8 ms·

The original thread emphasized too much on a few grants, which I feel is a minor issue considering how small part of the annual revenue they were. Not surprised

The original thread emphasized too much on a few grants, which I feel is a minor issue considering how small part of the annual revenue they were. Not surprised Wikipedia is able to defend it easily. > "Awards and grants" amounted to $9.8 million, of which $5 million (possibly $5.5 million) represented a grant to the Wikimedia Foundation's own Endowment held by the Tides Foundation. This leaves somewhere between $4 and $5 million for actual grants made to the community – a figure dwarfed by the Wikimedia Foundation's $50 million budget surplus in 2020–2021. There was no lack of money for grants. The actual problem is that the Foundation reached its endowment goal, five years before the the deadline it set [1], and yet, they keep guilt-tripping and pretending as if they are running out of money. How's it not profiteering? They could be honest and add, "We have already reached our goal. But raising more could help us find more avenues to increase the world's knowledge," and they would be completely in the right. I bet fewer people would donate if they realized that they are not funding running expenses, at all. Addendum: If you're considering donating to Wikipedia, I suggest you look into doing it for Internet Archive. The complexity of their project and running expenses is way more than Wikipedia, and yet, they just received 12% of the amount that Wikipedia got in 2020 [2]. They just have $4M in net assets, and yet, I have never seen them guilt-tripping regular users. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti... [2]: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943242767/202013219349323056/full https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943...

slim 4y ago
Also so much money + neutral image + an international network this broad, attracts the wrong kind of people
- mellosouls 4y ago
  Unfortunately, I suspect it's a long time since wikipedia had a neutral image.
  - mavhc 4y ago
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - hardnose 4y ago
      One glance at the edit history on the Project Vertias entry will prove the lie of this theory...
birksherty 4y ago
> find more avenues to increase the world's knowledge No. People who visit and donate, only wants it to go to the site they are using and for its development. Not to some other things that they don't know. If Wikimedia wants money for all these things, they should mention what are these exactly without hiding. 4/5 million is still huge amount.
- akolbe 4y ago
  You're right, but that is what the post you are replying to was proposing: they should say what they are raising the money for. Then people can decide, instead of being panicked into donating because they are made to think there is an urgent need for money "to defend Wikipedia's independence" or "to keep Wikipedia online".
  - 300bps 4y ago
    But the post also said misappropriating the funds “is a minor issue”. It’s not a minor issue to say you’re raising funds for X and to then give those funds to Y just because it only amount to Z% of your budget. And in this case Z% is actually pretty high.
    - akolbe 4y ago
      Okay, I get your point. Speaks to the organisation's basic lack of honesty, which is arguably the real problem here. That's come up before – a recent poll among Wikipedians judged the WMF's fundraising emails "unethical and misleading": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32713978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32713978
    - zozbot234 4y ago
      Most of these grants are not even that bad - they're explicitly trying to foster the creation and sharing of knowledge about highly under-represented populations, which is clearly within the remit of Wikipedia as a broad community. But then you do get truly weird stuff like the $250k grant to SeRCH, an organization that purportedly aims to support minority folks in STEM pursuits. Unfortunately, that "support" seemingly involves posting obscure YouTube videos featuring bizarre rants about "hyperspace" and their "intersectional scientific method", whatever that is. It's highly dubious that this stuff can actually help minorities succeed in science, to say the least.
akolbe 4y ago
Well said indeed.
jrochkind1 4y ago
That was my thought too on reading; those grants are a pretty small portion of budget (not even a big portion of surplus) so don't seem like a big deal. But if I understand it right, they have a $50 million surplus on a ~$150 million budget? Why are they still fundraising so aggressively in such a situation? (Under some circumstances, such a huge surplus leftover can even make the IRS suspicious of a charitable organization's tax status, although this may not apply legally to the particular kind of organization Wikimedia is).
- akolbe 4y ago
  A $51 million surplus on a $112 million budget, to be exact: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_FY2020-2021_Audit_Report.pdf&page=5 https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWi... Though in fact, the real surplus was nearly $90 million, because in addition, their Endowment, held at the Tides Foundation (and therefore not included in Wikimedia Foundation assets) increased from $62.9 million: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=20317968&oldid=20308708 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endow... to over $100 million: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=22056029&oldid=21872920 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endow... in the same year. Note also that each year the Wikimedia Foundation pays at least $5 million into its Endowment. These payments are included in the Foundation's expenses: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    I'm definitely going to stop giving any money to wikimedia as a result of their on-screen fund drives. And I actually support that expenditure to fund that "Knolwedge Equity Fund", and don't find anything unethical about wikimedia supporting such a fund with a small portion of their budget, especially when they have extra. (I think it would be appropriate to send some to the Internet Archive too). But they clearly don't need my money.
- LeifCarrotson 4y ago
ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
> I bet fewer people would donate if they realized that they are not funding running expenses, at all. And there you have it.
dalbasal 4y ago
I don't disagree with anything you said. I also think that wikipedia should adopt a much less cringey fundraising style. However... I feel like wikipedia tends to attract a highly disproportionate amount of criticism, especially about fundraising, budget inflation and editing/deletionism. In one sense, this is a good thing. Criticism and scrutiny keep organisations honest. In another sense, there's a nihilism to it. Wikipedia is perhaps 100X more resource efficient than a Facebook. It's far more respectful of its users than any bigtech. It embodies otherwise naive ideals of the early web. It has performed way better than commercial peers in the face of the decade's misinformation and political fact wars... including journalistic ones. It keeps its nose much cleaner than big nonprofits like the Red Cross. All freely available to everyone, highly accessible, supported by optional donations. Wikimedia is a beacon. FOSS has been tamed. The rivers of the WWW have been dammed. "Don't be evil" got fired. It feels like Wikipedia is subjected to a bigotry of higher expectations specifically because it doesn't suck. There's a crabs-in-a-bucket feel to it that disturbs me.
- akolbe 4y ago
  It's resource-efficient because it relies on volunteer labour. The people earning the most money from that volunteer labour aren't even the Wikimedia Foundation, but the Big Tech companies who use Wikipedia and Wikidata content to populate Knowledge Graph panels (Google, Microsoft Bing), have their voice assistants read Wikipedia articles in response to questions (Amazon Alexa, Apple Siri, Google Assistant), etc. The Wikimedia Foundation is a partner of all these organisations. Amazon regularly donates a million to the Wikimedia Endowment, there is a little-publicised Google partnership ... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Google_Partnership https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_Wikimedia_Founda... ... the South Asian "Regional Partnerships" Manager moved to Wikimedia from Google: https://archive.ph/jf3FT https://archive.ph/jf3FT ... as did the originator of the Wikidata and Abstract Wikipedia projects, and the seed money for Wikidata came from Microsoft founder Paul Allen and Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... etc.
  - dalbasal 4y ago
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
I know the AMerican library system isn't exactly awash in money, but why is Wikimedia not getting a huge amount of donations from the library budgets? It is practically the definition of the base intent of the library system brought into the internet age, and arguably is the internet's greatest achievement. Sure you could start quoting things about undue influence, but I go into a library and don't exactly see lots of influence from the government on collection content, or censorship of encyclopedias. About the only political hotpotato I've seen about libraries is an occcaisional funding complaint by the ultra-small government wing.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
<<If you're considering donating to Wikipedia, I suggest you look into doing it for Internet Archive. I kinda wanted to focus on this portion, because Wikipedia does not seem to face fresh round of lawsuits, while Internet Archive appears to be very much a target in sights of various copyright holders, who are unhappy over its activities[1]. [1]https://www.inputmag.com/culture/internet-archive-copyright-concession-publisher-lawsuit https://www.inputmag.com/culture/internet-archive-copyright-...
mcv 4y ago
If Wikimedia has too many donations for their own costs, maybe they should give some to the Internet Archive. It's certainly related to their goal of preserving information. But more importantly: Wikimedia needs to be honest and transparent, including about what they're raising funds for. If their own costs are thoroughly covered and they're raising funds for others, they need to be honest about that, and not pretend that they still need the money. That's deceptive and completely contrary to their mission.
posterboy 4y ago
> Addendum: If you're considering donating to Wikipedia, I suggest you look into doing it for Internet Archive Wikipedia could forward a little sum if need be, technically?
GuB-42 4y ago
That's the big problem I have with these fundraisings. They are using the exact thing that make most of us hate advertising: deceiving claims, annoying banners, and revenue-driven A/B testing. The only thing they don't seem to do (yet) is personal data collection / targeting. When I see them I can't help but think "how did these got through my ad blocker?" [*] They don't have to do that, they can afford not to use typical advertising tactics and still get enough money for continued operation. *: The reason I think Wikimedia fundraisers don't appears in most block lists is that as a rule, self-promotion is not considered advertising. Same reason why you can see ads for the latest Microsoft products when you go to microsoft.com.
23skidoo 4y ago
Wikipedia for almost the past decade has reminded me of those televangelists that would beg for donations to keep the lights on and that Uncle Sam was kicking the door down to seize their assets. Then they'd drive home in a brand new Cadillac.
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
>a minor issue considering how small part of the annual revenue they were It isn’t when their messaging acts like they’re gonna go under without your donation when in reality they have millions to burn on frivolities. “Non-profit” tale as old as time, impossible to run an honest business when the grift depends on guilt.

slim 4y ago

Also so much money + neutral image + an international network this broad, attracts the wrong kind of people

mellosouls 4y ago
Unfortunately, I suspect it's a long time since wikipedia had a neutral image.
- mavhc 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hardnose 4y ago
    One glance at the edit history on the Project Vertias entry will prove the lie of this theory...

birksherty 4y ago

> find more avenues to increase the world's knowledge No. People who visit and donate, only wants it to go to the site they are using and for its development. Not to some other things that they don't know. If Wikimedia wants money for all these things, they should mention what are these exactly without hiding. 4/5 million is still huge amount.

akolbe 4y ago
You're right, but that is what the post you are replying to was proposing: they should say what they are raising the money for. Then people can decide, instead of being panicked into donating because they are made to think there is an urgent need for money "to defend Wikipedia's independence" or "to keep Wikipedia online".
- 300bps 4y ago
  But the post also said misappropriating the funds “is a minor issue”. It’s not a minor issue to say you’re raising funds for X and to then give those funds to Y just because it only amount to Z% of your budget. And in this case Z% is actually pretty high.
  - akolbe 4y ago
    Okay, I get your point. Speaks to the organisation's basic lack of honesty, which is arguably the real problem here. That's come up before – a recent poll among Wikipedians judged the WMF's fundraising emails "unethical and misleading": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32713978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32713978
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    Most of these grants are not even that bad - they're explicitly trying to foster the creation and sharing of knowledge about highly under-represented populations, which is clearly within the remit of Wikipedia as a broad community. But then you do get truly weird stuff like the $250k grant to SeRCH, an organization that purportedly aims to support minority folks in STEM pursuits. Unfortunately, that "support" seemingly involves posting obscure YouTube videos featuring bizarre rants about "hyperspace" and their "intersectional scientific method", whatever that is. It's highly dubious that this stuff can actually help minorities succeed in science, to say the least.

akolbe 4y ago

Well said indeed.

jrochkind1 4y ago

That was my thought too on reading; those grants are a pretty small portion of budget (not even a big portion of surplus) so don't seem like a big deal. But if I understand it right, they have a $50 million surplus on a ~$150 million budget? Why are they still fundraising so aggressively in such a situation? (Under some circumstances, such a huge surplus leftover can even make the IRS suspicious of a charitable organization's tax status, although this may not apply legally to the particular kind of organization Wikimedia is).

akolbe 4y ago
A $51 million surplus on a $112 million budget, to be exact: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_FY2020-2021_Audit_Report.pdf&page=5 https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWi... Though in fact, the real surplus was nearly $90 million, because in addition, their Endowment, held at the Tides Foundation (and therefore not included in Wikimedia Foundation assets) increased from $62.9 million: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=20317968&oldid=20308708 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endow... to over $100 million: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=22056029&oldid=21872920 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endow... in the same year. Note also that each year the Wikimedia Foundation pays at least $5 million into its Endowment. These payments are included in the Foundation's expenses: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  I'm definitely going to stop giving any money to wikimedia as a result of their on-screen fund drives. And I actually support that expenditure to fund that "Knolwedge Equity Fund", and don't find anything unethical about wikimedia supporting such a fund with a small portion of their budget, especially when they have extra. (I think it would be appropriate to send some to the Internet Archive too). But they clearly don't need my money.
LeifCarrotson 4y ago

ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago

> I bet fewer people would donate if they realized that they are not funding running expenses, at all. And there you have it.

dalbasal 4y ago

I don't disagree with anything you said. I also think that wikipedia should adopt a much less cringey fundraising style. However... I feel like wikipedia tends to attract a highly disproportionate amount of criticism, especially about fundraising, budget inflation and editing/deletionism. In one sense, this is a good thing. Criticism and scrutiny keep organisations honest. In another sense, there's a nihilism to it. Wikipedia is perhaps 100X more resource efficient than a Facebook. It's far more respectful of its users than any bigtech. It embodies otherwise naive ideals of the early web. It has performed way better than commercial peers in the face of the decade's misinformation and political fact wars... including journalistic ones. It keeps its nose much cleaner than big nonprofits like the Red Cross. All freely available to everyone, highly accessible, supported by optional donations. Wikimedia is a beacon. FOSS has been tamed. The rivers of the WWW have been dammed. "Don't be evil" got fired. It feels like Wikipedia is subjected to a bigotry of higher expectations specifically because it doesn't suck. There's a crabs-in-a-bucket feel to it that disturbs me.

akolbe 4y ago
It's resource-efficient because it relies on volunteer labour. The people earning the most money from that volunteer labour aren't even the Wikimedia Foundation, but the Big Tech companies who use Wikipedia and Wikidata content to populate Knowledge Graph panels (Google, Microsoft Bing), have their voice assistants read Wikipedia articles in response to questions (Amazon Alexa, Apple Siri, Google Assistant), etc. The Wikimedia Foundation is a partner of all these organisations. Amazon regularly donates a million to the Wikimedia Endowment, there is a little-publicised Google partnership ... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Google_Partnership https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_Wikimedia_Founda... ... the South Asian "Regional Partnerships" Manager moved to Wikimedia from Google: https://archive.ph/jf3FT https://archive.ph/jf3FT ... as did the originator of the Wikidata and Abstract Wikipedia projects, and the seed money for Wikidata came from Microsoft founder Paul Allen and Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... etc.
- dalbasal 4y ago

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

I know the AMerican library system isn't exactly awash in money, but why is Wikimedia not getting a huge amount of donations from the library budgets? It is practically the definition of the base intent of the library system brought into the internet age, and arguably is the internet's greatest achievement. Sure you could start quoting things about undue influence, but I go into a library and don't exactly see lots of influence from the government on collection content, or censorship of encyclopedias. About the only political hotpotato I've seen about libraries is an occcaisional funding complaint by the ultra-small government wing.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

<<If you're considering donating to Wikipedia, I suggest you look into doing it for Internet Archive. I kinda wanted to focus on this portion, because Wikipedia does not seem to face fresh round of lawsuits, while Internet Archive appears to be very much a target in sights of various copyright holders, who are unhappy over its activities[1]. [1]https://www.inputmag.com/culture/internet-archive-copyright-concession-publisher-lawsuit https://www.inputmag.com/culture/internet-archive-copyright-...

mcv 4y ago

If Wikimedia has too many donations for their own costs, maybe they should give some to the Internet Archive. It's certainly related to their goal of preserving information. But more importantly: Wikimedia needs to be honest and transparent, including about what they're raising funds for. If their own costs are thoroughly covered and they're raising funds for others, they need to be honest about that, and not pretend that they still need the money. That's deceptive and completely contrary to their mission.

posterboy 4y ago

> Addendum: If you're considering donating to Wikipedia, I suggest you look into doing it for Internet Archive Wikipedia could forward a little sum if need be, technically?

GuB-42 4y ago

That's the big problem I have with these fundraisings. They are using the exact thing that make most of us hate advertising: deceiving claims, annoying banners, and revenue-driven A/B testing. The only thing they don't seem to do (yet) is personal data collection / targeting. When I see them I can't help but think "how did these got through my ad blocker?" [*] They don't have to do that, they can afford not to use typical advertising tactics and still get enough money for continued operation. *: The reason I think Wikimedia fundraisers don't appears in most block lists is that as a rule, self-promotion is not considered advertising. Same reason why you can see ads for the latest Microsoft products when you go to microsoft.com.

23skidoo 4y ago

Wikipedia for almost the past decade has reminded me of those televangelists that would beg for donations to keep the lights on and that Uncle Sam was kicking the door down to seize their assets. Then they'd drive home in a brand new Cadillac.

whywhywhywhy 4y ago

>a minor issue considering how small part of the annual revenue they were It isn’t when their messaging acts like they’re gonna go under without your donation when in reality they have millions to burn on frivolities. “Non-profit” tale as old as time, impossible to run an honest business when the grift depends on guilt.