8 ms·

May be referring to this part of the thread[1] linked in the article > Wikimedia gave $250,000 to Borealis's Racial Equity in Journalism Fund. That money was t

by ajdude 4y ago

May be referring to this part of the thread[1] linked in the article > Wikimedia gave $250,000 to Borealis's Racial Equity in Journalism Fund. That money was then cascaded down to a dozens of ideologically aligned news outlets across the US. > Thus, the money you give to keep Wikipedia online is diverted to bankroll the inescapable American culture war. [1] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1579776106034757633.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1579776106034757633.html

input_sh 4y ago
- jules 4y ago
  Here is the message wikipedia has on its donation page: > We'll get straight to the point: Today we ask you to defend Wikipedia's independence. > We're a non-profit that depends on donations to stay online and thriving, but 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way. If everyone who reads Wikipedia gave just a little, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come. The price of a cup of coffee is all we ask. > When we made Wikipedia a non-profit, people told us we’d regret it. But if Wikipedia were to become commercial, it would be a great loss to the world. > Wikipedia is a place to learn, not a place for advertising. The heart and soul of Wikipedia is a community of people working to bring you unlimited access to reliable, neutral information. > We know that most people will ignore this message. But if Wikipedia is useful to you, please consider making a donation of €5, €20, €50 or whatever you can to protect and sustain Wikipedia. Whether or not one likes the causes they give the money to, if they spend $100 million and they only use $2.4 million for hosting, and they also give money for political activism, then this is a misleading message, making it sound like they are on the cusp of not being able to cover the costs that keep the site online unless they start having ads on wikipedia.
  - input_sh 4y ago
    Oh I completely agree, misleading is the best way I'd describe this message as well. But the idea that they're "going woke" or "going political" with their money because they support BIPOC journalists and presenting that as a waste of money ($250k, about a month of hosting), that's where you completely lose me. Also I'm pretty sure Wikimedia does way more than just hosting.
    - jules 4y ago
      Well, they apparently did donate to some woke-adjacent pseudoscience, which seems like a waste of money to me. Regardless, I agree with you that the question isn't where some $0.25 million went, but why they are spending $100 million and still asking for donations with that misleading message, while a few years ago they were spending a small fraction of that even though their hosting costs were actually higher back then. It increasingly looks like Wikimedia as an organisation has a parasitical relationship with Wikipedia, doing enough to keep its host alive with a small fraction of its budget, while benefiting from the work of volunteers and not even fixing longstanding issues with the software that the volunteers ask to be fixed. Even beyond fixing bugs, I'd be happy to add to their $100 million budget if they actually did useful things with it. I can easily think of 10 features that would improve Wikipedia. For instance, Wikipedia pages such as "list of countries by GDP per capita" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...) are useful, but the table UI is not that great and the map is a non-interactive PNG image. For $100 million, why can't we hover over the country and see its name and the exact GDP per capita number?
    - akolbe 4y ago
      The Wikimedia Foundation collects money in places like India, South Africa and South America with those misleading messages: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais... Most of the money from the Knowledge Equity Fund so far has gone to organisations in the U.S. I think that indicates how much genuine thinking about diversity is taking place in the Wikimedia Foundation.
- motogpjimbo 4y ago
  I wonder whether you would post a comment similar to this if it turned out that the donation money had been funnelled to right-wing think tanks and had then subsequently been distributed to right-leaning commentators?
  - input_sh 4y ago
    You are equating supporting minorities in journalism to right-wing think tanks? In your view that's a completely cool and normal comparison to make? Yes, you're right. I wouldn't react the same way. One of those is clearly better than the other.
    - f1shy 4y ago
      Can you please elaborate on why one is better than the other?
      - input_sh 4y ago
        Cause being BIPOC while in journalism isn't a political ideology and their existence is not "woke" nor "political". On top of that I happen to believe a wider range of voices within journalism is incredibly important and see nothing controversial there. That seems way better to me than giving money to those hostile towards damn near every marginalized and underrepresented minority. Does it not seem that way to you? It's not my fault (nor is it Wikimedia's) that this specific historically marginalized and oppressed group of people as a collective leans a certain... less confederate-flag-waving way. Were they supposed to find a hypothetical centrist group of BIPOC journalists that will therefore then over-represent right-wing BIPOC population?
    - ajvs 4y ago
      So because they're donating to your political leaning, it's fine. Do realise that half the population leans the opposite way to you, and you'll see why encouraging more organisations to get political is a disastrous thing for society.
      - 4y ago
- Gareth321 4y ago
  You asked, they answered, and then you dodged with a flippant reply. Even if I agreed with you, this is a terrible way to discuss things.
  - input_sh 4y ago
    Oh shit, you're right! I apologise, I'm sure there's a better, more cool-headed way to discuss giving money to a marginalized population to make a foothold in a marginalized field with someone that views that action as "woke politics". I'm sure we've could've met in the middle (like only supporting some BIPOC journalists) if only I wasn't so gosh-darn divisive. My bad.
    - zB2sj38WHAjYnvm 4y ago
      When people accuse someone of being "woke", I believe they do not mean literally that they consider those people to be more awake to social justice issues, that they disagree with fixing injustice, and they want it to continue. Rather, it can be an accusation of performative social virtue, a distaste for sanctimonious platitudes, or a disagreement regarding the source of a particular systemic issue and how to fix it. Now, you can disagree with this, it is obviously impossible to tell for sure without reading people's minds, and many people will throw out accusations of "wokism" with little to no merit to the point where you lose the will to engage with any of them, but if you do argue against these accusations of "wokism" as endorsements of bigotry, you aren't actually engaging with what people are telling you. In that sense, the "middle" between "woke" and "bigoted" isn't "slightly bigoted", it's "not woke and not bigoted".
      - input_sh 4y ago
        Ah, so the middle is to just do nothing in favour of boosting marginalised groups, otherwise you're "too woke" because those marginalised groups tend to lean left? No, I don't think I can agree on that. Because, as I stated multiple times so far, marginalised people's existence != political. Being a bigot is a choice (and using the term woke unironically is a pretty good, albeit not perfect tell), being black is not. I couldn't care less about finding a common ground with bigotry. I have zero interest in debating them, and I have zero interest in debating your "centrist position" to do nothing to elevate BIPOC people's position in marginalised fields. Hope that clears up my comment for you!
- tiagod 4y ago
  What is this BIPOC voting population (I just learned this term today)? Are we talking of the united states of america or does this somehow apply to other countries? Don't these journalists push american viewpoints anyway, and aren't they much better funded than almost any newspaper outside the USA? Why should most of this money going to one of the richest countries in the world?

by ajdude 4y ago

input_sh 4y ago

jules 4y ago
Here is the message wikipedia has on its donation page: > We'll get straight to the point: Today we ask you to defend Wikipedia's independence. > We're a non-profit that depends on donations to stay online and thriving, but 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way. If everyone who reads Wikipedia gave just a little, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come. The price of a cup of coffee is all we ask. > When we made Wikipedia a non-profit, people told us we’d regret it. But if Wikipedia were to become commercial, it would be a great loss to the world. > Wikipedia is a place to learn, not a place for advertising. The heart and soul of Wikipedia is a community of people working to bring you unlimited access to reliable, neutral information. > We know that most people will ignore this message. But if Wikipedia is useful to you, please consider making a donation of €5, €20, €50 or whatever you can to protect and sustain Wikipedia. Whether or not one likes the causes they give the money to, if they spend $100 million and they only use $2.4 million for hosting, and they also give money for political activism, then this is a misleading message, making it sound like they are on the cusp of not being able to cover the costs that keep the site online unless they start having ads on wikipedia.
- input_sh 4y ago
  Oh I completely agree, misleading is the best way I'd describe this message as well. But the idea that they're "going woke" or "going political" with their money because they support BIPOC journalists and presenting that as a waste of money ($250k, about a month of hosting), that's where you completely lose me. Also I'm pretty sure Wikimedia does way more than just hosting.
  - jules 4y ago
    Well, they apparently did donate to some woke-adjacent pseudoscience, which seems like a waste of money to me. Regardless, I agree with you that the question isn't where some $0.25 million went, but why they are spending $100 million and still asking for donations with that misleading message, while a few years ago they were spending a small fraction of that even though their hosting costs were actually higher back then. It increasingly looks like Wikimedia as an organisation has a parasitical relationship with Wikipedia, doing enough to keep its host alive with a small fraction of its budget, while benefiting from the work of volunteers and not even fixing longstanding issues with the software that the volunteers ask to be fixed. Even beyond fixing bugs, I'd be happy to add to their $100 million budget if they actually did useful things with it. I can easily think of 10 features that would improve Wikipedia. For instance, Wikipedia pages such as "list of countries by GDP per capita" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...) are useful, but the table UI is not that great and the map is a non-interactive PNG image. For $100 million, why can't we hover over the country and see its name and the exact GDP per capita number?
  - akolbe 4y ago
    The Wikimedia Foundation collects money in places like India, South Africa and South America with those misleading messages: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais... Most of the money from the Knowledge Equity Fund so far has gone to organisations in the U.S. I think that indicates how much genuine thinking about diversity is taking place in the Wikimedia Foundation.
motogpjimbo 4y ago
I wonder whether you would post a comment similar to this if it turned out that the donation money had been funnelled to right-wing think tanks and had then subsequently been distributed to right-leaning commentators?
- input_sh 4y ago
  You are equating supporting minorities in journalism to right-wing think tanks? In your view that's a completely cool and normal comparison to make? Yes, you're right. I wouldn't react the same way. One of those is clearly better than the other.
  - f1shy 4y ago
    Can you please elaborate on why one is better than the other?
    - input_sh 4y ago
      Cause being BIPOC while in journalism isn't a political ideology and their existence is not "woke" nor "political". On top of that I happen to believe a wider range of voices within journalism is incredibly important and see nothing controversial there. That seems way better to me than giving money to those hostile towards damn near every marginalized and underrepresented minority. Does it not seem that way to you? It's not my fault (nor is it Wikimedia's) that this specific historically marginalized and oppressed group of people as a collective leans a certain... less confederate-flag-waving way. Were they supposed to find a hypothetical centrist group of BIPOC journalists that will therefore then over-represent right-wing BIPOC population?
  - ajvs 4y ago
    So because they're donating to your political leaning, it's fine. Do realise that half the population leans the opposite way to you, and you'll see why encouraging more organisations to get political is a disastrous thing for society.
    - 4y ago
Gareth321 4y ago
You asked, they answered, and then you dodged with a flippant reply. Even if I agreed with you, this is a terrible way to discuss things.
- input_sh 4y ago
  Oh shit, you're right! I apologise, I'm sure there's a better, more cool-headed way to discuss giving money to a marginalized population to make a foothold in a marginalized field with someone that views that action as "woke politics". I'm sure we've could've met in the middle (like only supporting some BIPOC journalists) if only I wasn't so gosh-darn divisive. My bad.
  - zB2sj38WHAjYnvm 4y ago
    When people accuse someone of being "woke", I believe they do not mean literally that they consider those people to be more awake to social justice issues, that they disagree with fixing injustice, and they want it to continue. Rather, it can be an accusation of performative social virtue, a distaste for sanctimonious platitudes, or a disagreement regarding the source of a particular systemic issue and how to fix it. Now, you can disagree with this, it is obviously impossible to tell for sure without reading people's minds, and many people will throw out accusations of "wokism" with little to no merit to the point where you lose the will to engage with any of them, but if you do argue against these accusations of "wokism" as endorsements of bigotry, you aren't actually engaging with what people are telling you. In that sense, the "middle" between "woke" and "bigoted" isn't "slightly bigoted", it's "not woke and not bigoted".
    - input_sh 4y ago
      Ah, so the middle is to just do nothing in favour of boosting marginalised groups, otherwise you're "too woke" because those marginalised groups tend to lean left? No, I don't think I can agree on that. Because, as I stated multiple times so far, marginalised people's existence != political. Being a bigot is a choice (and using the term woke unironically is a pretty good, albeit not perfect tell), being black is not. I couldn't care less about finding a common ground with bigotry. I have zero interest in debating them, and I have zero interest in debating your "centrist position" to do nothing to elevate BIPOC people's position in marginalised fields. Hope that clears up my comment for you!
tiagod 4y ago
What is this BIPOC voting population (I just learned this term today)? Are we talking of the united states of america or does this somehow apply to other countries? Don't these journalists push american viewpoints anyway, and aren't they much better funded than almost any newspaper outside the USA? Why should most of this money going to one of the richest countries in the world?