6 ms·

Wikipedia and Archive.org are doing what the internet was made for at least on the history side of things, but also culture, information and education. If you c

Wikipedia and Archive.org are doing what the internet was made for at least on the history side of things, but also culture, information and education. If you can, donate.

breck 6y ago
Agreed. These are probably my two most regular donations.
- h_anna_h 6y ago
  I would suggest against donating to them. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26029978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26029978 for wikipedia. As for archive.org they offer basically no transparency as to which sites are excluded from their archiving (and as far as I know they will remove all the content of a site once the owner asks them to).
  - cecja 6y ago
    Thanks, I'll still donate to both.
  - johnjj257 6y ago
    Those threads don't show anything interesting, some just bash the org for spending any of the money they receive in a way someone doesn't like from years and years ago. This is silly
    - h_anna_h 6y ago
      They show something interesting, that "Hosting wikipedia accounts for roughly 2% of their total expenses", something that someone donating might not know. "years and years ago", this was in 2019
      - dufufudd 6y ago
        Can confirm, didn't know and glad I do. Won't be donating again in the future.
        f430 6y ago
        yeah same here, HN can downvote us all they want but they certainly will no longer be getting my money. I will redirect that funds to other non-profits where I know they will be frugal with my money.
      - mrzimmerman 6y ago
        I do think it’s relevant to know how funding is spent, but I’m not sure why hosting being only 2% of expenses would have you advocate AGAINST donating to Wikipedia. The running one of the biggest technical and community concerns on the planet takes a lot more then serving content from a computer somewhere. Salaries, community management, improvements to the wiki software—these things cost money too and are no less important then responding to HTTP requests.
      - threatofrain 6y ago
        Community is arguably a bigger part of why Wikipedia works the way it does, vs hosting which is a commoditized concern and only thinks of the bare minimum to keep the lights on. But lighting up an empty building doesn't turn into Wikipedia.
        h_anna_h 6y ago
        The community rarely benefits from the actions of the organization. In fact there is kind of a hostile relationship between them. Most people contributing to wikipedia have never been to one of the parties for example.
  - A12-B 6y ago
    Personally I donate to keep wikipedia independent so they don't get bought up by an entity. I don't care what agendas they have and there are no better alternatives (and never will be).
  - Blahah 6y ago
    This is not helpful. Wikipedia is a community project, and managing that community takes a lot of the resources, obviously. The Internet Archive has proved itself so many times over, and is so underfunded, that it deserves all the money it can possibly raise - which will allow them to solve more of the problems they face.
    - h_anna_h 6y ago
      I believe that it is helpful because if I knew about that a few years back I would never bother donating nor contributing to them. > and managing that community takes a lot of the resources, obviously I do not think that parties in Accra using donation funds is an integral part of "managing that community". The Internet Archive has proved that they are not to be trusted multiple times. Such as when they decided to not be transparent, to retroactively remove content if asked by the site owner or if robots.txt started banning crawlers, when they started "lending" e-books with DRM, or when they decided to do the whole "National Emergency Library" thing and publishers sue it over it (the lawers and possibly said publishers if they win the ruling - which is likely - will be paid via the donation money).
      - dleslie 6y ago
        You've never attended an office party, or a company-hosted partner event, or any sort of enjoyable relationship building event? Parties serve a purpose. We are social mammals.
        jrumbut 6y ago
        Even if they aren't, I don't see why the people doing good things in the world can't have something enjoyable. If everyone who works for a charity has to work for at most minimum wage, then I don't think sites like Wikipedia or the Internet Archive would be as high quality as they are.
        nostromo 6y ago
        I think it's because a lot of people with limited means apparently donate to Wikimedia thinking it's a small non-profit on the verge of bankruptcy. And in no small part because they imply this every year during their fund drives. I doubt they'd do as well fundraising if your average donator knew that Wikimedia was pulling in $100m a year, is paying it's directors and above $200-400k a year, and the vast majority of their dollars are not spent on "servers and power" like their ads imply. Personally, I'm fine with their budget, but I do wonder if their fundraisers are as ethical as they could be.
  - f430 6y ago
    Thank you h_anna_h, I know you are getting downvoted but HN just isn't the same as it used to be. People get easily offended now and will downvote you if you dont agree with them. It's pathetic and sad. Thanks for bringing up that thread. I have a lot of reservations about giving money away to such "non-profit" organizations before but I get an idea of whats going on behind the scenes now. I certainly will no longer be donating to the EFF and Wiki organizations knowing non-profit organizations possibly funding parties and luxurious corporate life styles. I want the money I give them to stretch as much as possible. I'm not against parties either but when you spend millions citing conferences and travel (even some large for-profits dont spend this type of money) citing you are non-profit to mismanage my money then I simply won't stand for it. My trust in local non-profit organizations were already pretty shaky but I somehow trusted these large organizations because I thought they would be more frugal and we would have more transparency. I was clearly wrong. You simply have no idea how the money is being spent and its very difficult to dictate how they should better allocate resources either. Apparently most people think that frugality would be the default in these organizations but once you give them a credit card, they won't think twice about over spending on stuff that has marginal benefits like luxury company cars, chartered planes, expensive dinners etc. I will still donate to causes I believe in but I am going to now ask for receipts and will enforce strict frugality. Parties should be limited to the office with a dozen Dominos pizzas and everybody should bring their own soft drinks & cups from now on.
  - crazypython 6y ago
    I wonder if the Wikipedia community generally supports the Wikimedia foundation (if WMF does a generally good job), or if they'd like it replaced.
  - unionpivo 6y ago
    I don't get why people are so upset that Wikipedia spends more money on personnel then on hosting. Most internet organizations do that (free, charity or commercial). Good people are expensive. You need sysadmins, programmers, some graphics artist, probably more than a few lawyers etc. And I wouldn't want them to use the cheapest, possible people that they can find for those roles. And asking good people to work for free or cheap, is just as shitty. And a lot of free software and opensource foundation spend most of the money organizing conferences, so that people can meet in person and have presentations and working groups etc.. But when Wikipedia does the same its somehow wrong ?
    - h_anna_h 6y ago
      > And asking good people to work for free or cheap, is just as shitty. They already do that with their editors. > And a lot of free software and opensource foundation spend most of the money organizing conferences I would avoid donating to any such organisation myself.
      - Blahah 6y ago
        You cited one of few small ways the organisation is able to something back to wikipedians as the problem. Are you now pivoting to saying Wikipedia doesn't spend enough rewarding contributors, from having previously complained about having a celebration with contributors in Accra? I strongly encourage you to go to one of the events run by the kind of organisation you're complaining about. I'm not exaggerating when I say Mozfest is life changing for many people. Open Knowledge Foundation events have been career-defining for me and many people I've mentored in the UK, Kenya and South Africa. I've never been to a Wikipedia event but I know about them and I think you're imagining something vastly different than what happens. These are events that are about building communities, networks, and opportunities for open collaboration. If you don't like how these organisations do it, sorry, because they are the ones doing it successfully.
      - unionpivo 6y ago
        > They already do that with their editors. They are volunteers. They do as much works as they want or don't want to do. Once you are the size of the Wikipedia there are tasks that need to be done, and you can't really relay on volunteers to do it in their free time. > I would avoid donating to any such organisation myself. Its your money. I am just saying that its normal and expected in free and opensource communities to do that sort of things. Organize conferences, meetups, public awareness, handle the legal stuff and hire the core stuff that makes sure thing are running 24/7.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Arainach 6y ago
Why, so I can give a few more dollars to book publishers when they take Archive for all of its assets after its reckless "library" tactics last year? I like them, but they seriously need a change in management.
- nostromo 6y ago
  It's unpopular here, but that stunt really made me wonder about their management. They opened themselves up to millions of dollars (if not billions of dollars) of liability for no good reason. (Covid doesn't give you a pass to give away someone else's property without permission.) Similar to you, I'm not going to donate to an org that is so reckless with donations. If they would admit it was an error in judgement and come to a quick settlement I might become a donor again. Even still, the damage has been done -- it'll take a long time for publishers to trust the Internet Archive again.
ddingus 6y ago
Archive.org and Eff.org are my two do not question donations. Well said, agreed! I should add Wikipedia.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
neolog 6y ago
Wikimedia's financial reports are at [1] At a first glance, they seem reasonable. - 43% Direct support to websites. Keeping the Wikimedia websites online is about more than just servers. It also includes ongoing engineering improvements, product development, design and research, and legal support. - 32% Direct support to communities. The Wikimedia projects exist thanks to the communities that create and maintain them. We strengthen these communities through grants, projects, trainings, tools to augment contributor capacity, and support for the legal defense of editors. - 32% Direct support to communities The Wikimedia projects exist thanks to the communities that create and maintain them. We strengthen these communities through grants, projects, trainings, tools to augment contributor capacity, and support for the legal defense of editors. - 13% Administration and governance. We manage funds and resources responsibly to recruit and support skilled, passionate staff who advance our communities and values. - 12% Fundraising. Wikimedia is sustained by donations. Millions of remarkable individuals and institutions ensure that we have the necessary resources to continue our global mission. [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goes/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goe...

Wikipedia and Archive.org are doing what the internet was made for at least on the history side of things, but also culture, information and education. If you can, donate.

breck 6y ago

Agreed. These are probably my two most regular donations.

h_anna_h 6y ago
I would suggest against donating to them. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26029978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26029978 for wikipedia. As for archive.org they offer basically no transparency as to which sites are excluded from their archiving (and as far as I know they will remove all the content of a site once the owner asks them to).
- cecja 6y ago
  Thanks, I'll still donate to both.
- johnjj257 6y ago
  Those threads don't show anything interesting, some just bash the org for spending any of the money they receive in a way someone doesn't like from years and years ago. This is silly
  - h_anna_h 6y ago
    They show something interesting, that "Hosting wikipedia accounts for roughly 2% of their total expenses", something that someone donating might not know. "years and years ago", this was in 2019
    - dufufudd 6y ago
      Can confirm, didn't know and glad I do. Won't be donating again in the future.
      - f430 6y ago
        yeah same here, HN can downvote us all they want but they certainly will no longer be getting my money. I will redirect that funds to other non-profits where I know they will be frugal with my money.
    - mrzimmerman 6y ago
      I do think it’s relevant to know how funding is spent, but I’m not sure why hosting being only 2% of expenses would have you advocate AGAINST donating to Wikipedia. The running one of the biggest technical and community concerns on the planet takes a lot more then serving content from a computer somewhere. Salaries, community management, improvements to the wiki software—these things cost money too and are no less important then responding to HTTP requests.
    - threatofrain 6y ago
      Community is arguably a bigger part of why Wikipedia works the way it does, vs hosting which is a commoditized concern and only thinks of the bare minimum to keep the lights on. But lighting up an empty building doesn't turn into Wikipedia.
      - h_anna_h 6y ago
        The community rarely benefits from the actions of the organization. In fact there is kind of a hostile relationship between them. Most people contributing to wikipedia have never been to one of the parties for example.
- A12-B 6y ago
  Personally I donate to keep wikipedia independent so they don't get bought up by an entity. I don't care what agendas they have and there are no better alternatives (and never will be).
- Blahah 6y ago
  This is not helpful. Wikipedia is a community project, and managing that community takes a lot of the resources, obviously. The Internet Archive has proved itself so many times over, and is so underfunded, that it deserves all the money it can possibly raise - which will allow them to solve more of the problems they face.
  - h_anna_h 6y ago
    I believe that it is helpful because if I knew about that a few years back I would never bother donating nor contributing to them. > and managing that community takes a lot of the resources, obviously I do not think that parties in Accra using donation funds is an integral part of "managing that community". The Internet Archive has proved that they are not to be trusted multiple times. Such as when they decided to not be transparent, to retroactively remove content if asked by the site owner or if robots.txt started banning crawlers, when they started "lending" e-books with DRM, or when they decided to do the whole "National Emergency Library" thing and publishers sue it over it (the lawers and possibly said publishers if they win the ruling - which is likely - will be paid via the donation money).
    - dleslie 6y ago
      You've never attended an office party, or a company-hosted partner event, or any sort of enjoyable relationship building event? Parties serve a purpose. We are social mammals.
      - jrumbut 6y ago
        Even if they aren't, I don't see why the people doing good things in the world can't have something enjoyable. If everyone who works for a charity has to work for at most minimum wage, then I don't think sites like Wikipedia or the Internet Archive would be as high quality as they are.
        nostromo 6y ago
        I think it's because a lot of people with limited means apparently donate to Wikimedia thinking it's a small non-profit on the verge of bankruptcy. And in no small part because they imply this every year during their fund drives. I doubt they'd do as well fundraising if your average donator knew that Wikimedia was pulling in $100m a year, is paying it's directors and above $200-400k a year, and the vast majority of their dollars are not spent on "servers and power" like their ads imply. Personally, I'm fine with their budget, but I do wonder if their fundraisers are as ethical as they could be.
- f430 6y ago
  Thank you h_anna_h, I know you are getting downvoted but HN just isn't the same as it used to be. People get easily offended now and will downvote you if you dont agree with them. It's pathetic and sad. Thanks for bringing up that thread. I have a lot of reservations about giving money away to such "non-profit" organizations before but I get an idea of whats going on behind the scenes now. I certainly will no longer be donating to the EFF and Wiki organizations knowing non-profit organizations possibly funding parties and luxurious corporate life styles. I want the money I give them to stretch as much as possible. I'm not against parties either but when you spend millions citing conferences and travel (even some large for-profits dont spend this type of money) citing you are non-profit to mismanage my money then I simply won't stand for it. My trust in local non-profit organizations were already pretty shaky but I somehow trusted these large organizations because I thought they would be more frugal and we would have more transparency. I was clearly wrong. You simply have no idea how the money is being spent and its very difficult to dictate how they should better allocate resources either. Apparently most people think that frugality would be the default in these organizations but once you give them a credit card, they won't think twice about over spending on stuff that has marginal benefits like luxury company cars, chartered planes, expensive dinners etc. I will still donate to causes I believe in but I am going to now ask for receipts and will enforce strict frugality. Parties should be limited to the office with a dozen Dominos pizzas and everybody should bring their own soft drinks & cups from now on.
- crazypython 6y ago
  I wonder if the Wikipedia community generally supports the Wikimedia foundation (if WMF does a generally good job), or if they'd like it replaced.
- unionpivo 6y ago
  I don't get why people are so upset that Wikipedia spends more money on personnel then on hosting. Most internet organizations do that (free, charity or commercial). Good people are expensive. You need sysadmins, programmers, some graphics artist, probably more than a few lawyers etc. And I wouldn't want them to use the cheapest, possible people that they can find for those roles. And asking good people to work for free or cheap, is just as shitty. And a lot of free software and opensource foundation spend most of the money organizing conferences, so that people can meet in person and have presentations and working groups etc.. But when Wikipedia does the same its somehow wrong ?
  - h_anna_h 6y ago
    > And asking good people to work for free or cheap, is just as shitty. They already do that with their editors. > And a lot of free software and opensource foundation spend most of the money organizing conferences I would avoid donating to any such organisation myself.
    - Blahah 6y ago
      You cited one of few small ways the organisation is able to something back to wikipedians as the problem. Are you now pivoting to saying Wikipedia doesn't spend enough rewarding contributors, from having previously complained about having a celebration with contributors in Accra? I strongly encourage you to go to one of the events run by the kind of organisation you're complaining about. I'm not exaggerating when I say Mozfest is life changing for many people. Open Knowledge Foundation events have been career-defining for me and many people I've mentored in the UK, Kenya and South Africa. I've never been to a Wikipedia event but I know about them and I think you're imagining something vastly different than what happens. These are events that are about building communities, networks, and opportunities for open collaboration. If you don't like how these organisations do it, sorry, because they are the ones doing it successfully.
    - unionpivo 6y ago
      > They already do that with their editors. They are volunteers. They do as much works as they want or don't want to do. Once you are the size of the Wikipedia there are tasks that need to be done, and you can't really relay on volunteers to do it in their free time. > I would avoid donating to any such organisation myself. Its your money. I am just saying that its normal and expected in free and opensource communities to do that sort of things. Organize conferences, meetups, public awareness, handle the legal stuff and hire the core stuff that makes sure thing are running 24/7.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Arainach 6y ago

Why, so I can give a few more dollars to book publishers when they take Archive for all of its assets after its reckless "library" tactics last year? I like them, but they seriously need a change in management.

nostromo 6y ago
It's unpopular here, but that stunt really made me wonder about their management. They opened themselves up to millions of dollars (if not billions of dollars) of liability for no good reason. (Covid doesn't give you a pass to give away someone else's property without permission.) Similar to you, I'm not going to donate to an org that is so reckless with donations. If they would admit it was an error in judgement and come to a quick settlement I might become a donor again. Even still, the damage has been done -- it'll take a long time for publishers to trust the Internet Archive again.

ddingus 6y ago

Archive.org and Eff.org are my two do not question donations. Well said, agreed! I should add Wikipedia.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

neolog 6y ago

Wikimedia's financial reports are at [1] At a first glance, they seem reasonable. - 43% Direct support to websites. Keeping the Wikimedia websites online is about more than just servers. It also includes ongoing engineering improvements, product development, design and research, and legal support. - 32% Direct support to communities. The Wikimedia projects exist thanks to the communities that create and maintain them. We strengthen these communities through grants, projects, trainings, tools to augment contributor capacity, and support for the legal defense of editors. - 32% Direct support to communities The Wikimedia projects exist thanks to the communities that create and maintain them. We strengthen these communities through grants, projects, trainings, tools to augment contributor capacity, and support for the legal defense of editors. - 13% Administration and governance. We manage funds and resources responsibly to recruit and support skilled, passionate staff who advance our communities and values. - 12% Fundraising. Wikimedia is sustained by donations. Millions of remarkable individuals and institutions ensure that we have the necessary resources to continue our global mission. [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goes/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goe...