7 ms·
In the UK your donations can be for a specified purpose, and must be earmarked for it. Is there no equivalent in the rest of the world? And perhaps more to the
by hkt 5y ago
In the UK your donations can be for a specified purpose, and must be earmarked for it. Is there no equivalent in the rest of the world?
And perhaps more to the point, Wikipedia has legal personality in the UK, so one assumes the above applies.
But really it would be pointless: I'm not going to tell Wikipedia what their strategy should be when I donate. So even if you do, they can put my donation to whatever purpose it is that yours precluded.
- throwaway2037 5y ago"earmarking" -- I would say this is done a case-by-case basis. When the donation is large enough, anything is possible.
- bawolff 5y agoIt applies to the USA too. (Note: Wikimedia UK is an independent organization. It is associated with, but not owned/controlled by WMF) However, often restricted donations result in people spending money on things that don't matter, because it might be earmarked for something that isn't needed. Even if not, it can distort priorities in ways that people earmarking the donations aren't aware of. Its the sort of thing, where the bureaucracy of it clearly isn't worth it for small donations. According to WMF's financial statement, there was about 4 million of such restricted donations in the 2018-2019 year.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]