4 ms·

Why is Wikipedia being loaded a bad thing? Should they toil in near-poverty? It’s important to stockpile when times are good to survive when times are bad.

by rp1 5y ago

Veen 5y ago
But the people who toil are not paid; they are volunteers.
akolbe 5y ago
It's just the sheer amount of stockpiling while claiming to be under threat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#/media/File:WMF_Support_and_Revenue,_Expenses_and_Net_Assets_at_Year_End.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#/media/Fi... Wikipedia plays a central role in today's information flows. Wouldn't you want the foundation that stewards such a project to be committed to honesty and transparency?
- MagnumOpus 5y ago
  It's not the stockpiling - it's the raising ever-bigger piles and then throwing it at people/ventures/pet causes that have nothing to do with running Wikipedia _without_ even building up a sufficient reserve for rainy days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
rst 5y ago
Wikipedia being loaded is not a bad thing. But a lot of other worthy orgs aren't, and many donors will prefer to send their limited funds to those. Which makes it problematic for the donors if Wikipedia is being coy about already having all the money it needs.
garbagetime 5y ago
I think the issue is the manipulative notices. They were A/B tested into perfection and it's obvious the current ones won out because they mislead the reader into believing that Wikipedia needs his help urgently.
- trothamel 5y ago
  This is a big issue, especially when notices that stretch the truth are the first thing you see on a page that is striving for factual accuracy.
selfhoster11 5y ago
If people find out that they lied, they might become cynical to appeal banners altogether. There are other community projects that deserve the money more than Wikipedia - such as the Internet Archive, or the local food bank. Now they won't get the money, because people have become desensitized. IMO, cash is the wrong thing to stockpile anyway. They are big enough to benefit from a financial advisor, and with the right portfolio mix, they could both safeguard existing cash and assure a steady income stream so they don't need the donations in the first place.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
opportune 5y ago
Problem is not that they are loaded but they continue to expand their expenses as they get more money

Why is Wikipedia being loaded a bad thing? Should they toil in near-poverty? It’s important to stockpile when times are good to survive when times are bad.

by rp1 5y ago

Why is Wikipedia being loaded a bad thing? Should they toil in near-poverty? It’s important to stockpile when times are good to survive when times are bad.

Veen 5y ago

But the people who toil are not paid; they are volunteers.

akolbe 5y ago

It's just the sheer amount of stockpiling while claiming to be under threat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#/media/File:WMF_Support_and_Revenue,_Expenses_and_Net_Assets_at_Year_End.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#/media/Fi... Wikipedia plays a central role in today's information flows. Wouldn't you want the foundation that stewards such a project to be committed to honesty and transparency?

MagnumOpus 5y ago
It's not the stockpiling - it's the raising ever-bigger piles and then throwing it at people/ventures/pet causes that have nothing to do with running Wikipedia _without_ even building up a sufficient reserve for rainy days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...

rst 5y ago

Wikipedia being loaded is not a bad thing. But a lot of other worthy orgs aren't, and many donors will prefer to send their limited funds to those. Which makes it problematic for the donors if Wikipedia is being coy about already having all the money it needs.

garbagetime 5y ago

I think the issue is the manipulative notices. They were A/B tested into perfection and it's obvious the current ones won out because they mislead the reader into believing that Wikipedia needs his help urgently.

trothamel 5y ago
This is a big issue, especially when notices that stretch the truth are the first thing you see on a page that is striving for factual accuracy.

selfhoster11 5y ago

If people find out that they lied, they might become cynical to appeal banners altogether. There are other community projects that deserve the money more than Wikipedia - such as the Internet Archive, or the local food bank. Now they won't get the money, because people have become desensitized. IMO, cash is the wrong thing to stockpile anyway. They are big enough to benefit from a financial advisor, and with the right portfolio mix, they could both safeguard existing cash and assure a steady income stream so they don't need the donations in the first place.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

opportune 5y ago

Problem is not that they are loaded but they continue to expand their expenses as they get more money