3 ms·

Crypto can overall be a scam (or not, pick your poison), but if it's helping wikimedia get funding then that 'baby' is worth saving. I think we can all agree t

Crypto can overall be a scam (or not, pick your poison), but if it's helping wikimedia get funding then that 'baby' is worth saving. I think we can all agree that wikimedia is a net positive in the world.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> I think we can all agree that wikimedia is a net positive in the world. Should Wikimedia take funds from the Kremlin, North Korea and Drug cartels, or should they have limits on ethical sources of funding? You don't have to answer what you would do, but it is 100% legitimate for them to choose to have clear, written guidelines on what funds they ethically agree to accept.
- gnomewascool 5y ago
  I don't think that accepting cryptocurrencies is quite equivalent to accepting funds from the Kremlin, North Korea and Drug cartels. It's more equivalent to accepting donations in roubles, in North Korean won or in the form of legal drug caches. It's not about the source, but the means of the payment. I can imagine people accepting money from dubious sources, but not via dubious means and vice-versa.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > I don't think that accepting cryptocurrencies is quite equivalent to accepting funds from the Kremlin I didn't say it was the same, just that they can choose to draw a line somewhere. > It's more equivalent to accepting donations in roubles And many are in fact drawing the line at that. > I can imagine people accepting money from dubious sources, but not via dubious means and vice-versa Agreed, though I think that once you start looking into ethical funding "why not both" is going to be a common position.
j16sdiz 5y ago
Wikimedia Foundation have hundreds of million of dollars. Nothing need saving See https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...

3 ms·

Crypto can overall be a scam (or not, pick your poison), but if it's helping wikimedia get funding then that 'baby' is worth saving. I think we can all agree t

by denkmoon 5y ago

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> I think we can all agree that wikimedia is a net positive in the world. Should Wikimedia take funds from the Kremlin, North Korea and Drug cartels, or should they have limits on ethical sources of funding? You don't have to answer what you would do, but it is 100% legitimate for them to choose to have clear, written guidelines on what funds they ethically agree to accept.
- gnomewascool 5y ago
  I don't think that accepting cryptocurrencies is quite equivalent to accepting funds from the Kremlin, North Korea and Drug cartels. It's more equivalent to accepting donations in roubles, in North Korean won or in the form of legal drug caches. It's not about the source, but the means of the payment. I can imagine people accepting money from dubious sources, but not via dubious means and vice-versa.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > I don't think that accepting cryptocurrencies is quite equivalent to accepting funds from the Kremlin I didn't say it was the same, just that they can choose to draw a line somewhere. > It's more equivalent to accepting donations in roubles And many are in fact drawing the line at that. > I can imagine people accepting money from dubious sources, but not via dubious means and vice-versa Agreed, though I think that once you start looking into ethical funding "why not both" is going to be a common position.
j16sdiz 5y ago
Wikimedia Foundation have hundreds of million of dollars. Nothing need saving See https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...