4 ms·
If they have more money than they need, it is natural to expand the scope of the mission. You could argue that they are doing a poor job at this, but I don't se
by JoeyBananas 4y ago
If they have more money than they need, it is natural to expand the scope of the mission. You could argue that they are doing a poor job at this, but I don't see any case that they shouldn't be continuing to collect more donations. It's better to have the money and waste it than not have the money and not waste it.
- constantcrying 4y agoI am asking for honesty and accountability. If you are going to use that money to give it to random undisclosed charities advertise that. Have the pop-up say "The Wikimedia foundations desperately needs your donations, so that we finally can give your money to undisclosed charities.", don't pretend like Wikipedia is about to die, the organization is extremely well off and you should be honest about that. >It's better to have the money and waste it than not have the money and not waste it. That is such an awful thing to say. They are still taking the money of people who believe they are keeping Wikipedia alive, but then use that exact money to give to undisclosed charities. How can you not see that as a problem?
- pwinnski 4y agoIt sounds like we are not seeing the same banners. You keep paraphrasing, definitely not quoting, what sound like dire pleas for survival, and yet any banner I see lacks any of that.
- constantcrying 4y agoCan you show me a single banner from where you could walk away with the impression that the Wikimedia foundation has 240 Million in assets and wants donation for causes totally unrelated to keeping Wikipedia maintained and running? Just a single one?