8 ms·
The thing that depresses me the most about Wiki[mp]edia is that the US$ 100 that I donated to them a few years ago (presumably,) predominantly went into creatin
by c0l0 8y ago
The thing that depresses me the most about Wiki[mp]edia is that the US$ 100 that I donated to them a few years ago (presumably,) predominantly went into creating material like this.
Given how incredibly well-funded Wikimedia is, their yearly extort^Wdonation-drive with 50%+ viewport-sized banners plastered all over Wikipedia, claiming that the encyclopedia you're viewing is in dire need of your money to barely sustain itself for the rest of the year, actually makes me rather angry every time I see it.
Recommended reading for those unaware of how (and what) Wikimedia is actually doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
- stoops 8y agoThank you for this comment. I will withhold any future donations until I do further research.
- 51lver 8y agoYeah, no kidding. I donated (a few times actually) to cover hosting costs, not to make wikipedia into some kind of lifestyle brand. This is wasteful.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoWikimedia has sufficient assets to host Wikipedia in perpetuity ($91 million @ 4 percent withdrawal rate = $3.64 million, ~$1 million above their current hosting tech and people costs). As long as Wikipedia text and media dumps are archived in the Internet Archive, it's not going to disappear even if Wikimedia Foundation goes defunct. No further fundraising is required, ever, if properly managed.
- dddddaviddddd 8y agoProvided continuing funding for the Internet Archive, of course.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- teej 8y agoA 4% withdrawal rate has a non-zero failure rate over 30 years, let alone in perpetuity. I would say they are no where close to being completely self sustaining. Also, using math calculated for personal retirement (The Trinity Study) is not appropriate for a trust/endowment/etc. Different risk tolerance, different investment strategy, different goals. On top of that, assuming they will have zero effective cost increases is wrong. There is so much growth left in content and users. How much has Wikipedia grown in the last five years? How well do they cover non English languages? What if they had the same size article base in English as every other language? What if every internet connected user could use Wikipedia? Saying we could freeze Wikipedia costs in 2019 based on $90M in the bank is shortsighted. The page on The Wikimedia Endowment is actually quite interesting if you're into finance and investing - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 8y agoMy numbers may need adjustment, but the principal is sound. Wikimedia must stop wasting donor funds and pleading poverty.
- teej 8y agoI think "needs adjustment" is reductive. Wikipedia could easily 10x pageviews and article count over the next 20 years. If Wikipedia doesn't grow content, coverage, and quality they could become irrelevant. Thinking donations should just go towards keeping the lights on doesn't sit right with me. An endowment that keeps Wikipedia running forever may very well need to be over $1 billion. It turns out, the folks who planned out the endowment were very thoughtful. Check out this great read on the motivations, challenges, and plans of the endowment. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- omouse 8y agoThey're only well-funded for now. That funding can go away if enough people, such as yourself, complain about this. They need to sustain themselves, just like any other organization. If they are a net negative in the world, I would withhold donations. For producing material like this? It's still a net positive and therefore still worthy of donating to.
- nerdponx 8y agoI understand the need to do things that aren't the specific thing you want them to do (i.e. run Wikipedia). But I don't see the need for this. What is actually bad about people not recognizing your brand correctly? They sure as shit recognize the product. If someone can provide an actual reason why this should help the foundation carry out its work, I can be convinced to be in favor of it. If they are a net negative in the world, I would withhold donations. It's not about good or bad, it's about opportunity cost. Most people have a limited budget for donations.
- omouse 8y agoWhat is actually bad about people not recognizing your brand correctly Yeah I'm sure Cuke and Papsi would have no problem with that as their coca-cola soft drink products are instantly recognizable as soon as you drink them.
- 51lver 8y agoYou are comparing a force for good in the world to pushing sugar water. Sugar water OBVIOUSLY depends heavily on branding and advertising. Things that are more substantive can and should stand on their own merits.
- Geimfari 8y agoThe foundation has so much money that they could fully sustain themselves just from their endowment if they wanted to. They really do not need donations from the public and their petitions for money are misleading for the majority of people, who think they are helping to pay for editors (free) and server costs (minor costs).
- KerrickStaley 8y agoJust because Wikipedia is a non-profit doesn't mean that brand outreach and other administrative/meta work isn't important. These are as important in non-profit as in for-profit organizations and are a normal part of business. As a past donor I'm happy that they're spending resources in this area.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y agoExactly. This is an area I think many technologists tend to glance over: "They paid how much to a 'brand consultancy' to replace an M with a P??" And while these types of things can get "fluffy", if this branding change results in just a small percentage of additional people becoming more aware of the broader goals and projects of Wiki(m/p)edia, it was money well spent.
- lixtra 8y agoBut they don’t advertise in the banners that they spend the money in such a way. I may have a partial match in goals with Wikipedia. If 20% of the money goes to goals I support and 80% goes to goals I do not support or that are even contrary to my goals, how much should I give? I decided for me to donate to projects that better serve my goals.
- jonnydubowsky 8y agoYou raise a valid concern. How will you know If wikimedia's branding interests ultimately help them to deliver more of the goals you relate to? The means they take to improve their messaging may ultimately help them to coordinate resources more effectively and deliver more of what you support. Would the ends justify the means in that case?
- lixtra 8y agoI would be okay if they used 20% of my donation to venture for goals that I don’t know yet I will possibly support in the future. That also applies to messaging. But as said the rate is more 80%.
- sigi45 8y agoWikisomething gave me so much information. The price i'm paying with my few donations i made over the years, are donations i don't bother to check what they are doing with it. Why? I'm not part of it. I'm just here, reading stuff on wikipedia. I don't know what they wanna try out. I don't know who or why so many people are part of it. I haven't written a single article. I fixed stuff but thats it. Perhaps they need it to build the community around. They got my trust.
- ausjke 8y agoI also donate each year and don't care what they are doing with my donation, because the value I got from wikipedia overshadowed my donation greatly and that's a great deal already.
- Geimfari 8y agoBut you aren't paying for the editors and only a fraction of the donation goes to covering server costs. The Wikipedia project does not need your money and the foundation has enough money to survive indefinitely if they'd cut costs.
- ndnxhs 8y agoThey already have costs vastly below other projects of their size
- a-nikolaev 8y agoYes, but a lot of it is bloat that does not contribute to Wikipedia itself.
- sigi45 8y agoI know and my argument is that your argument, doesn't matter to me. I also wrote why it doesn't.
- 2ion 8y agoYour trust is misplaced. Wikipedia editors (unpaid) generate their income from other things than money, be it a sense of accomplishment, altruism or agenda setting. Most articles on everything except science is tainted by bias. Wikipedia is no replacement for the classic lexicon in terms of redactional quality.
- 8ytecoder 8y agoI was going to say that I don't mind and I'm happy to donate whatever I donate every year. But then went and looked up information on their budget - it's quite surprising that they spend as much as they do and it's not very clear on how they spend it and also plans on how they are going to contain the spend. I don't mind Wikimedia having a fat balance sheet and at least a few years worth of reserve but the growth of expenditure to match the donations is concerning. I'm worried they have fallen into the usual trap every startup that's well-funded fall into - assuming that the money they have will somehow magically last forever or that they can get more funding with their aggressive tactics.
- a-nikolaev 8y agoExactly. Their annual spendings grow exponentially, roughly matching the donations amounts. It cannot be operations costs. More like irresponsible foolish management.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- newnewpdro 8y agoIt looks like textbook empire-building to me. Something non-profits successful at fundraising strike me as especially fertile land for.
- est31 8y agoYou know how much money Google is wasting? Their main source is still ads from their websites. They could lay off all of their staff that's not working on the search or ad parts and put that money into dividends instead. But instead they are using lot of money that belongs to the stakeholders on this giant project of finding a new thing that's similarly profitable as search. I definitely agree that WMF has definitely enough money, and maybe the money is not used in the best way. But others do it at much larger scales while WMF is getting most of the heat.
- mprev 8y agoWhen I visit Google search there isn’t a banner begging me for money that will be piped into Google Wave, Buzz, or some other unrelated venture.
- ivalm 8y agoNo, instead your personal data is sold to fund Google Wave, Buzz, or some unrelated venture. Would you prefer wikimedia shift into selling user data and putting advertisements? If not, then donate.
- darkpuma 8y ago> "Would you prefer wikimedia shift into selling user data and putting advertisements? If not, then donate." I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, but this phrasing sounds like a threat of some sort, blackmail.
- mprev 8y agoThat’s a false dichotomy. Another option is to allow donations that are ring fenced for the project or projects I care about.
- ivalm 8y agoI would strongly argue that ring fencing is a very bad idea. We want to give opportunity for successful orgs to try new things and fail. This is why companies use some of their profits to try new things (such as Google Wave, but also such as Gmail). Wikimedia foundation, since it does not generate much revenue outside of donations, must necessarily use donations to try new things, even if they turn out to be failures/not needed.
- darkpuma 8y agoThose fund-raising banners are a great place to use ublock origin's cosmetic filters.
- zepearl 8y agoI donated twice to cover hosting & maintenance of Wikipedia, then became aware of the many other activities into which the funds were/are flowing, so I stopped donating. I care about Wikipedia, not much about the rest.
- titanix2 8y agoSeeing the graph (not for the first time) it's look like the foundation is run with this government worker's mentality of "if the annual budget is not totally spend by the end of exercice we will got less dotation next year". It's like they're blowing money for the sake of blowing it.
- scarmig 8y agoThat's not unique to governments or non-profits.