12 ms·

Wikipedia already has enough money and gets more every year... And all the real work that people actually appreciate is done for free by volunteers. I always fe

Wikipedia already has enough money and gets more every year... And all the real work that people actually appreciate is done for free by volunteers. I always felt their donation drives were very deceitful since the money is not actually going to supporting the wiki (that's already funded) but is being used to increase the foundation's bureaucracy and endowment. The messaging they use doesn't make this at all clear.

cjfd 6y ago
Yes, I stopped giving them money after I learned this.
bawolff 6y ago
> I always felt their donation drives were very deceitful since the money is not actually going to supporting the wiki (that's already funded) The servers don't buy themselves. You could argue that WMF doesn't spend money effectively if you want, servers are a small part of the budget after all and like any org there are parts of the budget that are of questionable value, however its a bit much to claim its not going to supporting the wiki. [Disclaimer: i used to work for WMF a while ago. I dont anymore. My opinions are my own]
- slooonz 6y ago
  Don’t they ? Don’t the interests on their endowment cover the cost of the technical infrastructure ?
- garbagetime 6y ago
  The notices give a sense of urgency and uncertainty. They also use that insinuation, as well as the fact that proportionately few users donate, to guilt readers into donating. That's unkind, unpleasant behavior that makes me like Wikipedia less (along with increasing issues with the content of the website - at least the English articles).
  - kaba0 6y ago
    What issues do you have with content?
    - garbagetime 6y ago
      Gwern says it best: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
      - JamesBarney 6y ago
        Damn, he always does. Good read. I feel like the same thing happened to stack overflow.
        geoduck14 6y ago
        What is happening with Stack Overflow?
        brokenmachine 6y ago
        It's toxic. Just try asking a question.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      Commonly cited problems are the lack of neutrality, which is well reflected by how different the political tone of different language versions is. — the Russian article on Vladimir Putin is quite a bit less critical than the English article, and in reverse, the English article on Barack Obama is quite a bit more lauding than how other languages treat him. But that is unavoidable for articles written by men, rather than some truly neutral artificial intelligence. My gripe is that I find that Wikipedia does not acknowledge the issues enough, and seems to mostly assert that it is fairly neutral.
      - blueblisters 6y ago
- konjin 6y ago
  >The servers don't buy themselves. You could argue that WMF doesn't spend money effectively if you want, servers are a small part of the budget after all and like any org there are parts of the budget that are of questionable value, however its a bit much to claim its not going to supporting the wiki. Purchase of computer equipment: (3,709,426) At 3% return they need 100 million in the market to cover it, their short term investments are 95 million. Wikimedia does not need to raise money ever again if the only thing they are about are servers: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2019-2020_Audit_Report.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikim... Wikimedia is the perfect example of a bureaucracy expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy.
  - estaseuropano 6y ago
    Wikimedia/pedia also has constantly new challenges and tasks. Would you want them to not ever change the software, management, ...? WMF has a mission beyond wikipedia, all of them related, in the public interest and transparently done.
    - konjin 6y ago
      Wikimedia is welcome to raise money for wikimedia. Their fundraisers on wikipedia are however as much a dark pattern as anything google and facebook do on their privacy.
    - pydry 6y ago
      The more money it takes the more it will end up relying upon large donors and the more will kowtow to the interests of those donors. So, yes, I'd rather they were extemely conservative about software and management. Running PHP and having a non visual editor is less of a big deal than having to tweak donor Wikipedia pages to remove awkward facts to keep the $$$ flowing and salaries paid.
- rvba 6y ago
  The servers are relatively low when compared to the rest There is an essay called "wikipedia has cancer" about its balooning costs that grow like a tumor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
  - Qub3d 6y ago
    FYI, the user who wrote that keeps an annually-updated version on his own userpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... It includes updates as of March 2020.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    This post should be pinned for this topic.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    I've read it. I think its misleading. Hosting costs were less when wikimedia had no money, but speed was much lower, downtime was constant, there were no backup data centers (and the data center was literally in a high risk hurricane zone), and the sites had exponential growth since then. I'm not sure if that chart includes salary cost, but there's also the difference between paying all the sysadmins vs largely volunteer sysadmins. Maybe there's an argument that its better to stick to volunteers if at all possible, but at the end of the day there are quality improvements when you have 24/7 on call coverage vs hoping some random volunteer with a day-job is available to bring the site back up when it explodes (not to mention burn out is not sustainable in the long term). At the end of the day, wikipedia's hosting is much higher quality now than it was in the beginning. Wikipedia used to go down so much there was literally an external website dedicated as a scratch pad for users to write articles on until the real website came back up. Back in the day, when WMF had no money, they cut every corner they could to make it work. The result was something that was always on fire but got the job done. Now we have much better quality. But quality costs money. Whether or not the trade-off is worth it is debatable, but lets not pretend that wikimedia hosting costs are buying the same thing as they were in 2005. Last of all, i would encourage a comparison to any other site of similar size/popularity. Wikimedia hosting is orders of magnitude cheaper than industry norms. [Disclaimer: used to work there but not on the infra team. I dont work there anymore. My opinions are my own]
- h_anna_h 6y ago
  "Hosting wikipedia accounts for roughly 2% of their total expenses" Last time that I posted about it I ended up getting mass-downvoted though https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26056276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26056276
- garaetjjte 6y ago
  Their fundraising banners are obnoxious and A/B tested to death, worded such that it seems they are so cash-strapped that they will shut down tomorrow if you don't donate. In reality they raising a LOT more money than necessary to operate servers.
- thunkshift1 6y ago
  There would not be nothing to put on those servers is not for the volunteers.
refraincomment 6y ago
Wikipedia quality has actually gone down since the donation campaigns started. A website like pypi gets much more server load and they have never asked for a penny.
- denkquer 6y ago
  there is no way on earth pypi traffic is higher than wikipedias.
  - refraincomment 6y ago
    https://dtdg.co/pypi https://dtdg.co/pypi pypi servers receive 1 million requests per minute. That's likely more than wikipedia.
    - Qub3d 6y ago
      Back-of-the-envelope math says Wikipedia serves at least twice as much traffic. According to Wikipedia's public statistics[0], they receive ~3 Billion media requests per day, which is about 2 million requests per minute. https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects/content/total-mediarequests/normal|bar|2-year|~total|daily https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects/content/total-med...
    - joosters 6y ago
      https://pageviews.toolforge.org/siteviews/?platform=all-access&source=pageviews&agent=user&range=latest-20&sites=en.wikipedia.org https://pageviews.toolforge.org/siteviews/?platform=all-acce... en.wikipedia.org has around 260 million page views per day. Each page view consists of multiple HTTP requests (picking a few random pages shows twenty or more per page) - so I'm pretty sure that wikipedia has higher traffic figures.
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      Both wikipedia and pypi requests are >99% readonly and cacheable, and neither have strict global consistency guarantees. That makes them very cheap and technically easy to run through a free global CDN like cloudflare.
rahidz 6y ago
>... thousands of Wikipedia “volunteers” essentially work on the site full-time, driving its success — but that while they get nothing tangible for their efforts, WMF bankrolls its employees’ cooking classes, massages and gym memberships. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12...
joe_91 6y ago
While they may have enough money year on year - as someone who has been donating yearly for the past 10 years I prefer that it stays ad free. It is a fantastic resource and while is a need for increased transparency, more fiscal responsibility etc. Is there an alternative resource out there that provides as much value to the world? I'd be happy to switch and start supporting something else if so. It would be rather sad to see donations drop off and the project shut down... I know this would likely never happen with the amount of value it offers at this stage but still...
- pydry 6y ago
  I'd rather they just ran an ultra transparent ad network and capped maximum spend at $100 and banned groups or individuals who tried to get around it. This would be less risky than donations as it would ensure it doesn't rely on any groups in particular for cash who might have dirty laundry to hide. Like big tech.
  - cj 6y ago
    > capped maximum spend at $100 They would need 100,000 advertisers to earn $10 million, which seems impractical. For comparison, they earned $120 million in contributions in 2020. That said, Facebook has 8-10 million advertisers, many probably running low budget campaigns. But low budget campaigns typically only work when they're hyper-targeted / personalized (something I assume we don't want Wikipedia to do)
    - rhines 6y ago
      While I'd usually agree, I'd say Wikipedia has a great opportunity to target ads without predatory data harvesting - they can simply be put on relevant pages. Maybe not as effective as user-level targeting, but probably still some decent opportunities there. And easy to have advertisers bid for space on more in-demand pages.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    This would be absolutely horrible for me. Ads are designed to distract us and manipulate our emotions or identities in order to get us to spend more money than we need to spend. Wikipedia as it is now is a counter to those distractive, manipulative forces.
jstummbillig 6y ago
> is being used to increase the foundation's bureaucracy and endowment. What is that supposed to mean? Increasing "bureaucracy and endowment" is not a goal in itself. Are you implying systemic misappropriation and bad faith acting inside wikipedia org? If so I encourage heavy citation.
- pydry 6y ago
  Another user cited the "Wikipedia has cancer" page.
- kps 6y ago
  > Increasing "bureaucracy and endowment" is not a goal in itself. It is for some bureaucrats, who are paid according to their ‘importance’. (In the commercial world, this is sometimes limited by a need to produce actual results.)
Vinnl 6y ago
I think there's some merit to that argument, but the other side is what happens if funding dries up or significantly decreases (e.g. after another economic crisis) - do they have enough runway? Through that lens, IIRC they're not that wealthy. (And in terms of work that people actually appreciate: I also very much appreciate that it's practically never down and responds quickly. Just not as actively, I suppose, since you only notice when it's not there.)
- sqqqqrly 6y ago
  The ends justify the deceit?
  - Vinnl 6y ago
    What deceit?
- marcinzm 6y ago
  They have $180 million in the bank after you take away liabilities. Their expenses are $90 million however a decade ago they were $20 million and I believe page views haven't increased that dramatically. They spend $20 million a year on grants and awards. If they focused on just running the website they'd probably have a decade of runway. If they had saved money instead of growing expenses until now then they'd probably have had 20+ years of runway by now.
ignoramous 6y ago
> And all the real work that people actually appreciate is done for free by volunteers. I have been contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons for well over 2 years now: Volunteers do contribute a lot but they also tend to create ruckus in equal proportion. One such example: The tools the engineers build for a focus group of Editors who have one or two jobs to do across all Wikipedia properties are absolutely important and don't come for free.
dhdhhdd 6y ago
How much does wikipedia need to operate and how much are the donations? I kept donating every year for the past several years, but I wonder if I should continue to do so. As other commenters mentioned, the dark patterns make me reluctant to donate in the future, and this move potentially too.
- neom 6y ago
  Audited financials: FY 16&17: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/da/Wikimedia_Foundation_Audit_Report_-_FY16-17.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/da/Wikim... FY 18&19: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikimedia_Foundation_Audit_Report_-_FY18-19.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim...
okprod 6y ago
Their 990's are online
marvin 6y ago
Increasing the endowment is fine. That’s a recurring source of income that gives them complete independence for the future.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
I like how often the top comment is negative when talking about a free and open repository of knowledge.
choicenotchance 6y ago
Also, they're ripe with propaganda in their pieces. Take for example, the anti-CAA riots. They've singled out Hindus and the incumbent central govt's leaders as the sole perps. Where as in fact it was Tahir Hussain from Aam Aadmi Party who conducted the fires and mob violence and stabbing of an IAS officer.

cjfd 6y ago

Yes, I stopped giving them money after I learned this.

bawolff 6y ago

> I always felt their donation drives were very deceitful since the money is not actually going to supporting the wiki (that's already funded) The servers don't buy themselves. You could argue that WMF doesn't spend money effectively if you want, servers are a small part of the budget after all and like any org there are parts of the budget that are of questionable value, however its a bit much to claim its not going to supporting the wiki. [Disclaimer: i used to work for WMF a while ago. I dont anymore. My opinions are my own]

slooonz 6y ago
Don’t they ? Don’t the interests on their endowment cover the cost of the technical infrastructure ?
garbagetime 6y ago
The notices give a sense of urgency and uncertainty. They also use that insinuation, as well as the fact that proportionately few users donate, to guilt readers into donating. That's unkind, unpleasant behavior that makes me like Wikipedia less (along with increasing issues with the content of the website - at least the English articles).
- kaba0 6y ago
  What issues do you have with content?
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    Gwern says it best: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      Damn, he always does. Good read. I feel like the same thing happened to stack overflow.
      - geoduck14 6y ago
        What is happening with Stack Overflow?
        brokenmachine 6y ago
        It's toxic. Just try asking a question.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Commonly cited problems are the lack of neutrality, which is well reflected by how different the political tone of different language versions is. — the Russian article on Vladimir Putin is quite a bit less critical than the English article, and in reverse, the English article on Barack Obama is quite a bit more lauding than how other languages treat him. But that is unavoidable for articles written by men, rather than some truly neutral artificial intelligence. My gripe is that I find that Wikipedia does not acknowledge the issues enough, and seems to mostly assert that it is fairly neutral.
    - blueblisters 6y ago
konjin 6y ago
>The servers don't buy themselves. You could argue that WMF doesn't spend money effectively if you want, servers are a small part of the budget after all and like any org there are parts of the budget that are of questionable value, however its a bit much to claim its not going to supporting the wiki. Purchase of computer equipment: (3,709,426) At 3% return they need 100 million in the market to cover it, their short term investments are 95 million. Wikimedia does not need to raise money ever again if the only thing they are about are servers: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2019-2020_Audit_Report.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikim... Wikimedia is the perfect example of a bureaucracy expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy.
- estaseuropano 6y ago
  Wikimedia/pedia also has constantly new challenges and tasks. Would you want them to not ever change the software, management, ...? WMF has a mission beyond wikipedia, all of them related, in the public interest and transparently done.
  - konjin 6y ago
    Wikimedia is welcome to raise money for wikimedia. Their fundraisers on wikipedia are however as much a dark pattern as anything google and facebook do on their privacy.
  - pydry 6y ago
    The more money it takes the more it will end up relying upon large donors and the more will kowtow to the interests of those donors. So, yes, I'd rather they were extemely conservative about software and management. Running PHP and having a non visual editor is less of a big deal than having to tweak donor Wikipedia pages to remove awkward facts to keep the $$$ flowing and salaries paid.
rvba 6y ago
The servers are relatively low when compared to the rest There is an essay called "wikipedia has cancer" about its balooning costs that grow like a tumor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
- Qub3d 6y ago
  FYI, the user who wrote that keeps an annually-updated version on his own userpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... It includes updates as of March 2020.
- fomine3 6y ago
  This post should be pinned for this topic.
- bawolff 6y ago
  I've read it. I think its misleading. Hosting costs were less when wikimedia had no money, but speed was much lower, downtime was constant, there were no backup data centers (and the data center was literally in a high risk hurricane zone), and the sites had exponential growth since then. I'm not sure if that chart includes salary cost, but there's also the difference between paying all the sysadmins vs largely volunteer sysadmins. Maybe there's an argument that its better to stick to volunteers if at all possible, but at the end of the day there are quality improvements when you have 24/7 on call coverage vs hoping some random volunteer with a day-job is available to bring the site back up when it explodes (not to mention burn out is not sustainable in the long term). At the end of the day, wikipedia's hosting is much higher quality now than it was in the beginning. Wikipedia used to go down so much there was literally an external website dedicated as a scratch pad for users to write articles on until the real website came back up. Back in the day, when WMF had no money, they cut every corner they could to make it work. The result was something that was always on fire but got the job done. Now we have much better quality. But quality costs money. Whether or not the trade-off is worth it is debatable, but lets not pretend that wikimedia hosting costs are buying the same thing as they were in 2005. Last of all, i would encourage a comparison to any other site of similar size/popularity. Wikimedia hosting is orders of magnitude cheaper than industry norms. [Disclaimer: used to work there but not on the infra team. I dont work there anymore. My opinions are my own]
h_anna_h 6y ago
"Hosting wikipedia accounts for roughly 2% of their total expenses" Last time that I posted about it I ended up getting mass-downvoted though https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26056276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26056276
garaetjjte 6y ago
Their fundraising banners are obnoxious and A/B tested to death, worded such that it seems they are so cash-strapped that they will shut down tomorrow if you don't donate. In reality they raising a LOT more money than necessary to operate servers.
thunkshift1 6y ago
There would not be nothing to put on those servers is not for the volunteers.

refraincomment 6y ago

Wikipedia quality has actually gone down since the donation campaigns started. A website like pypi gets much more server load and they have never asked for a penny.

denkquer 6y ago
there is no way on earth pypi traffic is higher than wikipedias.
- refraincomment 6y ago
  https://dtdg.co/pypi https://dtdg.co/pypi pypi servers receive 1 million requests per minute. That's likely more than wikipedia.
  - Qub3d 6y ago
    Back-of-the-envelope math says Wikipedia serves at least twice as much traffic. According to Wikipedia's public statistics[0], they receive ~3 Billion media requests per day, which is about 2 million requests per minute. https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects/content/total-mediarequests/normal|bar|2-year|~total|daily https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects/content/total-med...
  - joosters 6y ago
    https://pageviews.toolforge.org/siteviews/?platform=all-access&source=pageviews&agent=user&range=latest-20&sites=en.wikipedia.org https://pageviews.toolforge.org/siteviews/?platform=all-acce... en.wikipedia.org has around 260 million page views per day. Each page view consists of multiple HTTP requests (picking a few random pages shows twenty or more per page) - so I'm pretty sure that wikipedia has higher traffic figures.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    Both wikipedia and pypi requests are >99% readonly and cacheable, and neither have strict global consistency guarantees. That makes them very cheap and technically easy to run through a free global CDN like cloudflare.

rahidz 6y ago

>... thousands of Wikipedia “volunteers” essentially work on the site full-time, driving its success — but that while they get nothing tangible for their efforts, WMF bankrolls its employees’ cooking classes, massages and gym memberships. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12...

joe_91 6y ago

While they may have enough money year on year - as someone who has been donating yearly for the past 10 years I prefer that it stays ad free. It is a fantastic resource and while is a need for increased transparency, more fiscal responsibility etc. Is there an alternative resource out there that provides as much value to the world? I'd be happy to switch and start supporting something else if so. It would be rather sad to see donations drop off and the project shut down... I know this would likely never happen with the amount of value it offers at this stage but still...

pydry 6y ago
I'd rather they just ran an ultra transparent ad network and capped maximum spend at $100 and banned groups or individuals who tried to get around it. This would be less risky than donations as it would ensure it doesn't rely on any groups in particular for cash who might have dirty laundry to hide. Like big tech.
- cj 6y ago
  > capped maximum spend at $100 They would need 100,000 advertisers to earn $10 million, which seems impractical. For comparison, they earned $120 million in contributions in 2020. That said, Facebook has 8-10 million advertisers, many probably running low budget campaigns. But low budget campaigns typically only work when they're hyper-targeted / personalized (something I assume we don't want Wikipedia to do)
  - rhines 6y ago
    While I'd usually agree, I'd say Wikipedia has a great opportunity to target ads without predatory data harvesting - they can simply be put on relevant pages. Maybe not as effective as user-level targeting, but probably still some decent opportunities there. And easy to have advertisers bid for space on more in-demand pages.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  This would be absolutely horrible for me. Ads are designed to distract us and manipulate our emotions or identities in order to get us to spend more money than we need to spend. Wikipedia as it is now is a counter to those distractive, manipulative forces.

jstummbillig 6y ago

> is being used to increase the foundation's bureaucracy and endowment. What is that supposed to mean? Increasing "bureaucracy and endowment" is not a goal in itself. Are you implying systemic misappropriation and bad faith acting inside wikipedia org? If so I encourage heavy citation.

pydry 6y ago
Another user cited the "Wikipedia has cancer" page.
kps 6y ago
> Increasing "bureaucracy and endowment" is not a goal in itself. It is for some bureaucrats, who are paid according to their ‘importance’. (In the commercial world, this is sometimes limited by a need to produce actual results.)

Vinnl 6y ago

I think there's some merit to that argument, but the other side is what happens if funding dries up or significantly decreases (e.g. after another economic crisis) - do they have enough runway? Through that lens, IIRC they're not that wealthy. (And in terms of work that people actually appreciate: I also very much appreciate that it's practically never down and responds quickly. Just not as actively, I suppose, since you only notice when it's not there.)

sqqqqrly 6y ago
The ends justify the deceit?
- Vinnl 6y ago
  What deceit?
marcinzm 6y ago
They have $180 million in the bank after you take away liabilities. Their expenses are $90 million however a decade ago they were $20 million and I believe page views haven't increased that dramatically. They spend $20 million a year on grants and awards. If they focused on just running the website they'd probably have a decade of runway. If they had saved money instead of growing expenses until now then they'd probably have had 20+ years of runway by now.

ignoramous 6y ago

> And all the real work that people actually appreciate is done for free by volunteers. I have been contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons for well over 2 years now: Volunteers do contribute a lot but they also tend to create ruckus in equal proportion. One such example: The tools the engineers build for a focus group of Editors who have one or two jobs to do across all Wikipedia properties are absolutely important and don't come for free.

dhdhhdd 6y ago

How much does wikipedia need to operate and how much are the donations? I kept donating every year for the past several years, but I wonder if I should continue to do so. As other commenters mentioned, the dark patterns make me reluctant to donate in the future, and this move potentially too.

neom 6y ago
Audited financials: FY 16&17: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/da/Wikimedia_Foundation_Audit_Report_-_FY16-17.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/da/Wikim... FY 18&19: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikimedia_Foundation_Audit_Report_-_FY18-19.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim...

okprod 6y ago

Their 990's are online

marvin 6y ago

Increasing the endowment is fine. That’s a recurring source of income that gives them complete independence for the future.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

I like how often the top comment is negative when talking about a free and open repository of knowledge.

choicenotchance 6y ago

Also, they're ripe with propaganda in their pieces. Take for example, the anti-CAA riots. They've singled out Hindus and the incumbent central govt's leaders as the sole perps. Where as in fact it was Tahir Hussain from Aam Aadmi Party who conducted the fires and mob violence and stabbing of an IAS officer.