6 ms·

Wow 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 i

Wow 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 ago
They 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 ago
  And 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 ago
    That 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 ago
      Wikidata is actually used by Wikipedia though.
      - jessriedel 7y ago
        Yes, 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 ago
    Fund 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.

Wow 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 ago

They 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 ago
And 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 ago
  That 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 ago
    Wikidata is actually used by Wikipedia though.
    - jessriedel 7y ago
      Yes, 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 ago
  Fund 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.