3 ms·

> Let's be clear about this, the donation money isn't just used to keep the encyclopedia online. This is the very source of the complaint though. People want t

> Let's be clear about this, the donation money isn't just used to keep the encyclopedia online. This is the very source of the complaint though. People want to donate to fund the thing they actually use, not a bunch of other arbitrary projects they don’t care about. I mean take a look at the donation page under “Where your donation goes”. It does technically mention a “wide variety of projects” but the whole thing is written to make you feel like you are donating to the encyclopedia that is barely scraping by. And it certainly doesn’t mention anything about an endowment.

zozbot234 5y ago
The encyclopedia wouldn't be what it is, absent these "sister" projects. It's all interconnected. (I have tried to address this in a sibling comment.)
input_sh 5y ago
> People want to donate to fund the thing they actually use, not a bunch of other arbitrary projects they don’t care about. I see this argument often associated with Mozilla as well and I cannot put into words just how much I disagree. They've both made a product that's immensely useful to me, to the point where I don't even second guess donating to these projects on a semi-regular basis (like once or twice a year, usually in the range of $50-$100 per donation, equivalent to what I pay to certain services for a yearly subscription). What they do with that money is completely not my concern. I've donated money, it's up to them to decide what to do with it. I trust them to make that decision because they've already made a product that I rely on quite frequently. I couldn't care less if they use it to support an existing successful product (Wikipedia or Firefox), throw it into some other fringe thing that has a tiny chance of turning into another immensely useful product to me, fund advocacy projects, fellowships, CEO salaries... it doesn't matter. I trust the team behind it so I throw money at it.
kaba0 5y ago
So which one would you cut out? The hosted pictures, media? Or the database syncing factual data across languages so that a smaller language’s article won’t get factually wrong information because a data was spotted to be incorrect only in the large English version?
- EdiX 5y ago
  How about the 20 million they spend on awards and grants? It doubled between 2019 and 2020, isn't it weird that they spend 10x as much in awards and grants than they spend on hosting everything?
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    So you'd want them to cut the item in their budget that most directly rewards and supports their volunteer editors' work on the projects? That would seem to be unwise.
    - jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
      Scratch "directly", there is nothing direct about intransparent rewards. Again this sounds ominous for non-profit building on volunteer work
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        Their grant-making process is quite transparent. Much of it is documented publicly at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants
    - EdiX 5y ago
      Maybe? First off, how much of this is going to wikipedia editors and how much is going to other stuff? Honest question, I tried looking and I couldn't figure out which grants actually get approved. Secondly, the number of editors peaked in 2007, as far as I know. Why does the money spent on grants and awards keep going up if the number of editors keeps going down?
      - kaba0 5y ago
        Maybe to counter the decline of editors?

zozbot234 5y ago

The encyclopedia wouldn't be what it is, absent these "sister" projects. It's all interconnected. (I have tried to address this in a sibling comment.)

input_sh 5y ago

> People want to donate to fund the thing they actually use, not a bunch of other arbitrary projects they don’t care about. I see this argument often associated with Mozilla as well and I cannot put into words just how much I disagree. They've both made a product that's immensely useful to me, to the point where I don't even second guess donating to these projects on a semi-regular basis (like once or twice a year, usually in the range of $50-$100 per donation, equivalent to what I pay to certain services for a yearly subscription). What they do with that money is completely not my concern. I've donated money, it's up to them to decide what to do with it. I trust them to make that decision because they've already made a product that I rely on quite frequently. I couldn't care less if they use it to support an existing successful product (Wikipedia or Firefox), throw it into some other fringe thing that has a tiny chance of turning into another immensely useful product to me, fund advocacy projects, fellowships, CEO salaries... it doesn't matter. I trust the team behind it so I throw money at it.

kaba0 5y ago

So which one would you cut out? The hosted pictures, media? Or the database syncing factual data across languages so that a smaller language’s article won’t get factually wrong information because a data was spotted to be incorrect only in the large English version?

EdiX 5y ago
How about the 20 million they spend on awards and grants? It doubled between 2019 and 2020, isn't it weird that they spend 10x as much in awards and grants than they spend on hosting everything?
- zozbot234 5y ago
  So you'd want them to cut the item in their budget that most directly rewards and supports their volunteer editors' work on the projects? That would seem to be unwise.
  - jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
    Scratch "directly", there is nothing direct about intransparent rewards. Again this sounds ominous for non-profit building on volunteer work
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      Their grant-making process is quite transparent. Much of it is documented publicly at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants
  - EdiX 5y ago
    Maybe? First off, how much of this is going to wikipedia editors and how much is going to other stuff? Honest question, I tried looking and I couldn't figure out which grants actually get approved. Secondly, the number of editors peaked in 2007, as far as I know. Why does the money spent on grants and awards keep going up if the number of editors keeps going down?
    - kaba0 5y ago
      Maybe to counter the decline of editors?