3 ms·

All the other top websites [1] either are selling my information (Meta) , exist to show me ads (Google), or I pay monthly for (Netflix). Wikipedia runs one of

All the other top websites [1] either are selling my information (Meta) , exist to show me ads (Google), or I pay monthly for (Netflix). Wikipedia runs one of the busiest websites in the world with a staff much smaller than any of those other sites. Like any company -- there's going to be priorities different than mine and waste. But I'm ok being asked to chip in for what I get. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_visited_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_visited_websites

Nomentatus 4y ago
I was okay 'till I donated and got thoroughly spammed by them after that. Not okay with donating there now.
- shp0ngle 4y ago
  That happens if you donate to ANY cause, ever. If you give money to, I don’t know, a charity for hungry kids in <insert poor country>, they will send you MORE begging mails, not less.
  - andrew_ 4y ago
    I donate yearly to the Purple Heart Foundation and they're quite respectful in communications.
  - Arrath 4y ago
    Serious. I found donating blood to have been a bit of a mistake, the bastards just won't stop calling asking for more.
    - punyearthling 4y ago
      To be fair, you donated to Dr. Acula.
      - Arrath 4y ago
        I must say he is quite polite.
    - RattlesnakeJake 4y ago
      Same. I got so tired of the Red Cross phone calls that I changed the phone number in my profile to their customer service line.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    And this makes it OK? The status quo’s brokenness is not an excuse for acting like an ass.
- andrew_ 4y ago
  Same here. Donated once and had to setup filters for the subsequent flood of email. I'd be more inclined to ignore that annoyance if they could get a handle on activist editing, which exists across the entire political spectrum for pages that touch on social or political adjacent topics. But I suppose that's what you get with volunteers. Just can't bring myself to support it.
- temp2022account 4y ago
  I'm in the same boat, every agency I've donated to has turned into a google-powered ad-shilling-machine within a week. It makes it impossible to trust well-intending organizations.
  - jacooper 4y ago
    That's why you should be using an email alias for that
eastbound 4y ago
[flagged]
fallingknife 4y ago
I'm ok with paying too, and I did many times. Then I found out I wasn't actually paying for what I was getting (wikipedia) but actually only a small fraction of my donations were going there and the majority was a bait and switch.
brookst 4y ago
It’s the dishonesty of Wikipedia that bothers me. The implication is that donations are urgently needed to keep the website running. In reality they have $300m in the bank and revenue is growing every year[0]. Even Wikipedia says only 43% of donations are used for site operations[1], and that includes all of their sites, not just Wikipedia. Fully 12% of the money they collect from you is. . . used to ask you for more money[1] The whole thing just feels skeezy. They may have a noble mission, and they may need a $300m endowment when previously $100m was the target[2], but they should make that case. Acting like the site is in trouble and desperately needs every penny all the time is just dishonest. It’s like a televangelist is running the place. Now matter how much you give they desperately and urgently need more more more. 0. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais... 1. https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goes/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goe... 2. https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/22/wikimedia-foundation-reaches-100-million-endowment-goal/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/22/wikimedia-fo...
- CJefferson 4y ago
  What is your problem with [1]? I think almost every charity, or business, ever created spends some proportion of it's income on advertising / outreach, to increase future income. If they cut that 12%, and it decreased their income to half, or a third, of it's current value, would that make you happy? Also, please point me to "The implication is that donations are urgently needed to keep the website running.". I've not seen anything like that in any banner I've seen this year. I'd be interested to know if you get different banners to me? Or, are you just assuming the banner says that?
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    What's the problem with [1]? Well, it says they're swimming in money, and don't need your $2 donation to keep giving your free information. Most of the arguments, including yours, are 100% qualitative. "They're a good site, so give them money." Or "other charities also spend money on advertising." We should instead be quantitative : "Yes, you are a worthy cause, but you have plenty now. Other charities are more deserving."
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MikusR 4y ago
Where can I but the information Meta is selling?

Nomentatus 4y ago

I was okay 'till I donated and got thoroughly spammed by them after that. Not okay with donating there now.

shp0ngle 4y ago
That happens if you donate to ANY cause, ever. If you give money to, I don’t know, a charity for hungry kids in <insert poor country>, they will send you MORE begging mails, not less.
- andrew_ 4y ago
  I donate yearly to the Purple Heart Foundation and they're quite respectful in communications.
- Arrath 4y ago
  Serious. I found donating blood to have been a bit of a mistake, the bastards just won't stop calling asking for more.
  - punyearthling 4y ago
    To be fair, you donated to Dr. Acula.
    - Arrath 4y ago
      I must say he is quite polite.
  - RattlesnakeJake 4y ago
    Same. I got so tired of the Red Cross phone calls that I changed the phone number in my profile to their customer service line.
- falcolas 4y ago
  And this makes it OK? The status quo’s brokenness is not an excuse for acting like an ass.
andrew_ 4y ago
Same here. Donated once and had to setup filters for the subsequent flood of email. I'd be more inclined to ignore that annoyance if they could get a handle on activist editing, which exists across the entire political spectrum for pages that touch on social or political adjacent topics. But I suppose that's what you get with volunteers. Just can't bring myself to support it.
temp2022account 4y ago
I'm in the same boat, every agency I've donated to has turned into a google-powered ad-shilling-machine within a week. It makes it impossible to trust well-intending organizations.
- jacooper 4y ago
  That's why you should be using an email alias for that

eastbound 4y ago

[flagged]

fallingknife 4y ago

I'm ok with paying too, and I did many times. Then I found out I wasn't actually paying for what I was getting (wikipedia) but actually only a small fraction of my donations were going there and the majority was a bait and switch.

brookst 4y ago

It’s the dishonesty of Wikipedia that bothers me. The implication is that donations are urgently needed to keep the website running. In reality they have $300m in the bank and revenue is growing every year[0]. Even Wikipedia says only 43% of donations are used for site operations[1], and that includes all of their sites, not just Wikipedia. Fully 12% of the money they collect from you is. . . used to ask you for more money[1] The whole thing just feels skeezy. They may have a noble mission, and they may need a $300m endowment when previously $100m was the target[2], but they should make that case. Acting like the site is in trouble and desperately needs every penny all the time is just dishonest. It’s like a televangelist is running the place. Now matter how much you give they desperately and urgently need more more more. 0. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais... 1. https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goes/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goe... 2. https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/22/wikimedia-foundation-reaches-100-million-endowment-goal/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/22/wikimedia-fo...

CJefferson 4y ago
What is your problem with [1]? I think almost every charity, or business, ever created spends some proportion of it's income on advertising / outreach, to increase future income. If they cut that 12%, and it decreased their income to half, or a third, of it's current value, would that make you happy? Also, please point me to "The implication is that donations are urgently needed to keep the website running.". I've not seen anything like that in any banner I've seen this year. I'd be interested to know if you get different banners to me? Or, are you just assuming the banner says that?
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  What's the problem with [1]? Well, it says they're swimming in money, and don't need your $2 donation to keep giving your free information. Most of the arguments, including yours, are 100% qualitative. "They're a good site, so give them money." Or "other charities also spend money on advertising." We should instead be quantitative : "Yes, you are a worthy cause, but you have plenty now. Other charities are more deserving."

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

MikusR 4y ago

Where can I but the information Meta is selling?