repolfx 8y ago

Why is it ridiculous? Wikipedia really isn't that expensive to run and clearly they have no problem raising the money. Funding based on volunteer donations seems a very equitable and reasonable way to fund something like Wikipedia - if it were to become totally useless for some reason people would stop donating, and that's good. If it was funded by the UN it'd become a zombie organisation that could never die even if it became irrelevant. If anything Wikipedia is an example of the opposite problem - a charity that is too successful. Do you really think 300 people are needed to maintain the Wikipedia servers and software? No, of course not, the Wikimedia organisation has grown massively over time and almost all of those staff are working on things the average Wikipedia donator wouldn't even recognise. I stopped donating to Wikipedia a long time ago, because it was clear that their fund-raising drives had stopped being connected to what the organisation actually needed to perform its mission and simply become a way to channel people's love for the work they had themselves produced together into a giant and very expensive party for a self-important management class.