4 ms·

> How do you arrive at the claim that "probably most" donations go to "pushing woke politics"? As noted in their own 2020 report: https://foundation.wikimedia

> How do you arrive at the claim that "probably most" donations go to "pushing woke politics"? As noted in their own 2020 report: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_FY2019-2020_Audit_Report.pdf&page=5 https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWi... Only 2.4 of the 112.4 million spent was actually on maintaining the servers themselves. The rest were spent on salaries (55.6 million (!!)), grants (22.8 million (!, why?)), & "Professional services" (11.67 million (again, why?)). > What does "pushing woke politics" mean? From what I can gather, it's the promotion of leftist talking points that relegates objectivism & personal liberty in favor of any form of rebalancing, be it racial, political, economical, social, gender-based, or sexual. My problem with this is that its mainly a phenomenon that's isolated to western countries, with Asian & Middle-eastern countries seemingly skirting by with LGBT+ arrests & atrocities without any major recompense. > Why is the cost of web hosting so important? Do any comparable organisations spend a more appropriate proportion of their revenue on web hosting? This is mainly because Wikipedia's donation drives make it look like "Donate to us to keep the servers running", when their own reports make it clear that a lot of the donated funds have been sucked up by the foundation's own internal mechanisms. > Which political extremists have taken over? Mainly left-oriented extremists, with the organizations listed from here onwards being examples that were funded by the foundation. https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579779097278181378 https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579779097278181378 > What is ruined? For one: Wikipedia's neutral reputation. Wikipedia was supposed to be a place where consensus could be reached without falling into the trappings of personal or political bias. Instead, the foundation is now seeking to reduce its own transparency by ceasing the publications of its quarterly reviews: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/News_and_notes#:~:text=Wikimedia%20Foundation%20stops%20publication%20of%20its%20quarterly%20%22tuning%20sessions%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... Side note: Gish-gallop-style questions are note a conducive way of inviting conversations around a topic.

qwery 4y ago
> Only 2.4 of the 112.4 million spent was actually on maintaining the servers themselves. ... why? You seem to be arguing that anything other than strictly server maintenance is wrong, immoral or unnecessary. I'm not sure why that would be the case. I think people may be focusing on these high-level figures a bit too much. The Wikimedia website has other information about what it is they are actually doing. > Wikipedia's donation drives make it look like "Donate to us to keep the servers running" Fair enough, I can imagine how that could be an issue. As one opposed to such manipulations in general, a critique of the sort of messaging being used is something that I would welcome. > Side note: Gish-gallop-style questions are note a conducive way of inviting conversations around a topic. Thanks, I didn't know that term before. I used a string of blunt questions formatted in that way to be as clear as possible, and because it mirrored the form of the OP's comment.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > You seem to be arguing that anything other than strictly server maintenance is wrong, immoral or unnecessary. I'm not sure why that would be the case. This is answered by > Wikipedia's donation drives make it look like "Donate to us to keep the servers running"
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Meanwhile I've only ever considered the banners to be annoying and beg-y, but not any sort of claim that they are running out of money. Do the people "scammed" by "help us reach our fundraising goal" also get scammed by those emails about "donald trump's defense fund" and similar? Why didn't they just look up whether wikipedia is running out of money? I don't understand how a disruptive banner that makes no claims can be considered nefarious.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      I didn't mention claims of running out of money. I don't know what your first paragraph is based on. > banner that makes no claims Look at this example [0]. If you read that, what would you say the money is going to? [0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_fundraising_banners#/media/File:Bluelink.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Founda...
- Izkata 4y ago
  > > Side note: Gish-gallop-style questions are note a conducive way of inviting conversations around a topic. > Thanks, I didn't know that term before. I used a string of blunt questions formatted in that way to be as clear as possible, and because it mirrored the form of the OP's comment. It's also a mis-use of the term. It's for live debates when you just dump a series of questions on the opponent without giving them time to respond, trying to make them look stupid to observers. Doesn't really apply to text like here, when you can take as long as you need to type of the reply.
  - 4y ago
mrtranscendence 4y ago
> From what I can gather, it's the promotion of leftist talking points that relegates objectivism & personal liberty in favor of any form of rebalancing, be it racial, political, economical, social, gender-based, or sexual. This does not read like a good-faith interpretation to me. Small-o objectivism and personal liberty are not at all incompatible with a "woke" perspective on race; I daresay relativism -- particularly moral relativism -- is a minority opinion even among leftists. Nor is it necessarily the case that being woke means you're in favor of enforced rebalancing on the basis of race, ethnicity, etc. Wokeness, in my experience, is far more concerned with issues of justice than with rebalancing (which I take to mean something akin to affirmative action or reparations).
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  What do you think justice means in a "woke" context? My understanding that justice is equity, not equality, in the current jargon.

qwery 4y ago

> Only 2.4 of the 112.4 million spent was actually on maintaining the servers themselves. ... why? You seem to be arguing that anything other than strictly server maintenance is wrong, immoral or unnecessary. I'm not sure why that would be the case. I think people may be focusing on these high-level figures a bit too much. The Wikimedia website has other information about what it is they are actually doing. > Wikipedia's donation drives make it look like "Donate to us to keep the servers running" Fair enough, I can imagine how that could be an issue. As one opposed to such manipulations in general, a critique of the sort of messaging being used is something that I would welcome. > Side note: Gish-gallop-style questions are note a conducive way of inviting conversations around a topic. Thanks, I didn't know that term before. I used a string of blunt questions formatted in that way to be as clear as possible, and because it mirrored the form of the OP's comment.

robertlagrant 4y ago
> You seem to be arguing that anything other than strictly server maintenance is wrong, immoral or unnecessary. I'm not sure why that would be the case. This is answered by > Wikipedia's donation drives make it look like "Donate to us to keep the servers running"
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Meanwhile I've only ever considered the banners to be annoying and beg-y, but not any sort of claim that they are running out of money. Do the people "scammed" by "help us reach our fundraising goal" also get scammed by those emails about "donald trump's defense fund" and similar? Why didn't they just look up whether wikipedia is running out of money? I don't understand how a disruptive banner that makes no claims can be considered nefarious.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    I didn't mention claims of running out of money. I don't know what your first paragraph is based on. > banner that makes no claims Look at this example [0]. If you read that, what would you say the money is going to? [0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_fundraising_banners#/media/File:Bluelink.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Founda...
Izkata 4y ago
> > Side note: Gish-gallop-style questions are note a conducive way of inviting conversations around a topic. > Thanks, I didn't know that term before. I used a string of blunt questions formatted in that way to be as clear as possible, and because it mirrored the form of the OP's comment. It's also a mis-use of the term. It's for live debates when you just dump a series of questions on the opponent without giving them time to respond, trying to make them look stupid to observers. Doesn't really apply to text like here, when you can take as long as you need to type of the reply.
- 4y ago

mrtranscendence 4y ago

> From what I can gather, it's the promotion of leftist talking points that relegates objectivism & personal liberty in favor of any form of rebalancing, be it racial, political, economical, social, gender-based, or sexual. This does not read like a good-faith interpretation to me. Small-o objectivism and personal liberty are not at all incompatible with a "woke" perspective on race; I daresay relativism -- particularly moral relativism -- is a minority opinion even among leftists. Nor is it necessarily the case that being woke means you're in favor of enforced rebalancing on the basis of race, ethnicity, etc. Wokeness, in my experience, is far more concerned with issues of justice than with rebalancing (which I take to mean something akin to affirmative action or reparations).

seti0Cha 4y ago
What do you think justice means in a "woke" context? My understanding that justice is equity, not equality, in the current jargon.