3 ms·
The issue people have is less what Wikipedia does with the funds donated to them, then how they advertise. If you advert suggests you are about to go under, but
by constantcrying 4y ago
The issue people have is less what Wikipedia does with the funds donated to them, then how they advertise. If you advert suggests you are about to go under, but in reality you are spending money left right and center on various other charities, with only vaguely related mission statements, then you are taking advantage of the god will of your donators, that is the problem here.
>All large organizations experience waste and spend some money poorly.
Sure and if their advertising was in any way honest about their financial situation people would mind much less.
Personally I would never donate to an organization which repeatedly claims to be at the brink of collapse, while managing very significant amount of funds and investing them into vanity projects. If I wanted to donate money, why wouldn't I donate to anything else?
- _abox 4y ago> If you advert suggests you are about to go under, but in reality you are spending money left right and center on various other charities, with only vaguely related mission statements, then you are taking advantage of the god will of your donators, that is the problem here. This, totally. That's the reason for me too. They do good work but the way they ask really ticks me off. And it's been like this forever, when they still featured the sad-sam Jimmy Wales pic. They do great work but I'll rather give to archive.org that also do amazing and important work, need it a lot more and don't cry about it so much.