3 ms·

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

by 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?
    - newswasboring 4y ago
      But it doesn't really help Wikipedia, at least not in a measurable way. From the original article opinion of long time wikipedian Steven Walling > Given that this is a pilot and there have been serious concerns expressed about the ROI and ethics of funding grantees not doing any work that has a direct measurable impact on Wikimedia projects, I would encourage you to stop

by 300bps 4y ago

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?
  - newswasboring 4y ago
    But it doesn't really help Wikipedia, at least not in a measurable way. From the original article opinion of long time wikipedian Steven Walling > Given that this is a pilot and there have been serious concerns expressed about the ROI and ethics of funding grantees not doing any work that has a direct measurable impact on Wikimedia projects, I would encourage you to stop