3 ms·
Did you read the part where it says that the people writing the content don't receive any of the donations? And that the foundation's software initiatives have
by scribu 6y ago
Did you read the part where it says that the people writing the content don't receive any of the donations?
And that the foundation's software initiatives have been largely innefective at getting more/better content? [0]
(I've also donated to Wikimedia in the past and contributed to Wikipedia itself)
[0] https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9qqds7Z3Ykd9Kdeay/should-you-donate-to-the-wikimedia-foundation#2_3__Does_the_marginal_and_or_average_donation_contribute_unambiguously_to_improving_Wikipedia_quality_ https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9qqds7Z3Ykd9Kdeay/...
- throwaway5752 6y agoI'm surprised people are surprised by this, speaking as an annual donator. The "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." implies it to me. That's almost entirely what makes Wikipedia what it is, the idea that it's community maintained by volunteer contributors. If it's compensated, it completely changes the contribution culture and the identity of the site at the core. It still needs a legal team, professional staff, payroll, etc, too. I know they have other projects and that's fine by me, even if they don't succeed.
- xscott 6y ago> Did you read the part where it says that the people writing the content don't receive any of the donations? I did, but I think there's value in just sustaining the platform. I'm worried about perverse incentives and gaming metrics if you reward the contributors. I'm sure you can imagine that going poorly. And, even without rewards, there sure are a lot of good contributions.