3 ms·

I have heard just the opposite: that having a decade-length endowment is generally a sign of hording by the non-profit, and unlikely to be contributing to the m

I have heard just the opposite: that having a decade-length endowment is generally a sign of hording by the non-profit, and unlikely to be contributing to the mission. What scenario is there where Wikipedia is still providing value and fulfilling its mission but can't raise funds for a decade?

dragonwriter 7y ago
> What scenario is there where Wikipedia is still providing value and fulfilling its mission but can't raise funds for a decade? An extended economic downturn that dries up charitable donations.
- MagnumOpus 7y ago
  The worst recession in three generations saw WMF donations increase by >50% year-over-year in every single year.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    The distributional impacts of major downturns and their effects on the groups donating to any particular charity aren't identical downturn to downtun; the fact that a particular major downturn didn't hurt WMF donations doesn't mean that would be true of the next one.
    - jessriedel 7y ago
      What historical downturn are you thinking of, and how much did the revenue of any charity lower purely as a result of that downturn (and not, e.g., because the charity's mission was no longer relevant)?
    - elect_engineer 7y ago
      It sounds like some here are of the opinion that Wikipedia's revenue will never take a nosedive for any reason and that the bubble will never burst. Now where have I heard that kind of talk before? Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer"
- jessriedel 7y ago
  What your describing is not just an economic downturn, because no historical downturn has ever come close to lowering donations sufficiently to starve Wikipedia. Rather, it's an end-of-the-world scenario, and Wikipedia's expenses would require a hell of a lot more than just paying AWS fees....
elect_engineer 7y ago
Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer". See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... Re: "I have heard just the opposite: that having a decade-length endowment is generally a sign of hording by the non-profit, and unlikely to be contributing to the mission." That's only true of charities where there is no natural limit on how much they can spend. If you are feeding orphans you can always do more until every orphan is fed. The WMF isn't like that, They have one job; keep Wikipedia and the sister projects like Wictionary online. That doesn't require ever-increasing spending other than to cover actual increases in hosting expenses and essential employees. Imagine a future Wikipedia that is 100% funded by the endowment, which will always be there even if nobody donates, and which has no fundraising banners, just a small "donate" link. I think that is a goal worth pursuing.
- btilly 7y ago
  There is no such exemption. As evidence I point to Boys Town, a philanthropy that quite literally exists to take care of orphans. It amassed a large fortune that exceeded anything justifiable by their core mission. In the 1970s, a tip from Warren Buffett on this won The Omaha Sun (which he owned at the time) a Pulitzer for reporting on the resulting scandal. (He was also an investor in The Washington Post which won a Pulitzer in the same year for reporting on Watergate.) See https://www.philanthropydaily.com/nonprofits-mission-drift-boys-town-omaha/ https://www.philanthropydaily.com/nonprofits-mission-drift-b... for verification. And evidence suggesting that that particular charity has continued down the same path.
  - elect_engineer 7y ago
    Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... Your reference to boys town missed the point. Boys town didn't run out of orphans to spend money on. They simply failed to spend a large amount of it on orphans. A better charity to compare with Wikipedia would be the the Washington Monument Restoration Project. See https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc72.htm https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc72.htm Once the Washington Monument is completely restored you can't spend any more money restoring the Washington Monument. If donations keep coming in, you shouldn't spend them on giving executives of the charity free ski vacations (yes, the WMF actually did that) You should instead build up an endowment that is eventually big enough that the interest covers all Washington Monument maintenance forever. Then and only then should you tell donors "look, we don't need any more money for restoring the Washington Monument. If you give us a donation we will use it for other things, starting with restoring the Lincoln Memorial".

dragonwriter 7y ago

> What scenario is there where Wikipedia is still providing value and fulfilling its mission but can't raise funds for a decade? An extended economic downturn that dries up charitable donations.

MagnumOpus 7y ago
The worst recession in three generations saw WMF donations increase by >50% year-over-year in every single year.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  The distributional impacts of major downturns and their effects on the groups donating to any particular charity aren't identical downturn to downtun; the fact that a particular major downturn didn't hurt WMF donations doesn't mean that would be true of the next one.
  - jessriedel 7y ago
    What historical downturn are you thinking of, and how much did the revenue of any charity lower purely as a result of that downturn (and not, e.g., because the charity's mission was no longer relevant)?
  - elect_engineer 7y ago
    It sounds like some here are of the opinion that Wikipedia's revenue will never take a nosedive for any reason and that the bubble will never burst. Now where have I heard that kind of talk before? Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer"
jessriedel 7y ago
What your describing is not just an economic downturn, because no historical downturn has ever come close to lowering donations sufficiently to starve Wikipedia. Rather, it's an end-of-the-world scenario, and Wikipedia's expenses would require a hell of a lot more than just paying AWS fees....

elect_engineer 7y ago

Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer". See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... Re: "I have heard just the opposite: that having a decade-length endowment is generally a sign of hording by the non-profit, and unlikely to be contributing to the mission." That's only true of charities where there is no natural limit on how much they can spend. If you are feeding orphans you can always do more until every orphan is fed. The WMF isn't like that, They have one job; keep Wikipedia and the sister projects like Wictionary online. That doesn't require ever-increasing spending other than to cover actual increases in hosting expenses and essential employees. Imagine a future Wikipedia that is 100% funded by the endowment, which will always be there even if nobody donates, and which has no fundraising banners, just a small "donate" link. I think that is a goal worth pursuing.

btilly 7y ago
There is no such exemption. As evidence I point to Boys Town, a philanthropy that quite literally exists to take care of orphans. It amassed a large fortune that exceeded anything justifiable by their core mission. In the 1970s, a tip from Warren Buffett on this won The Omaha Sun (which he owned at the time) a Pulitzer for reporting on the resulting scandal. (He was also an investor in The Washington Post which won a Pulitzer in the same year for reporting on Watergate.) See https://www.philanthropydaily.com/nonprofits-mission-drift-boys-town-omaha/ https://www.philanthropydaily.com/nonprofits-mission-drift-b... for verification. And evidence suggesting that that particular charity has continued down the same path.
- elect_engineer 7y ago
  Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... Your reference to boys town missed the point. Boys town didn't run out of orphans to spend money on. They simply failed to spend a large amount of it on orphans. A better charity to compare with Wikipedia would be the the Washington Monument Restoration Project. See https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc72.htm https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc72.htm Once the Washington Monument is completely restored you can't spend any more money restoring the Washington Monument. If donations keep coming in, you shouldn't spend them on giving executives of the charity free ski vacations (yes, the WMF actually did that) You should instead build up an endowment that is eventually big enough that the interest covers all Washington Monument maintenance forever. Then and only then should you tell donors "look, we don't need any more money for restoring the Washington Monument. If you give us a donation we will use it for other things, starting with restoring the Lincoln Memorial".