3 ms·

My thoughts too, "living paycheck to paycheck" doesn't sound like it ensures Wikimedia's survival. We'd all be shouting "Save Wikipedia!" if they have a bad yea

My thoughts too, "living paycheck to paycheck" doesn't sound like it ensures Wikimedia's survival. We'd all be shouting "Save Wikipedia!" if they have a bad year were expenses are up and donations are drastically down and they end up going offline due to not having enough reserve to help it.

joshuaissac 5y ago
But Wikipedia is living paycheck to paycheck despite getting a lot of donations. That is what Guy Macon's article is complaining about.
- loeg 5y ago
  Yeah. The paycheck is rising exponentially every year, and yet they find a way to spend it all every year. The vast majority of those expenses are not Wikipedia. Wikipedia's cancer is the Wikimedia organization.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    Cancer? Wow. Personally, I expect they have a lot of good they can do in the world. And I believe they need resources to do it. What do you do that is so virtuous that you can call Wikimedia a cancer?
    - loeg 5y ago
      > What do you do that is so virtuous that you can call Wikimedia a cancer? That's a very caustic statement, and it's not your place to judge, but if you're inviting me to soapbox: Personally, I give my charitable dollars to Against Malaria Foundation to buy insecticidal bed nets. They've raised $342 million in total since their founding and distributed ~137 million nets. GiveWell estimates the program costs about $3000-5000 per life saved; or to put it another way, they've saved roughly 68,000 lives. The WHO estimates that 409,000 people died of malaria in 2019 alone; there's a lot left to do here. WMF has raised more than double that (~$800 million), over a similar time frame. Of that, Wikipedia's current hosting expenses and compensation for authors and editors totals something like $2.5 million annually. If you think that's a good use of your charity dollars, great. We can agree to disagree. If you have any spare capacity, though, I would highly encourage giving to Against Malaria Foundation, or any of GiveWell's other top charities.
bashmack 5y ago
The $100m Endowment was their hedge against donations drying up, being a big enough cash hoard to allow them to stay online indefinitely if donations dropped to zero. It is now fully funded. I wonder how many people even realise this is the case, and will carry on donating under the false impression Wikipedia needs their help to survive.

joshuaissac 5y ago

But Wikipedia is living paycheck to paycheck despite getting a lot of donations. That is what Guy Macon's article is complaining about.

loeg 5y ago
Yeah. The paycheck is rising exponentially every year, and yet they find a way to spend it all every year. The vast majority of those expenses are not Wikipedia. Wikipedia's cancer is the Wikimedia organization.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  Cancer? Wow. Personally, I expect they have a lot of good they can do in the world. And I believe they need resources to do it. What do you do that is so virtuous that you can call Wikimedia a cancer?
  - loeg 5y ago
    > What do you do that is so virtuous that you can call Wikimedia a cancer? That's a very caustic statement, and it's not your place to judge, but if you're inviting me to soapbox: Personally, I give my charitable dollars to Against Malaria Foundation to buy insecticidal bed nets. They've raised $342 million in total since their founding and distributed ~137 million nets. GiveWell estimates the program costs about $3000-5000 per life saved; or to put it another way, they've saved roughly 68,000 lives. The WHO estimates that 409,000 people died of malaria in 2019 alone; there's a lot left to do here. WMF has raised more than double that (~$800 million), over a similar time frame. Of that, Wikipedia's current hosting expenses and compensation for authors and editors totals something like $2.5 million annually. If you think that's a good use of your charity dollars, great. We can agree to disagree. If you have any spare capacity, though, I would highly encourage giving to Against Malaria Foundation, or any of GiveWell's other top charities.

bashmack 5y ago

The $100m Endowment was their hedge against donations drying up, being a big enough cash hoard to allow them to stay online indefinitely if donations dropped to zero. It is now fully funded. I wonder how many people even realise this is the case, and will carry on donating under the false impression Wikipedia needs their help to survive.