4 ms·

> 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.

> 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
      Moreover, most of the money to date has gone to U.S. organisations. This is truly bizarre if you consider that the Wikimedia Foundation raises funds in places like India, South Africa and South America – with heart-wrenching messages about donations being needed to keep Wikipedia online, independent, subscription-free and so on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-06-26/Special_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
    - marcus_holmes 4y ago
      The point is not that they're bad/good - the point is that Wikipedia is presenting us with heartfelt pleas to keep the servers running, while also running a massive budget surplus and donating our money to other people who we've never heard of. And the lack of transparency makes corruption incredibly likely. How much of the donated money has been siphoned off to the bank accounts of Wikimedia executives? How many grants have been awarded because of kickbacks, bribes, etc? I have no evidence that any of this has happened, but there is no evidence it didn't, either. There are basic, simple, good governance practices that are being ignored here. Which is very suggestive that the people involved are actually corrupt and resisting the implementation of good governance practices. Also, the ongoing pleas for donations when those donations are clearly not required is very suggestive. Why are Wikimedia executives asking for this money when they don't need it, if they're not siphoning off into their own accounts?
      - zozbot234 4y ago
        "Keeping the servers running" is useless if the project itself is not flourishing. Nobody wants a dead, out of date Wikipedia. So broad support for the project and community is what really matters.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        marcus_holmes 4y ago
        Which is fine, but tell us that. The impression I get from the donations plea is that the money goes directly to support Wikipedia because it needs it to keep the servers running. And they need to be clear about the grants made, how much was given to whom, for what purpose, what was the rationale for this grant to support Wikipedia? and did the grant achieve its objective?
dathinab 4y ago
No at least I find out quite appropriate of they spend less then 5% to support projects with similar goals as long as they have a surplus. I mean you are donating to the organization not the website and at least for me that had always been clear. That the banners where misleading is IMHO they main issue with the secondary issue being the not so grate transparency for this external usages.
jasonlotito 4y ago
Can you provide a good example of someone doing this? I saw the Wikimedia example, and it didn't appear to me that they were hiding anything. So I'd be curious to see an example of this being done well. Edit: To be clear, I'm looking for examples like Wikimedia, where the donations are being used for multiple things.
ineedasername 4y ago
* No. People who visit and donate, only wants it to go to the site they are using and for its development.* Not if it was clear the money was going to other avenues of increased knowledge. Then the donator knows what they’re getting into and can choose accordingly. Nothing wrong with that.
systemicdanna 4y ago
That's exactly why I am not going to donate this year, and I donated annually for almost a decade now. I love Wikipedia, will support it if it gets in trouble. But I am not rich enough to donate to some random causes, especially if I find them wasteful and even ethically questionable.

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
    Moreover, most of the money to date has gone to U.S. organisations. This is truly bizarre if you consider that the Wikimedia Foundation raises funds in places like India, South Africa and South America – with heart-wrenching messages about donations being needed to keep Wikipedia online, independent, subscription-free and so on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-06-26/Special_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
  - marcus_holmes 4y ago
    The point is not that they're bad/good - the point is that Wikipedia is presenting us with heartfelt pleas to keep the servers running, while also running a massive budget surplus and donating our money to other people who we've never heard of. And the lack of transparency makes corruption incredibly likely. How much of the donated money has been siphoned off to the bank accounts of Wikimedia executives? How many grants have been awarded because of kickbacks, bribes, etc? I have no evidence that any of this has happened, but there is no evidence it didn't, either. There are basic, simple, good governance practices that are being ignored here. Which is very suggestive that the people involved are actually corrupt and resisting the implementation of good governance practices. Also, the ongoing pleas for donations when those donations are clearly not required is very suggestive. Why are Wikimedia executives asking for this money when they don't need it, if they're not siphoning off into their own accounts?
    - zozbot234 4y ago
      "Keeping the servers running" is useless if the project itself is not flourishing. Nobody wants a dead, out of date Wikipedia. So broad support for the project and community is what really matters.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - marcus_holmes 4y ago
        Which is fine, but tell us that. The impression I get from the donations plea is that the money goes directly to support Wikipedia because it needs it to keep the servers running. And they need to be clear about the grants made, how much was given to whom, for what purpose, what was the rationale for this grant to support Wikipedia? and did the grant achieve its objective?

dathinab 4y ago

No at least I find out quite appropriate of they spend less then 5% to support projects with similar goals as long as they have a surplus. I mean you are donating to the organization not the website and at least for me that had always been clear. That the banners where misleading is IMHO they main issue with the secondary issue being the not so grate transparency for this external usages.

jasonlotito 4y ago

Can you provide a good example of someone doing this? I saw the Wikimedia example, and it didn't appear to me that they were hiding anything. So I'd be curious to see an example of this being done well. Edit: To be clear, I'm looking for examples like Wikimedia, where the donations are being used for multiple things.

ineedasername 4y ago

* No. People who visit and donate, only wants it to go to the site they are using and for its development.* Not if it was clear the money was going to other avenues of increased knowledge. Then the donator knows what they’re getting into and can choose accordingly. Nothing wrong with that.

systemicdanna 4y ago

That's exactly why I am not going to donate this year, and I donated annually for almost a decade now. I love Wikipedia, will support it if it gets in trouble. But I am not rich enough to donate to some random causes, especially if I find them wasteful and even ethically questionable.