3 ms·
Oh please, the mentions of having to seek alternative funding models like subscriptions and ads are clearly meant to raise the image of a site on the brink of u
by Macha 4y ago
Oh please, the mentions of having to seek alternative funding models like subscriptions and ads are clearly meant to raise the image of a site on the brink of unsustainability to potential donors
- akolbe 4y agoThe implied subscription threat is a complete red herring. They should be ashamed for even mentioning it in their fundraising messages. Wikipedians wouldn't work for free for a subscription service. The whole project would fork to a new host. The Wikimedia Foundation's own mission statement says, "The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the internet free of charge, in perpetuity." https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/mission/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/mission/
- denton-scratch 4y agoMuch the same applies to the Mozilla Foundation. You can't contribute donations to Firefox; you can only contribute to the Mozilla Foundation, which spends most of the money it gets from donations on things that aren't Firefox.
- jevgeni 4y agoSure. And if you accept those images or not is your thing. Their banners are super annoying at only 2% conversion rate. What will it be without those banners?