4 ms·
Frankly, if a nonprofit can't justify to laypeople why they should have money, they shouldn't have money. This is a joke, isn't it? "Make Wikipedia better" is
by kick 7y ago
Frankly, if a nonprofit can't justify to laypeople why they should have money, they shouldn't have money.
This is a joke, isn't it?
"Make Wikipedia better" is about as explanatory as "Cure Alzheimer's!" yet "Make Wikipedia better" is far more likely to be done and less likely to be funded than "Cure Alzheimer's!"
But here's an easy way to justify:
"Improve the moderation and content-editing tools to encourage more contributions," which has been the justification WMF has used for many recent projects.
It can easily be explained to you, but if that's your criteria, no foundation trying to cure any disease that isn't socially-caused should have your money.
- wyattpeak 7y agoI wouldn't donate to a charity which simply billed that they were aiming to cure Alzheimer's, either. I'd want to know what they'd accomplished so far, what they were planning to use the money for and, critically to the discussion at hand, if expenses seemed out of proportion with the activity I'd want to know why. I don't claim in the parent comment that Wikipedia don't justify their expenses (although I don't think they do so sufficiently). I'm responding to the specific claim that there shouldn't be an expectation by donators to understand the benefit of their donation.