6 ms·
And still not even a spec on the chart compared to the other websites of their size.
by Polylactic_acid 7y ago
And still not even a spec on the chart compared to the other websites of their size.
- xvector 7y agoBut they blatantly lie to the public when they say they need donations to continue Wikipedia. If you look at the expense report, they absolutely don't; Wikipedia is a mote of dust compared to the amount that is fundraised every year. It's just pure greed. These sort of disinformation campaigns by nonprofits should be illegal.
- TheFiend7 7y agoWow I had no idea those ads on wikipedia were blatant lies. I've never donated but I've definitely thought about it a few times whenever I saw those ads. This is somewhat eye-opening.
- Polylactic_acid 7y agoThey aren't lies, the money is entirely used on the wikimedia foundation. The big "scandal" is that wikimedia has other projects outside of wikipedia like wikidata which the funds also get used on. Wikimedia has plenty of money to keep wikipedia running as it is, they need extra money to expand other fields of open data.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- killjoywashere 7y agoAnd if you've ever led anything, you understand the value of "buffer states". Having those satellite projects, R&D investments, etc that you nurture in the good times, because you've seen hard times, and don't care to return to them. Donations follow the same axiom as pricing: ask for what the market will bear.
- jessriedel 7y agoThat would all be fine if the donors understood what was happening. Instead, the ads give the impression that Wikipedia is in dire need of funds. Most donors don't even know that the Wikimedia foundation does anything besides Wikipedia.
- anewvillager 7y agoWikidata is actually used by Wikipedia though.
- jessriedel 7y agoYes, I agree, that use of the money is more defensible, although it still doesn't excuse the general urgency of the fundraising pitch, which suggests (but does not say) money is needed to keep the lights on.
- tripzilch 7y ago> Instead, the ads give the impression that Wikipedia is in dire need of funds. while "dire" might be a bit of an overstatement, I agree with this impression because it is in part why I donated once or twice.
- xvector 7y ago> because you've seen hard times, and don't care to return to them. This is a reasonable stance to take, except when your donations are enough to cover the core product for decades.
- jessriedel 7y ago> They aren't lies It's not literally fraud in the legal sense, but it's purposefully taking advantage of the goodwill of unsophisticated donors to fund projects and people the donors predictably wouldn't approve of if they understood what was happening. The donors think they are supporting Wikipedia, and the money is largely going elsewhere. Morally, it's lying.
- specialist 7y agoFund raising has its own domain knowledge. Not defending. Having done some myself, I'd guess they're mostly following the standard playbook.
- xvector 7y ago> Wikimedia has plenty of money to keep wikipedia running as it is, And yet every donation dialogue on their page is a desperate plea for money to preserve Wikipedia itself. This is the misleading theme around Wikimedia's donation strategy.
- IggleSniggle 7y agoI had no idea. That's horrible. Are they trying to raise an endowment or something so that they can run on interest? If so that would be reasonable, but they should still be honest about it.
- xvector 7y agoThey have projects they want to fund other than Wikipedia. This in itself is not bad, but the misleading nature of it all definitely is.