7 ms·

With the financial situation being how it is I, paradoxically, would currently consider donating to Wikipedia to be actively harmful to the future of Wikipedia.

by orlp 4y ago

With the financial situation being how it is I, paradoxically, would currently consider donating to Wikipedia to be actively harmful to the future of Wikipedia. The larger its dragon hoard of money grows (which is already way beyond any sort of costs to keep up Wikipedia for decades), the larger the incentive for unscrupulous individuals to corrupt the Wikipedia mission to tap into this money for personal benefit. I can't help but conclude that if you love Wikipedia and what it does... don't give them any more money for the time being.

tootie 4y ago
It's completely normal for a successful nonprofit to have an endowment that grows in good years and can be spent when needed. They don't pay dividends or anything like that so it sits in a cash reserve.
reflexco 4y ago
The bigger threat to Wikipedia is people who want to corrupt its information content. People wanting to get their treasure chest is not an existential threat. The existing employees and collaborators are more likely to get corrupted by nefarious actors if they don't have independent revenue sources.
- Kinrany 4y ago
  > People wanting to get their treasure chest is not an existential threat. For the organization, sure. For the content it may very well be.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > if they don't have independent revenue sources. Nobody is saying wikipedia should have zero donations. Just that people piling on extra money should cool it.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  More reason to have fewer employees.
throw__away7391 4y ago
Right, I've seen many, many projects in the for-profit sector fail because the budget was too high.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Not fail, but I have seen tons of for profit companies become shitty, expensive, and wasteful products once they had a monopoly and massive revenue
amelius 4y ago
Wow, that almost sounds like "don't feed the dog, because it'll become a beggar".
- loeg 4y ago
  This metaphor is broken. Dogs (and their appetites) don't grow exponentially.
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    Whereas nonprofits are black holes for money
throw10920 4y ago
Anyone remember cost disease[1]? My favorite hypothesis for one of the major causes is an excess of funding/resources/money without pressure to efficiently make use of those resources - which includes not siphoning them off for personal gain, as you point out here [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-disease/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost...
kotenshu 4y ago
Is it really true that their hoard is enough to keep the site running for decades? it seems their annual surplus is less than their annual expenses..
- fluoridation 4y ago
  "Decades" might be an exaggeration, but certainly several years if they got they spenditures under control.
- akolbe 4y ago
  Please have a look at this table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial... Then read this 2013 post from a past Wikimedia VP: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124621.html https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March... So there is a difference between keeping the Wikimedia Foundation organization going and keeping Wikipedia going. Keeping the Wikimedia Foundation going at its current size costs about 10 times as much as just keeping Wikipedia going, under the assumptions of that 2013 post. You can't use "keep Wikipedia online" indefinitely as a justification for raising ever more money in order to expand. The Wikimedia Foundation should talk far more in its fundraising about what those hundreds of additional people are actually doing, including projects other than Wikipedia, instead of projecting this image of a small raft of people struggling to hold Wikipedia together with duct tape.
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  You can't just look at the total expenses, you need to look at what the necessary expenses are. It's easy to create new expenses when you have available money to spend.
  - akolbe 4y ago
    Exactly. Which is precisely what has happened.
xenadu02 4y ago
It is clear the foundation has been corrupted by the professional non-profit class. These are the same kinds of people who staff up a "housing foundation" in San Francisco, burn money for 10-15 years, and never build a single unit of housing. The organization becomes a parasite that exists only to perpetuate itself. Hiring and spending expand to fill all available space which becomes its own justification to increase fundraising further. If any actual work for the public good gets done that's just a side benefit. If WMF had simply held spending constant (adjusting for inflation) for just a few years they could have had an endowment big enough to ensure Wikipedia is able to run independently forever. If they were being responsible they'd also have spun it into a subsidiary non-profit that owned Wikipedia along with that endowment with a charter to focus exclusively on running Wikipedia and developing the software. Then their octopus of random spending programs could be operated as a sister subsidiary without any risk of destroying Wikipedia itself. Honestly at this point if they proposed that plan I'd be willing to donate to get it done. Instead they hold Wikipedia hostage to justify their expanding empire.

by orlp 4y ago

tootie 4y ago

It's completely normal for a successful nonprofit to have an endowment that grows in good years and can be spent when needed. They don't pay dividends or anything like that so it sits in a cash reserve.

reflexco 4y ago

The bigger threat to Wikipedia is people who want to corrupt its information content. People wanting to get their treasure chest is not an existential threat. The existing employees and collaborators are more likely to get corrupted by nefarious actors if they don't have independent revenue sources.

Kinrany 4y ago
> People wanting to get their treasure chest is not an existential threat. For the organization, sure. For the content it may very well be.
Dylan16807 4y ago
> if they don't have independent revenue sources. Nobody is saying wikipedia should have zero donations. Just that people piling on extra money should cool it.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
More reason to have fewer employees.

throw__away7391 4y ago

Right, I've seen many, many projects in the for-profit sector fail because the budget was too high.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Not fail, but I have seen tons of for profit companies become shitty, expensive, and wasteful products once they had a monopoly and massive revenue

amelius 4y ago

Wow, that almost sounds like "don't feed the dog, because it'll become a beggar".

loeg 4y ago
This metaphor is broken. Dogs (and their appetites) don't grow exponentially.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  Whereas nonprofits are black holes for money

throw10920 4y ago

Anyone remember cost disease[1]? My favorite hypothesis for one of the major causes is an excess of funding/resources/money without pressure to efficiently make use of those resources - which includes not siphoning them off for personal gain, as you point out here [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-disease/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost...

kotenshu 4y ago

Is it really true that their hoard is enough to keep the site running for decades? it seems their annual surplus is less than their annual expenses..

fluoridation 4y ago
"Decades" might be an exaggeration, but certainly several years if they got they spenditures under control.
akolbe 4y ago
Please have a look at this table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial... Then read this 2013 post from a past Wikimedia VP: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124621.html https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March... So there is a difference between keeping the Wikimedia Foundation organization going and keeping Wikipedia going. Keeping the Wikimedia Foundation going at its current size costs about 10 times as much as just keeping Wikipedia going, under the assumptions of that 2013 post. You can't use "keep Wikipedia online" indefinitely as a justification for raising ever more money in order to expand. The Wikimedia Foundation should talk far more in its fundraising about what those hundreds of additional people are actually doing, including projects other than Wikipedia, instead of projecting this image of a small raft of people struggling to hold Wikipedia together with duct tape.
xboxnolifes 4y ago
You can't just look at the total expenses, you need to look at what the necessary expenses are. It's easy to create new expenses when you have available money to spend.
- akolbe 4y ago
  Exactly. Which is precisely what has happened.

xenadu02 4y ago

It is clear the foundation has been corrupted by the professional non-profit class. These are the same kinds of people who staff up a "housing foundation" in San Francisco, burn money for 10-15 years, and never build a single unit of housing. The organization becomes a parasite that exists only to perpetuate itself. Hiring and spending expand to fill all available space which becomes its own justification to increase fundraising further. If any actual work for the public good gets done that's just a side benefit. If WMF had simply held spending constant (adjusting for inflation) for just a few years they could have had an endowment big enough to ensure Wikipedia is able to run independently forever. If they were being responsible they'd also have spun it into a subsidiary non-profit that owned Wikipedia along with that endowment with a charter to focus exclusively on running Wikipedia and developing the software. Then their octopus of random spending programs could be operated as a sister subsidiary without any risk of destroying Wikipedia itself. Honestly at this point if they proposed that plan I'd be willing to donate to get it done. Instead they hold Wikipedia hostage to justify their expanding empire.