3 ms·

> but it is going to a management class fighting over project funding for new initiatives Why are they fighting to fund new initiatives when Jimmy has to beg f

by umvi 6y ago

> but it is going to a management class fighting over project funding for new initiatives Why are they fighting to fund new initiatives when Jimmy has to beg for donations just to keep the lights on? I want my money to go towards keeping current Wikipedia's lights on, not funding the next big idea some manager has.

loeg 6y ago
They don't have to beg for donations to keep the lights on. That's kind of the problem. They are vastly overfunded for running wikipedia and mostly squander any additional income they receive on non-Wikipedia projects. This is very well documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER They get more and more in donations every year and continue to ramp up their spending, mostly not on Wikipedia (neither operating costs nor "R&D" type costs).
- bawolff 6y ago
  Other than wikidata and sometimes commons, most other wikimedia projects (as in websites being run by wikimedia foundation) get almost none of the money directed at them.
- umvi 6y ago
  Wow, if that's true their emails are really deceptive... "About a year ago, you donated $15 to keep Wikipedia online for hundreds of millions of readers. I'm surprised by and deeply grateful for your continued support. You are part of the 2% of readers who donated to support Wikipedia. We need your help again this year ... most people will ignore this message. We have no choice but to turn to you: please renew your gift to ensure that Wikipedia remains independent, ad-free, and thriving another year." I read that as "please donate or we might have to use ads to keep lights on if you don't"
  - loeg 6y ago
    Yes, I agree their fundraising messaging is deceptive and it's the primary reason I no longer give money to them.
mattnewton 6y ago
They have enough to keep the server lights on and a crew of maintenance employees, and the fights are over how to expand past that and justify more donations, or which things that have expanded past that are kept and not cut.

by umvi 6y ago

loeg 6y ago

They don't have to beg for donations to keep the lights on. That's kind of the problem. They are vastly overfunded for running wikipedia and mostly squander any additional income they receive on non-Wikipedia projects. This is very well documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER They get more and more in donations every year and continue to ramp up their spending, mostly not on Wikipedia (neither operating costs nor "R&D" type costs).

bawolff 6y ago
Other than wikidata and sometimes commons, most other wikimedia projects (as in websites being run by wikimedia foundation) get almost none of the money directed at them.
umvi 6y ago
Wow, if that's true their emails are really deceptive... "About a year ago, you donated $15 to keep Wikipedia online for hundreds of millions of readers. I'm surprised by and deeply grateful for your continued support. You are part of the 2% of readers who donated to support Wikipedia. We need your help again this year ... most people will ignore this message. We have no choice but to turn to you: please renew your gift to ensure that Wikipedia remains independent, ad-free, and thriving another year." I read that as "please donate or we might have to use ads to keep lights on if you don't"
- loeg 6y ago
  Yes, I agree their fundraising messaging is deceptive and it's the primary reason I no longer give money to them.

mattnewton 6y ago

They have enough to keep the server lights on and a crew of maintenance employees, and the fights are over how to expand past that and justify more donations, or which things that have expanded past that are kept and not cut.