18 ms·
Jimmy Wales’ Final Email
- ezoe 5y agoIt's common to all donation based non-profits groups and whether you like it or not, it works. Spamming donation request letters to the previous donors yields better outcome than not to do it.
- nsonha 5y agophew, the title made me think something happened to Jimmy
- rich_sasha 5y agoWhat are their expenses btw? Are their hosting costs so high? Do they have paid staff beyond some fairly trivial admin? Do they curate articles for cash?
- loeg 5y agoThe expenses of wikipedia itself are miniscule compared with wikimedia's total revenue and expenses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
- dmurray 5y agoHosting is a trivial cost for them. Bandwidth costs to serve text are super cheap these days, and they can do quite a bit of caching. You might be surprised what the money is actually spent on, but they're reasonably transparent about it Their complete audited accounts for 2019-20, page 3 [0] Total expenses: $129 million, of which - Salaries (~500 staff): $55 million - Awards and Grants (I suppose this is them donating to other causes?): $23 million - Hosting: $2.5 million - Professional Services (mostly lawyers?): $11 million - Donation processing: $4 million (3% seems reasonable here) - Other operating expenses: $10 million [0] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/#a1-2021-2022 https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/#a1-...
- ff317 5y agoChoosing this of the many similar replies to answer to: Full disclosure: I work for the Foundation in an engineering capacity. The foundation has over 500 staff members. No organization is perfectly efficient, but by and large the money does go to good use. Running a high-volume site like Wikipedia requires quite a lot of hard and soft infrastructure and supporting functions. The tech stack runs on its own bare metal (on the scale of a couple thousand servers) and its own CDN (to better protect against censorship and surveillance for the global audience, among many reasons), the total network currently has some physical presence in 7 different datacenter locations around the world, and there's all the redundant transport, transit, and peering network requirements that come with that. The live codebase gets new releases to production multiple times a week. There are many other side-services that run alongside the core MediaWiki codebase. There's constant network attacks on our infrastructure. There's all the infrastructure layer metrics and monitoring stuff. I could go on and on... On top of all that (which implies reasonably robust techie staffing): there's a Legal department that has to defend against threats to the org from businesses and governments around the world and in general does a ton of amazing work in many different directions (my favorite example was our past lawsuit against the NSA in the wake of the Snowden leaks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v._NSA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v._NSA). There's all the usual corporate supporting functions, including finance, travel, talent and culture, etc. Can't fail to mention the Fundraising team itself, of course! :) The foundation has a big job keeping the soft and hard infrastructure of the Wikimedia movement and Wikipedia going. The budget really isn't that unreasonable, and the endowment also isn't anywhere near big enough to replace our annual donation budget and ensure the org remains financially stable in the long run, yet. Usually when one of us goes to a conference and talks about our infrastructure, others are shocked to learn just how small our tech teams are for the jobs they're doing.
- cyounkins 5y agoOP here. Thank you for work on Wikipedia (seriously!). I can really appreciate that the Foundation has expenses and I think donations is really the best way to get the funds. My only qualm is with the aggressiveness and deception with which those donations are solicited.
- 5y ago
- mcguire 5y agoWikimedia Foundation's financials are online: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/#a1-2021-2022 https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/#a1-... Top expenses are: Salaries and wages ($56M), awards and grants[1] ($23M), professional services ($12M), other operating expenses ($10M), donation processing expenses ($5M), and internet hosting ($2M)[2]. [1] Still trying to figure out what goes into that. [2] From my own experience and their size and availability, I would expect that to be at least an order of magnitude larger. I'm impressed.
- birdyrooster 5y agoRIP Jimmy Wales
- andrewstuart 5y agoI don't resent them doing what they need to do. Wikipedia is one of the few things on the Internet that feels right. If they need to play the same shit game as everyone else, so be it. The tone of resentment here from the commenters is disappointing - it's like Wikipedia needing money is somehow not OK.
- loeg 5y agoWikipedia doesn't need money. Wikimedia wants an even bigger pile of money to light on fire, and trades on wikipedia's good name to solicit that money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
- myself248 5y agoYou've now posted this link in four threads, I think the point is made.
- paulintrognon 5y agoI kind of agree with the article, but on the other hand, I don't think I would I have ever donated without their aggressive campaign... Or I maybe would have once and then forgot about it. When I receive their email I'm like, "oh yeah! I should donate, totally forgot in a long time."
- avalys 5y agoA nonprofit using tricks to get your attention as they ask for donations? Say it isn’t so! In other news, NPR pledge drives are so annoying.
- cyounkins 5y agoWith NPR, does the aggressiveness match the need?
- voz_ 5y agoNPR has become a race baiting mouthpiece, sadly. The quality of the overall programming has sharply declined over the last 10 years. No more driveway moments for me.
- djbusby 5y agoCar Talk tho.
- jedimastert 5y agoHasn't had a new episode in almost ten years, sadly, and likely will not have a revival as Tom passed away. Apparently radio distribution was slated to stop at the beginning of last month
- handrous 5y agoThe loss of Car Talk and the changes to A Prairie Home Companion all but eliminated my weekend listening. Wait, Wait... is OK but I usually don't tune in without the other stuff to draw me. The other new comedy show (with Coulton and Eisenberg[?], I forget the name of it) isn't very good. Maybe they'll find their footing, but it's been years at this point, and it's still not good. On the Media is really good, but plays at a time when I'm almost never driving, so I rarely catch it. Their weekday news shows are too corporate-friendly and consist mostly of the same horse-race and monday-morning-quarterbacking campaign strategy garbage that everything else does, when the US is in national political campaign mode, which is like 60+% of the time now. The best US and international coverage on the whole damn station is when they just re-broadcast the BBC. [EDIT] Oh and there's the huge amount of time they spend either advertising or promoting other NPR shows or podcasts. God damn, it's so much. It's at least as much time as "commercial" radio devotes to that kind of thing. Donate? You fucking play corporate ads! All the time!
- toomuchtodo 5y agoAs of September 2021, the Wikimedia endowment stands at >$100 million. https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/22/wikimedia-foundation-reaches-100-million-endowment-goal/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/22/wikimedia-fo... (sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation)
- colechristensen 5y agoIt seems that this is approximately how much they spend each year and have ~500 staff. I like Wikipedia but does it really take that many people and that much money to run it? Having grown with startups from a very early stage to mid-stage, it seems pretty clear that 500 people never do 10x as much as 50 people, more like 2x if that. That much spend seems unsustainable long term.
- ZetaZero 5y ago> I like Wikipedia but does it really take that many people and that much money to run it? It takes a lot of people and money to raise $150m/year ;->
- belval 5y agoAccording to their 2019/2020 statement they spend 5M$ in "donation processing" and an additional 5M$ in wages for the donation campaigns. 10M$ in expenses to get 120M$ really isn't so bad. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2019-2020_Audit_Report.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikim...
- simonswords82 5y agoWhat to do with a problem like Wikipedia. It’s ultimately a fantastic source of information like nothing else on the internet. That has to be worth something right? Problem is that people probably don’t bother to donate as much as they could or should. I know I haven’t donated. Is there another way it could be monetised without ads?
- david_allison 5y agoThey're moving into selling access to structured data APIs. $50k/year for their mid-tier offering. "Contact us" after that. https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/ https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/ https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/pricing/ https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/pricing/
- wyager 5y agoWikipedia is not expensive to run. Wikimedia is a classic bloated nonprofit that keeps “needing” more money to grow the number of useless administrative sinecures they can support. https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_c...
- skulk 5y agoIMO using your resources to store a copy of all the articles (and even serve them if you can) is a pretty solid donation to the cause.
- dmurray 5y agoThe problem, as other posts allude to, is it has too much money and not enough interesting, useful projects to do with it. It's a great example of how a fantastic resource very much can be - and is - funded purely through donations of time and money. They just try to tell you it isn't doing well.
- cynoclast 5y agoWikipedia Founder Larry Sanger: "Wikipedia Is Badly Biased" (https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/) Such a shame.
- mistrial9 5y agoit is well-known in USA non-profits that some fundraising in some orgs takes over, and that those who can "make rain" get long-term status. Counter-point? lots of countries do not have "non-profit" at all. Wikipedia is a precious, troubled project IMHO
- wly_cdgr 5y agoWikipedia is far and away the most valuable project the world has ever seen and this guy is complaining about donation emails?
- cyounkins 5y agoYes. As I wrote, I have donated to Wikipedia and love the project. I think the methods they use to solicit donations undermines their trustworthiness.
- acover 5y agoWikipedia is great but I similarly don't trust their cries for help anymore. I won't donate till they communicate more honestly or Wikipedia - not wikimedia - needs help. It feels a lot like my local food bank begging for food but it turns out it's only their side venture composting food that's in need.
- lancesells 5y agoI'll donate to the annual email every year to keep them from adding ads or other forms of monetization.
- blowski 5y agoIt’s incredible how many people say they’d love to support an ad-free social network, frequently use Wikipedia, and don’t donate to Wikipedia. This is a problem for so many charities. People passionately agree with the mission, want to donate, can afford to donate… and yet don’t donate. And then complain when the charity is too aggressive in requesting donations.
- _3u10 5y agoDonations are the worst idea ever. They are hard to solicit and then when you do get one people have incredibly unreasonable expectations. How many people complain about non-profit execs making $200k but will happily buy nike's made by Chinese slave prison labor with out a thought as to how much the exec makes, or what the labor conditions are. Wikimedia is guilty of allowing people to volunteer their time. If you don't volunteer, nothing bad happens. Compare with try not volunteering your time to make Nike's in the Chinese prison system.
- roelmore 5y agoThey just do what works. Is this what 'ends justify the means'....means? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti...
- busterarm 5y agoI swear I googled to see if Jimmy Wales died first before reading this post.
- birdyrooster 5y agoRIP edit: fine, downvote me, I am just memorializing a fallen hero. guess I will do it alone
- m8s 5y agoThat's what I thought too. The title of this article is as much clickbait as Wales' emails.
- cyounkins 5y agoThat's the idea.
- 8260337551 5y agoInfrastructure isn’t free. Happy to donate to Wikipedia on a yearly basis. And the emails are only once a year.
- berkut 5y agoAre other people only having a single email per year? This year I've had three (two in September, both from donate@wikimedia.org, and one from jimmy@wikipedia.org in October saying 'We've had enough').
- andrewguenther 5y agoIf only it were once a year. Every quarter I get a whole thread spread out over a couple weeks. "Did you see our last email?" "There's still time to save Wikipedia!"
- extracharity 5y agoHey I came across your comments pertaining to AWS confidentiality agreement. I just got an offer from AWS, would love to chat! Dont see your email on your profile
- wyager 5y agoWikimedia spends like 95% of their money on stuff that isn’t Wikipedia. They’re a classic bloated NGO, where they have some initial mission they can do efficiently but they keep asking for money way down the diminishing returns curve.
- hguant 5y ago>they have some initial mission they can do efficiently Because the initial mission is still, by and large, done by volunteers and unpaid editors. Wikimedia is a bloated leech
- loeg 5y agoTo substantiate these (accurate) claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- inferyes 5y agoI have always found Wikipedias begging for money weird. Even if they chose to be driven by donations, I'd have imagined one the biggest website on the internet has better, more effective ways of raising money. Is it really that bad for non-profits on the internet?
- wpietri 5y agoWhat did you have in mind as those better and more effective ways?
- chiefalchemist 5y agoI would guess that's the crux of their efforts now. That is, like it or not, it works. As long as it's effective there's no incentive for them to change.
- kettleballroll 5y agoI can't really any good ways for them to raise money, outside of becoming a subscription service or selling user data. What ways did you imagine? Because the more I think about it, the harder this problem appears to be...
- ceejayoz 5y ago> I'd have imagined one the biggest website on the internet has better, more effective ways of raising money. How many of them are good for users, though? Sure, you can slap some Google AdWords on there, but there's a reputational and privacy cost. NPR-style sponsorships? Maybe, but I cringe when NPR does a story on Facebook that's bookended by "Facebook is a sponsor of NPR" a little. I'm a fan of the current model, in that it makes a conflict of interest quite unlikely.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 5y agoIt makes conflicts of interest a little less likely, but not at all unlikely. There are myriads of unsolved, ongoing conflicts of interest on any topic other than non-controversial scientific topics with broad consensus.
- okprod 5y agoUnfortunately not all donors donate without being asked/motivated.
- david_allison 5y agoThe majority of people don't donate without being asked. I'd estimate a ~70x increase of donations during a donation campaign.
- golemotron 5y agoWikipedia is 21st century PBS.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- JohnJamesRambo 5y agoI’ve said many times if they had just bought Bitcoin with their pledges long ago they would never have had to annoy us with this. I remember saying this when Bitcoin was $1800 in 2017. Even a less risky investment like the SP500 should surely have been enough. It has 4x’d in ten years. It doesn’t take $100 million and 500 employees to run some light Wikipedia pages. All the content is provided by users!
- tw600040 5y agoAnd if bitcoin had crashed to 0 their answer to the donors will be what?
- JohnJamesRambo 5y agoThe same answer they have now which is "give us more money."
- loeg 5y agoYeah, your bitcoin remark is totally dumb, but the idea of funding wikipedia by perpetual endowment consisting of some blend of stock and bond index funds is a good one. And indeed, they could have already created an endowment to fund wikipedia in perpetuity, if they didn't ramp up their spending to match their revenue every year.
- jbschirtzs 5y agoThe reality is this person was never going to donate anyway and so they found their excuse to not do so. Do you suppose they use wikipedia any less as a result?
- stephc_int13 5y agoWikipedia is a wonderful project built on the back of highly qualified unpaid staff. Management is milking the cow and has been for years. This is tricky because they rightfully have a stellar brand value, I am not sure that will last forever. As you know, the fish always rot from the head, this is a good example.
- jfrunyon 5y agoThat's my biggest problem with it. They raise all this money, and yes, a bunch of it goes to infrastructure. But the thing is, they always seem to find ways to spend whatever money they have, and none of it ever seems to make its way to their most critical and valuable staff: editors, admins, etc.
- legitster 5y ago> But open the email and you don’t see that text anywhere! In the email industry, we call this a "pre-header". The bit about "multi-part email" is pure nonsense. If you put any text above the body, it won't render in the email but will still be parsed by the inbox preview function (since it ignores any html it sees). This was mostly an exploit back in the day, but clearly email clients love it because they doubled down on supporting it. Having a different from and reply-to is also built into the way email was designed. Both of these features are built into every email client and service. I thought this was going to be a complaint about their clearly hyperbolic messaging, but OP is really frustrated about some of the most basic features of email. I wonder if he has yet learned that the letters he gets from the White House are not actually sent from the White House.
- lmc 5y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
- etskinner 5y agoThe email doesn't have a different From and Reply To, it has an email address where the sender's name should be. The author's complaint is that the sender claims to be one email, when it's actually from another.
- legitster 5y agoFair point! Although the name field isn't particularly sacred in its own way (your inbox may already be littered with things like "No Reply" or "Taco @ Trello"). I suspect this really comes down to spam filters. Most emails would generally avoid a shell game like this for fear of spam filters - but I imagine emails from Wikimedia have enough authority that they can get away with it more.
- DominikPeters 5y agoI just looked through my email, and you're right that many companies use preheaders (though usually with display: none). But I would classify most of them as summaries of the email content. The email from Jimmy Wales, in contrast, uses it for deceptive purposes: it shows a completely different text fragment that sounds like a brief personal email. Also, just because the "email industry" routinely uses bad practices, that doesn't make it okay for wikimedia to do so.
- richardatlarge 5y agoAt least fundraising seems to be one of the few areas where standards have fallen: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29054729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29054729
- throwawaysea 5y agoI've donated thousands to Wikipedia over the years, but I've noticed an increasing amount of bias in the website that made me hit the pause button. At first I saw it in a couple random examples, where I just thought "that's weird" and dismissed it as a random issue. But then I started to look for bias and noticed it much more frequently. And I don't mean just on the left-right American political spectrum, but also in other more complex ways, for example favoring Western scholarship over other scholarship. When I look at the Talk pages, I see regular bad faith application of policies that were written with better intentions. I'm not the only one to note this issue in recent years. Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, wrote a blog post titled "Wikipedia Is Badly Biased" last year (https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/). Although Wikipedia is decentralized, it is an institution. And I feel like we need more than one.
- btilly 5y agoFor another good article on Wikipedia's aggressive soliciting, see https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais... which was previously discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27339887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27339887. In 2016 a prominent Wikipedian saw the exponential trend and wrote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2..., aka "Wikipedia has Cancer".
- loeg 5y agoThe article copied in Signpost has been updated annually since 2016, too, at the original source (see prominent "UPDATED VERSION AT" link at the top).
- caymanjim 5y agoNone of these things are egregious violations of any ethical standard. Wikipedia is not a source of excessive spam, and their beg banners on the website, while mildly annoying (especially if you already donated), aren't so frequent that they bother me. The site has no ads and provides tremendous value to the world. Nitpicking some minor marketing annoyances (which are probably handled by hired guns) comes off as petty. One could make an argument that Wikipedia already has enough money that they could beg less and possibly survive indefinitely by just managing their current endowment well. One could make an argument that Google and others benefit so much from Wikipedia's high-quality search results that Google should help support them (although I wouldn't want Wikipedia to rely on corporate money). There are plenty of reasons why Wikipedia might not need to beg as often or at all. None of that makes these minor issues a problem.
- andrewguenther 5y agoI get a ton of value out of Wikipedia and I donate annually. Fun fact: If you unsubscribe from the donation email list, you are re-subscribed the next time you donate. It's scummy and infuriating and I hate to think that this kind of crap is what my money is actually going towards.
- ajay-b 5y agoI’ve never trusted Jimmy Wales with money and so I have never donated to Wikipedia.
- nobody_nothing 5y ago> People will tell me to click that “unsubscribe” button. I will and swear I have before. Regarding this point, I've had this suspicion of so many subscriptions – to the point where I was questioning my own memory/sanity on the regular. I finally set up a label in my Gmail inbox called "Already Unsubscribed!". Every time I unsubscribe to a newsletter, I add a Gmail filter that marks anything from that sender with the "Already Unsubscribed" label. This way I know if I'm just misremembering unsubscribing, or if I'm actually being spammed. Incidentally, I just checked that label after about a year of doing this. As it turns out, there's only one company that's ever continued to email me after my unsubscribe request. So I guess my memory (or sanity) has been failing me all this time. (And no, the company is not Wikimedia) :P
- cyounkins 5y agoIt's definitely possible I'm misremembering. I've donated multiple times and it'd be reasonable for them to re-add me upon donation. But I'm pretty sure I've unsubscribed since my last donation in 2019.
- legitster 5y agoA large part of my job managing email systems is dealing with unsubscribe issues. If the unsubscribe button doesn't work, it's probably one of these issues: - "Unsubscribed" is not persistent. If they have a logic that subscribes you to their emails (filling out a form), you will get resubscribed. - You are unsubscribing a different email than you subscribed with (This is like, 75% of cases we deal with. It could be a forwarder, or a POP download, or a DL, etc). - You are unsubscribing via the Google link and not the one in the email (not all systems are smart enough to recognize that). - Something is broken or someone screwed up the logic. If you reach out and inform them, they may have someone seriously look into it (for our company, this would be me). Or they are truly are scummy company and ignore unsubscribes or pull your address off of the same purchased list again. If they don't respond to you, pull the email headers and figure out who their host is and report them for abuse.
- nicbou 5y agoThere's another: a business creates new lists and adds old customers to it. Some popular websites have multiple categories of marketing lists that can be unsubscribed from one by one.
- bob229 5y agoWhy would you love Wikipedia? It is absolute and total garbahe
- matt_morgan 5y agoThe most successful nonprofit project in the history of the world and 90% of the comments here are about what they're doing wrong. Get a grip. Your idea about what they could be doing better is ... useless. That said, some of those email tactics are a little unsavory. But you can bet they test the hell out of them and they do what makes the most money.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 5y agoThat's exactly how the emails come across, optimized to squeeze out the absolute maximum of donations without any regard to non-profit or, say, ideals like integrity.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jbuhbjlnjbn 5y agoWikipedia on non-controversal scientific topics is great. The rabbit hole begins with controversial scientific topics and "edit wars", which rage since forever and no sensible solution was ever proposed, instead wikimedia arbitrarily blocking and banning editors, even on the pages about themselfes, trying to rectify information. It continues with the political topics and oh boy, just get to investigating and reading if you care for a look into the deep, dark depths. The short heads up is, wikipedia is absolutely riddled with one-sided, manipulative information on political topics. Often written by ghost writers, posting stuff 14 hours a day for years without a single day off. The finances and agressive begging for donations are also highly controversial. I have read multiple investigations accusing them of absolutely not needing any money, and staging a charade while getting huge sums by big interest groups, though I cannot estimate if this is true, or to which degree.
- tablespoon 5y ago> The rabbit hole begins with controversial scientific topics and "edit wars", which rage since forever and no sensible solution was ever proposed... Yeah, table stakes for editing Wikipedia on anything even remotely controversial is an obsessive personality, limitless time, and patience for an huge amount of toxicity. > ...instead wikimedia arbitrarily blocking and banning editors, even on the pages about themselfes, trying to rectify information. IMHO, it's quite sensible to not allow people to edit pages about themselves, because people tend to have a strong-well understood biases on that topic.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago> IMHO, it's quite sensible to not allow people to edit pages about themselves, because people tend to have a strong-well understood biases on that topic. Ok that sounds reasonable. But what if blatant falsehoods are written on a person on wikipedia? There is no way to rectify that information as far as I heard, probably only the legal way, suing for libel, with uncertain outcome facing a multimillion dollar company and the structure of semi-anonymous unpaid writers.
- 5y ago
- jhiggins777 5y agoWhenever I see these campaigns and emails I always think, "this could be solved by 1 ad"
- sanbor 5y agoOnce I had a conversation with somebody that works for Wikipedia email campaigns and she told me she hates this tactics but unfortunately are very effective to raise money. Apparently they test campaigns and they know the style to make people open their wallets. I used to hate this emails as well but now I get it's the small tradeoff for having an ad-free and free project. I think Wikipedia is more valuable than Netflix. Thus ideally I should be giving more money to Wikipedia than Netflix so they continue developing and growing. For some reason if I'm not encouraged/pushed I don't give money. And looks like many people/companies tend to give money to companies and products that lock them in, instead of giving money to support free/libre projects that would give them more freedom and without lock in.