3 ms·

I’ll take that over advertising any day of the week. This isn’t remotely as misleading or damaging as half the ads I see on Facebook or Instagram every day.

layer8 4y ago
It’s disingenuous and manipulative, which makes one wonder what else they are disingenuous and manipulative about. For an alleged nonprofit, it leaves a bad taste.
- sph 4y ago
  Seconding GP, I'd rather have a misleading plea message than them trying to extract money out of my attention or data through ads. That is manipulative, even though we as society are pretty used to it. What annoys me the most is that I've been donating to Wikipedia for over a decade and I still got the plea message, but if I click that little X button I don't see it anymore. Big deal.
- acheron 4y ago
  They’re disingenuous about claiming they need money for Wikipedia. They have way more than enough money for Wikipedia, they need more donations for their other random projects.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    This is a bit misleading. The money is mostly going to projects to improve wikipedia. Which is different from just keeping the site up, but its not like the money is being spent on things totally unrelated.
origin_path 4y ago
Hmm, disagree. I feel like most ads are not manipulative or damaging. Most are just informing you about the product's existence in ways that attempt to be memorable. To the extent others are manipulative they're so in predictable ways that can be easily compensated for, like telling you the product is great when maybe there are other people who disagree. For more objective claims there are truth in advertising laws that seem to work well enough. Wikipedia's tactics here have long been very scummy. They're a charity not a company, so people's guard is down due to the incorrect belief that charities don't have/care about profits. And the claims they're making aren't of the subjective type you learn to ignore in advertising - they tend to strongly create the impression that they're in dire poverty and Wikipedia might shut down if they don't raise enough money, which is just flat out untrue. Frankly, I'd rather have advertising than this situation. Advertising can be annoying but it wouldn't create a culture of dishonesty at the Wikimedia Foundation, as relying on donations has apparently done. Especially for an encyclopedia organization, honesty and trustworthyness are some of their most important assets, and every time they do this they set it on fire.

layer8 4y ago

It’s disingenuous and manipulative, which makes one wonder what else they are disingenuous and manipulative about. For an alleged nonprofit, it leaves a bad taste.

sph 4y ago
Seconding GP, I'd rather have a misleading plea message than them trying to extract money out of my attention or data through ads. That is manipulative, even though we as society are pretty used to it. What annoys me the most is that I've been donating to Wikipedia for over a decade and I still got the plea message, but if I click that little X button I don't see it anymore. Big deal.
acheron 4y ago
They’re disingenuous about claiming they need money for Wikipedia. They have way more than enough money for Wikipedia, they need more donations for their other random projects.
- bawolff 4y ago
  This is a bit misleading. The money is mostly going to projects to improve wikipedia. Which is different from just keeping the site up, but its not like the money is being spent on things totally unrelated.

origin_path 4y ago

Hmm, disagree. I feel like most ads are not manipulative or damaging. Most are just informing you about the product's existence in ways that attempt to be memorable. To the extent others are manipulative they're so in predictable ways that can be easily compensated for, like telling you the product is great when maybe there are other people who disagree. For more objective claims there are truth in advertising laws that seem to work well enough. Wikipedia's tactics here have long been very scummy. They're a charity not a company, so people's guard is down due to the incorrect belief that charities don't have/care about profits. And the claims they're making aren't of the subjective type you learn to ignore in advertising - they tend to strongly create the impression that they're in dire poverty and Wikipedia might shut down if they don't raise enough money, which is just flat out untrue. Frankly, I'd rather have advertising than this situation. Advertising can be annoying but it wouldn't create a culture of dishonesty at the Wikimedia Foundation, as relying on donations has apparently done. Especially for an encyclopedia organization, honesty and trustworthyness are some of their most important assets, and every time they do this they set it on fire.