3 ms·

> Wikimedia's donations are used to fund some nefarious things, since their endowment is run by the Tides Foundation > Tides Foundation is an American public c

> Wikimedia's donations are used to fund some nefarious things, since their endowment is run by the Tides Foundation > Tides Foundation is an American public charity and fiscal sponsor working to advance progressive causes and policy initiatives in areas such as the environment, health care, labor issues, immigrant rights, LGBTQ+ rights, women's rights and human rights. > Among the most unbelievable “projects” of the Tides Center is something called the Institute for Global Communications (www.igc.org). IGC is a clearinghouse for Leftist propagandists of all stripes, including living-wage advocates, anti-war protesters, slave-reparations hucksters, and a wide variety of extreme environmentalists. When do we get to the nefarious part?

yucky 4y ago
Is it not nefarious to direct donations meant for one thing (keeping Wikipedia running) and secretly direct it to be used for other things that the donors may or may not even agree with, much less want to give money for?
- fluoridation 4y ago
  Yup. To generalize your point, any time a charity donates its own donations to another charity it's liable to run into some sort of ethical issue.
boppo1 4y ago
>extreme environmentalists. I'd be pissed if my $5 went to a Just Stop Oil kid throwing tomato soup on a Van Gogh. I'd call that kind of switcheroo nefarious.
- JTbane 4y ago
  Yep, or gluing themselves to the floor of a VW factory
- a_shovel 4y ago
  I'm not asking if misleading people about donations is nefarious (I'd call it "dishonest" personally), I'm asking if you think the causes they donate to are nefarious. Judging by the deep partisan slant on [2], "extreme environmentalists" could mean literally anything.
  - yucky 4y ago
    > Judging by the deep partisan slant on [2], "extreme environmentalists" could mean literally anything. You can say the same for the generalities that Tides uses to describe their mission. "Immigrant Rights" for instance could mean anything from helping legal immigrants get access to resources, to funding caravans of illegal aliens from Central America through Mexico and into the US to make false asylum claims. Depending on which type of immigrant rights we're talking about, support will vary greatly. That goes for every single claim they make, so without seeing the actual specific programs it's hard to make a clear judgment, which is by design. But more importantly, if people want to donate to those types of causes they should do so directly, not have to worry about donations made to Wikipedia being funneled into these sorts of things. If it's not legally fraud, it should be.

yucky 4y ago

Is it not nefarious to direct donations meant for one thing (keeping Wikipedia running) and secretly direct it to be used for other things that the donors may or may not even agree with, much less want to give money for?

fluoridation 4y ago
Yup. To generalize your point, any time a charity donates its own donations to another charity it's liable to run into some sort of ethical issue.

boppo1 4y ago

>extreme environmentalists. I'd be pissed if my $5 went to a Just Stop Oil kid throwing tomato soup on a Van Gogh. I'd call that kind of switcheroo nefarious.

JTbane 4y ago
Yep, or gluing themselves to the floor of a VW factory
a_shovel 4y ago
I'm not asking if misleading people about donations is nefarious (I'd call it "dishonest" personally), I'm asking if you think the causes they donate to are nefarious. Judging by the deep partisan slant on [2], "extreme environmentalists" could mean literally anything.
- yucky 4y ago
  > Judging by the deep partisan slant on [2], "extreme environmentalists" could mean literally anything. You can say the same for the generalities that Tides uses to describe their mission. "Immigrant Rights" for instance could mean anything from helping legal immigrants get access to resources, to funding caravans of illegal aliens from Central America through Mexico and into the US to make false asylum claims. Depending on which type of immigrant rights we're talking about, support will vary greatly. That goes for every single claim they make, so without seeing the actual specific programs it's hard to make a clear judgment, which is by design. But more importantly, if people want to donate to those types of causes they should do so directly, not have to worry about donations made to Wikipedia being funneled into these sorts of things. If it's not legally fraud, it should be.