3 ms·

I would also suggest donating only to non-profits that make everything they do as open/transparent/public domain as possible. In my limited experience there se

by breck 6y ago

I would also suggest donating only to non-profits that make everything they do as open/transparent/public domain as possible. In my limited experience there seems to be a correlation between an organization's productivity in solving their existential problem and how open the org is. The more secretive the organization (and the less public domain content it produces) the more likely it spends a significant amount of its resource on fundraising and cushy salaries for its management. Allen Institute, Wikimedia, Internet Archive, are examples where $1 in inputs leads to $100 in public domain output.

londons_explore 6y ago
Wikimedia used to produce an amazing amount of value with only a tiny budget. Lately it's budget has gone up by a factor of 100x, and its usefulness/impact has stayed pretty much the same. Either is was amazing value for money before, or it's a waste of money now. Or both.
- breck 6y ago
  > Either is was amazing value for money before, or it's a waste of money now. Or both. Maybe it's a sin wave? I find it more valuable than ever, but would agree that it's rate of improvement seems to be constant or declining. If they payoff their technical debt, and move to better DSLs, they could kick things into high gear again.
splitrocket 6y ago
In the US, you can look up every single non-profit's finances. The 990 form has almost everything you would want, though, not line-item level of detail. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organization-search https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organiz...
umvi 6y ago
Wikimedia? last time they were on HN there was a discussion about how only a tiny fraction of their donations go to Wikipedia and the rest is used for other pet projects most people wouldn't necessarily care about. I think the conclusion was that wikimedia exists to grow bigger and ask for more donations not necessarily to be good stewards of said donations. Otherwise wouldn't they be trying to create an endowment that keeps the lights perpetually on at Wikipedia without Jimmy needing to beg every year?
anthony88 6y ago
I'm not aware that Wikimedia is producing public domain output. Wikipedia and wiktionary for example are under CC BY-SA 3.0 license which is kind of '(L)GPL'.
- breck 6y ago
  Ah you're right. That's a mistake. They should fix that.
  - boucher 6y ago
    It's probably the only thing protecting Wikipedia's existence.
    - breck 6y ago
      You should never let the risk of losing your organization stop you from doing the right thing.
GoodJokes 6y ago
Would you demand the same of a for-profit company? The paternalism is dripping in this thread.

by breck 6y ago

londons_explore 6y ago

Wikimedia used to produce an amazing amount of value with only a tiny budget. Lately it's budget has gone up by a factor of 100x, and its usefulness/impact has stayed pretty much the same. Either is was amazing value for money before, or it's a waste of money now. Or both.

breck 6y ago
> Either is was amazing value for money before, or it's a waste of money now. Or both. Maybe it's a sin wave? I find it more valuable than ever, but would agree that it's rate of improvement seems to be constant or declining. If they payoff their technical debt, and move to better DSLs, they could kick things into high gear again.

splitrocket 6y ago

In the US, you can look up every single non-profit's finances. The 990 form has almost everything you would want, though, not line-item level of detail. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organization-search https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organiz...

umvi 6y ago

Wikimedia? last time they were on HN there was a discussion about how only a tiny fraction of their donations go to Wikipedia and the rest is used for other pet projects most people wouldn't necessarily care about. I think the conclusion was that wikimedia exists to grow bigger and ask for more donations not necessarily to be good stewards of said donations. Otherwise wouldn't they be trying to create an endowment that keeps the lights perpetually on at Wikipedia without Jimmy needing to beg every year?

anthony88 6y ago

I'm not aware that Wikimedia is producing public domain output. Wikipedia and wiktionary for example are under CC BY-SA 3.0 license which is kind of '(L)GPL'.

breck 6y ago
Ah you're right. That's a mistake. They should fix that.
- boucher 6y ago
  It's probably the only thing protecting Wikipedia's existence.
  - breck 6y ago
    You should never let the risk of losing your organization stop you from doing the right thing.

GoodJokes 6y ago

Would you demand the same of a for-profit company? The paternalism is dripping in this thread.