13 ms·

I have been donating annually around $50 or less for the last ten years. I was quite surprised to get an email from jimmy@wikipedia.org last month suggesting I

I have been donating annually around $50 or less for the last ten years. I was quite surprised to get an email from jimmy@wikipedia.org last month suggesting I increase my donation to $250. I'm planning to not donate at all this year, (instead to Internet Archive) based largely on discussions I have read here at HN. But I thought the request to suddenly increase my typical donation five-fold was pretty outrageous.

xdfgh1112 4y ago
It really is. I guess their analytics predicted they'd gain more in income from certain people than they lose in offending people.
cainxinth 4y ago
I still toss wiki a few bucks now and then (even though I hear they are flush with cash and have been for a while) just because I use and enjoy it so frequently (and because I think it's a valuable source of information for everyone, generally), but I too have started giving more to the Internet Archive. Its founder Brewster Kahle is a wonderful person. Some choice excerpts from from his wiki: "Struck by the immensity of the task being undertaken and achieved: to store and index everything that was on the Web, Kahle states: 'I was standing there, looking at this machine that was the size of five or six Coke machines, and there was an 'aha' moment that said, 'You can do everything.'" "Knowledge lives in lots of different forms over time," Kahle said in 2011. "First it was in people's memories, then it was in manuscripts, then printed books, then microfilm, CD-ROMs, now on the digital internet. Each one of these generations is very important." "It's not that expensive. For the cost of 60 miles of highway, we can have a 10 million-book digital library available to a generation that is growing up reading on-screen. Our job is to put the best works of humankind within reach of that generation."
- cxr 4y ago
  > I still toss wiki a few bucks now and then A small favor to ask: can you avoid using the word "wiki" as casual shorthand to refer to Wikipedia? It falls in the same territory (or nearby, at least) as someone who doesn't know better saying "Java" to refer to JS (JavaScript). NB: I have tried to word this as politely and non-derisively as I can think to. If you have any improvements, please let me know. PS: Thank you for 1. your support of Wikipedia, 2. your support of the Internet Archive, and 3. the signal that you send by pulling back from #1 right now, when it makes a lot of sense to do so.
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    this is like asking me not to call the encyclopedia britannica "the encyclopedia" since there are many other encyclopedias in existence sure wikipedia is one wiki, but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" edit: lol ok fine I'm wrong, let me amend to, "wiki is an easily disambiguated term depending on the context of the subject, and if the subject is not your internal work project or self hosted fan site, you probably want to look it up on wikipedia.org"
    - dmonitor 4y ago
      >there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" When someone says "look it up on the wiki" I assume they refer to a wiki specific to the topic at hand.
      - groestl 4y ago
        Which will prompt me to ask: what wiki?
    - chungy 4y ago
      > this is like asking me not to call the encyclopedia britannica "the encyclopedia" since there are many other encyclopedias in existence If you have a physical set and it's the only encyclopedia in the house, it might be fair. I've never heard anyone generically refer to Encyclopedia Britannica as simply "the encyclopedia" outside of this circumstance. > sure wikipedia is one wiki, but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" Hard disagree. With thousands of specialized wikis and in-house corporate wikis, it can never really be assumed to mean Wikipedia specifically, unless you're already on Wikipedia.
    - lkrubner 4y ago
      "but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" That is ambiguous. I would assume you were running a personal wiki project, and you meant that, or you meant the wiki at your place of work. This isn't like "flexing on the Gram" -- most people don't run a personal Instagram, so if you're flexing on the gram, as the rap lyrics say, then I can guess what you mean. But most of us use wikis at work, so we all deal with a large number of wikis, so simply saying "wiki" is ambiguous.
sussmannbaka 4y ago
please do donate to the Internet Archive! right now up until the end of the year, all donations are matched 2-to-1 and the money actually goes towards the service while Wikipedia is overfunded and you’re basically only bankrolling the foundation.
- sct202 4y ago
  Since we're on the topic of less than transparent fundraising, matched donations are also usually misleading. For the most part the matching donors are already planning to donate up to a certain amount regardless of other donations, and if the match from other people comes up short they'll donate the amount they planned to anyways.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
    Yes, but it is the kind of white lie that I think is morally ok? If people get a thrill out of “free money” and charity X gets more funding, not the worst thing in the world.
    - mixmastamyk 4y ago
      That’s how it starts. Pretty soon you’re clandestinely funding woke causes and undermining decades of trust: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33611094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33611094
      - knodi123 4y ago
        > woke causes I wonder what, in your estimation, makes a specific cause a "woke" one?
        mixmastamyk 4y ago
        Interesting, this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered comments feigning ignorance of the meaning of “woke”. In any case the surrounding threads have copious examples.
Watchwatcher 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lzooz 4y ago
  Telling someone not to waste money doesn't seem bad financial advice no matter how you slice it.
  - Watchwatcher 4y ago
    Assuming the choices theyre making, based on HN comments, are good choices.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      If you think not donating to wikipedia is such a bad decision, then why don't you try explaining why you think that?
      - Watchwatcher 4y ago
- leereeves 4y ago
  Are you saying we shouldn't donate to Internet Archive? Why?
  - Watchwatcher 4y ago
    - fasterik 4y ago
      If "cesspool" means "something you disagree with" then that's not good advice either. Reasons can be evaluated independently of the source of information. Good advice can come from anywhere.
nix23 4y ago
>instead to Internet Archive Having always donated to EFF, OpenBSD and FreeBSD but i completely forgot IA, will do that this year too.
- _abox 4y ago
  Thanks!! I donate to FreeBSD too, and it even runs my daily desktop. Thanks to people like you who keep it funded.
  - nix23 4y ago
    >my daily desktop Samesame ;)
xhkkffbf 4y ago
I really like much of the IA's past work, but this latest battle with the publishers is just ill advised. If people worked long and hard on something, they deserve the right to prevent it from being given away for free.
- dcow 4y ago
  No they don’t. Period. We’ll be a healthier society once we get past the idea that you can, well, own ideas.
  - healsdata 4y ago
    What alternative model for funding the creation of said "ideas" would you propose? If everything is free as soon as it exists, how do we ensure equitable access to creation?
- rjh29 4y ago
  That runs counter to the entire concept of a library. Which is what the Internet Archive is.
  - PhasmaFelis 4y ago
    Authors get paid for library books. (They often cost quite a bit more than the same book sold to an individual.) An author/publisher can choose not to sell to a particular library if they really want to.
    - adamc 4y ago
      They do, but publishers have been tightening the screws on libraries too.
    - jacobolus 4y ago
      Libraries pay the ordinary retail price (or less from a bulk discount). They sometimes buy books with (more expensive) sturdier binding, expecting it to be used more heavily. Authors cannot stop libraries from buying their books and putting them on the shelf. Or are you talking about ebooks?
MrPatan 4y ago
Is that the internet archive that archives everything except for his niece's dumb tweets?
- drdeca 4y ago
  I thought that allegation was shown to be made up?
jrochkind1 4y ago
Unfortunately, I think charitable organizations with resources have this down to a science, and probably know that approach will get them more increased donations than it will lose them donations. I think it's a science of manipulation, and would hope that eventually it will bite them... but these sciences of manipulation are very effective. And pioneered by the industries that many of us work in, with all the A/B testing and funnel management etc. So if we want to point the finger... There are organizations that I like and appreicate, but stopped donating to after they started spamming with me with 5-10 emails a week asking for increased donations, when I was already donating to them! I stopped. Even though I like the organization and think they do good work. but I bet they have correct reason to believe this spam will net them increased donations over all.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Non-profit charities are required to file tax paperwork, and there are many scrapers for the information. See https://www.charitynavigator.org/ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ or https://www.charitywatch.org/ https://www.charitywatch.org/ Charity Navigator can be overly generous with their composite scores, but you can drill down to the specifics. E.g. that WMF takes 25% of donations off the top for admin/advertising expenses: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703 https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703 As opposed to, say, the Atlanta Community Food Bank, which operates with <5% overhead: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/581376648 https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/581376648 If you're going to donate, make sure they're actually going to the cause.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

xdfgh1112 4y ago

It really is. I guess their analytics predicted they'd gain more in income from certain people than they lose in offending people.

cainxinth 4y ago

I still toss wiki a few bucks now and then (even though I hear they are flush with cash and have been for a while) just because I use and enjoy it so frequently (and because I think it's a valuable source of information for everyone, generally), but I too have started giving more to the Internet Archive. Its founder Brewster Kahle is a wonderful person. Some choice excerpts from from his wiki: "Struck by the immensity of the task being undertaken and achieved: to store and index everything that was on the Web, Kahle states: 'I was standing there, looking at this machine that was the size of five or six Coke machines, and there was an 'aha' moment that said, 'You can do everything.'" "Knowledge lives in lots of different forms over time," Kahle said in 2011. "First it was in people's memories, then it was in manuscripts, then printed books, then microfilm, CD-ROMs, now on the digital internet. Each one of these generations is very important." "It's not that expensive. For the cost of 60 miles of highway, we can have a 10 million-book digital library available to a generation that is growing up reading on-screen. Our job is to put the best works of humankind within reach of that generation."

cxr 4y ago
> I still toss wiki a few bucks now and then A small favor to ask: can you avoid using the word "wiki" as casual shorthand to refer to Wikipedia? It falls in the same territory (or nearby, at least) as someone who doesn't know better saying "Java" to refer to JS (JavaScript). NB: I have tried to word this as politely and non-derisively as I can think to. If you have any improvements, please let me know. PS: Thank you for 1. your support of Wikipedia, 2. your support of the Internet Archive, and 3. the signal that you send by pulling back from #1 right now, when it makes a lot of sense to do so.
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  this is like asking me not to call the encyclopedia britannica "the encyclopedia" since there are many other encyclopedias in existence sure wikipedia is one wiki, but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" edit: lol ok fine I'm wrong, let me amend to, "wiki is an easily disambiguated term depending on the context of the subject, and if the subject is not your internal work project or self hosted fan site, you probably want to look it up on wikipedia.org"
  - dmonitor 4y ago
    >there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" When someone says "look it up on the wiki" I assume they refer to a wiki specific to the topic at hand.
    - groestl 4y ago
      Which will prompt me to ask: what wiki?
  - chungy 4y ago
    > this is like asking me not to call the encyclopedia britannica "the encyclopedia" since there are many other encyclopedias in existence If you have a physical set and it's the only encyclopedia in the house, it might be fair. I've never heard anyone generically refer to Encyclopedia Britannica as simply "the encyclopedia" outside of this circumstance. > sure wikipedia is one wiki, but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" Hard disagree. With thousands of specialized wikis and in-house corporate wikis, it can never really be assumed to mean Wikipedia specifically, unless you're already on Wikipedia.
  - lkrubner 4y ago
    "but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" That is ambiguous. I would assume you were running a personal wiki project, and you meant that, or you meant the wiki at your place of work. This isn't like "flexing on the Gram" -- most people don't run a personal Instagram, so if you're flexing on the gram, as the rap lyrics say, then I can guess what you mean. But most of us use wikis at work, so we all deal with a large number of wikis, so simply saying "wiki" is ambiguous.

sussmannbaka 4y ago

please do donate to the Internet Archive! right now up until the end of the year, all donations are matched 2-to-1 and the money actually goes towards the service while Wikipedia is overfunded and you’re basically only bankrolling the foundation.

sct202 4y ago
Since we're on the topic of less than transparent fundraising, matched donations are also usually misleading. For the most part the matching donors are already planning to donate up to a certain amount regardless of other donations, and if the match from other people comes up short they'll donate the amount they planned to anyways.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
  Yes, but it is the kind of white lie that I think is morally ok? If people get a thrill out of “free money” and charity X gets more funding, not the worst thing in the world.
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    That’s how it starts. Pretty soon you’re clandestinely funding woke causes and undermining decades of trust: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33611094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33611094
    - knodi123 4y ago
      > woke causes I wonder what, in your estimation, makes a specific cause a "woke" one?
      - mixmastamyk 4y ago
        Interesting, this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered comments feigning ignorance of the meaning of “woke”. In any case the surrounding threads have copious examples.

Watchwatcher 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lzooz 4y ago
Telling someone not to waste money doesn't seem bad financial advice no matter how you slice it.
- Watchwatcher 4y ago
  Assuming the choices theyre making, based on HN comments, are good choices.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    If you think not donating to wikipedia is such a bad decision, then why don't you try explaining why you think that?
    - Watchwatcher 4y ago
leereeves 4y ago
Are you saying we shouldn't donate to Internet Archive? Why?
- Watchwatcher 4y ago
  - fasterik 4y ago
    If "cesspool" means "something you disagree with" then that's not good advice either. Reasons can be evaluated independently of the source of information. Good advice can come from anywhere.

nix23 4y ago

>instead to Internet Archive Having always donated to EFF, OpenBSD and FreeBSD but i completely forgot IA, will do that this year too.

_abox 4y ago
Thanks!! I donate to FreeBSD too, and it even runs my daily desktop. Thanks to people like you who keep it funded.
- nix23 4y ago
  >my daily desktop Samesame ;)

xhkkffbf 4y ago

I really like much of the IA's past work, but this latest battle with the publishers is just ill advised. If people worked long and hard on something, they deserve the right to prevent it from being given away for free.

dcow 4y ago
No they don’t. Period. We’ll be a healthier society once we get past the idea that you can, well, own ideas.
- healsdata 4y ago
  What alternative model for funding the creation of said "ideas" would you propose? If everything is free as soon as it exists, how do we ensure equitable access to creation?
rjh29 4y ago
That runs counter to the entire concept of a library. Which is what the Internet Archive is.
- PhasmaFelis 4y ago
  Authors get paid for library books. (They often cost quite a bit more than the same book sold to an individual.) An author/publisher can choose not to sell to a particular library if they really want to.
  - adamc 4y ago
    They do, but publishers have been tightening the screws on libraries too.
  - jacobolus 4y ago
    Libraries pay the ordinary retail price (or less from a bulk discount). They sometimes buy books with (more expensive) sturdier binding, expecting it to be used more heavily. Authors cannot stop libraries from buying their books and putting them on the shelf. Or are you talking about ebooks?

MrPatan 4y ago

Is that the internet archive that archives everything except for his niece's dumb tweets?

drdeca 4y ago
I thought that allegation was shown to be made up?

jrochkind1 4y ago

Unfortunately, I think charitable organizations with resources have this down to a science, and probably know that approach will get them more increased donations than it will lose them donations. I think it's a science of manipulation, and would hope that eventually it will bite them... but these sciences of manipulation are very effective. And pioneered by the industries that many of us work in, with all the A/B testing and funnel management etc. So if we want to point the finger... There are organizations that I like and appreicate, but stopped donating to after they started spamming with me with 5-10 emails a week asking for increased donations, when I was already donating to them! I stopped. Even though I like the organization and think they do good work. but I bet they have correct reason to believe this spam will net them increased donations over all.

ethbr0 4y ago
Non-profit charities are required to file tax paperwork, and there are many scrapers for the information. See https://www.charitynavigator.org/ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ or https://www.charitywatch.org/ https://www.charitywatch.org/ Charity Navigator can be overly generous with their composite scores, but you can drill down to the specifics. E.g. that WMF takes 25% of donations off the top for admin/advertising expenses: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703 https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703 As opposed to, say, the Atlanta Community Food Bank, which operates with <5% overhead: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/581376648 https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/581376648 If you're going to donate, make sure they're actually going to the cause.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]