3 ms·
I'm not morally judging them. If they think it's a good idea, good for them. I'm just not interested in funding those initiatives at that percentage of budget
by icelancer 4y ago
I'm not morally judging them. If they think it's a good idea, good for them.
I'm just not interested in funding those initiatives at that percentage of budget and would rather send the money to other essential Internet companies who have lesser investments in those ideas. I still give some to Wikimedia, just not as much.
- capableweb 4y agoThank you for explaining your position! Which internet companies do you currently donate to that also publishes exactly what they spend their money on, so you can make sure they don't spend similar amount on similar initiatives? In my experience, the Wikimedia Foundation seems to be the one who is most transparent about where funds go, while organizations like Internet Archive doesn't make a lot of data public, at least via their own website.
- icelancer 4y agoWikimedia is not unique. CharityWatch is a good place to start. Many high-rated nonprofits detail very specifically where all funding goes. https://www.charitywatch.org/ https://www.charitywatch.org/ Also, Wikimedia may not be as transparent as you think. Here's more information on that, but the whole thread is worth reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32841892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32841892
- capableweb 4y agoThanks yet again! So Wikimedia is a non-profit AFAIK, you have any idea why it's not listed on charitywatch.org?
- icelancer 4y agoIt's on Charity Navigator. Not sure why it's not on CharityWatch. https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703 https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703 EDIT: However it is not updated for recent years. Likely because Wikimedia is not transparent enough with their financial statements.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]