4 ms·

Then they should tell donors and prospective donors what they do. As ever, all the content is written by unpaid volunteers (or people paid by others), but still

• shadowgovt 4y ago
  > Tell donors what they're funding Wikimedia has a 100/100 transparency rating. https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703 https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703
  • Macha 4y ago
    Notably none of the criteria measured in that rating consider their marketing. So yes their policies and filings exist, but those are not what they're presenting to potential donors, so do not prove the ads are not misleading
    • jasonlotito 4y ago
      https://wikimediafoundation.org/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/ How is this misleading? They provide an incredibly large amount of information. And more information can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Disputes
      • Macha 4y ago
        That is not the place donors get sent, nor the content of the ads shown to potential donors. The ads are screenshotted in the linked article and they lead here: https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LandingPage&country=IE&uselang=en&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_source=donate&utm_campaign=C13_en.wikipedia.org https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Landi... Yes, users can go elsewhere to find the information. The records are on file in the metaphorical filing cabinet downstairs. But if the messaging you're putting front and center contradicts said records, their existence doesn't counter criticism of the messaging
        • shadowgovt 4y ago
          "Elsewhere" in this case is the FAQ link at the bottom of the donation page. If a person has questions, that's what an FAQ is for. Calls to action are kept intentionally short because the research on human psychology is clear: every additional sentence beyond the first few decreases the odds of a conversion (that's adspeak for "closing the deal").
          • Macha 4y ago
            Yes, this is also why it lies, lying to make the situation seem more ominous also increases the odds of a conversion. But effectiveness doesn't imply ethicality, so "but it's effective" is not a defense against criticism of ethics.
            • jasonlotito 4y ago
              In that case, your comment is a lie, and I can freely dismiss it.
• micromacrofoot 4y ago
  it’s not at all unusual for an organization to donate to support the society it operates in
• Silverback_VII 4y ago
  "The Wikimedia Foundation defines racial equity as shifting away from Eurocentricity, White-male-imperialist-patriarchal supremacy, superiority, power and privilege..." from the knowledge equity fund page. what the heck
  • mattkrause 4y ago
    Meh. A good encyclopedia would present information from myriad perspectives, not just whatever happened to be "dominant." I want my article about Christoper Colombus to talk about how 19th century immigrants to America, especially Italians, found him inspirational, but also about how he was brutal, greedy, and ineffectual. (The current Wikipedia article is actually not bad on that front).
  • akolbe 4y ago
    The funny thing is that the Wikimedia Foundation is trying to get volunteers in Africa and India to edit and contribute content for free – content which then feeds the search engines and voice assistants of trillion-dollar US companies who do their damnedest not to pay tax in the countries in which they operate. Yeah, let's get away from imperialism and patriarchalism ...