4 ms·

Wikipedia does not need your money: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia

by 0l 3y ago

Wikipedia does not need your money: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has...

hayst4ck 3y ago
I don't donate to Wikipedia because they need money. I donate to Wikipedia because I think they are a force for good in this world and I don't believe there is such a thing as a free lunch. Wikipedia is an institution that has improved my life and I think that deserves investment.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  Donations don't pay the authors and editors.
- tivert 3y ago
  > I don't donate to Wikipedia because they need money. I donate to Wikipedia because I think they are a force for good in this world and I don't believe there is such a thing as a free lunch. If you donate to an organization that doesn't need the money, you might as well assume that money will be wasted on something with the similar societal benefit as a party full of hookers and blow.
- z_open 3y ago
  I think it does a lot of harm along with the good. They don't seem to enforce much for policies that bias any article that's non-technical. Also they redonate a lot of donated money, some of which goes to some dubious places. I would think that's reason enough to not donate.
  - ianvisits 3y ago
    "some of which goes to some dubious places." As Wikipedia would say... [citation neeeded].
    - akolbe 3y ago
      According to tax forms just released last week, the outgoing Wikimedia CEO Katherine Maher got $623,286 in severance pay in 2021: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikimedia_Foundation_2021_Form_990.pdf#page=50 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikim... She made a total of $798,632 that year. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikimedia_Foundation_2021_Form_990.pdf#page=49 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikim... Another manager who had been there for less than two-and-a-half years got $324,748 in severance, more than 100% of her salary in her last full year of employment ... Discussion on the Wikimedia mailing list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/LUM4FS6ABPG4TBUFF6QHYJD3FT36W2AU/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list...
      - akolbe 3y ago
        Also, $100 million have gone into an "Endowment" that has never to this day, in nearly a decade of existence, published audited accounts. Report in Wikipedia's community newspaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/News_and_notes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... Promises have been made for years that the Endowment, held by the Tides Foundation, would "soon" be registered as a separate 501c3 nonprofit org and start filing public accounts ... still hasn't happened.
    - 0l 3y ago
      Things like this, for example: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/08/wikimedia-foundation-announces-first-grant-recipients-of-new-4-5-million-equity-fund/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/08/wikimedia-fo... If users support these organisations, they can donate directly, especially given that most Wikimedia donors have no idea their money is not being spent on Wikipedia itself.
      - bawolff 3y ago
        I wasn't a fan of those grants but it was a one time thing they did that was a relatively small portion of their budget.
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    Truth is biased. I am OK with someone taking a stand on what the truth is and the fact there are meta discussions on what the truth is is reassuring. If someone thinks Taiwan is a part of China, they are going to feel like an authoritative source of information describing Taiwan as a sovereign country is "harmful." Fascist ideology doesn't want the idea of truth to exist and Wikipedia weighing in and saying "this is the best approximation of truth we got" is a small but powerful assault against fascist ideology. The purpose of free speech is to protect speaking truth to power. If there is no conception of what truth is then how can one speak truth to power? "Dubious donations" seems like the epitome of FUD.
    - Bran_son 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - z_open 3y ago
      Every nontechnical article is full of selective quotes, from borderline random people, which have no place in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia has facts. That's not what Wikipedia even tries to do. If it wasn't auch a great source for the sciences I would be ok with it going away.
      - doctor_eval 3y ago
        > That's not what Wikipedia even tries to do I think it’s exactly what Wikipedia tries to do. But given the scale of things its not going to get it right every time.
  - komali2 3y ago
    > I think it does a lot of harm along with the good. You said "also they redonate..." so you seem to consider that a separate issue. Thus, what "harm" have you found wikipedia to have done, specifically?
bawolff 3y ago
There are valid criticisms to be made of wikipedia's spending (like any large org), but i always thought this article is stupid. Yes, wikipedia's hosting costs increased over time from when it was a tiny site that was down constantly and super slow, to a top website with multiple data centers and high reliability. It would be a red flag if that didn't happen.
- akolbe 3y ago
  Let's not say "hosting costs". Actual hosting costs are less than $3 million a year: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2021-2022_Audit_Report.pdf#page=6 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikim... $100 million or so are now spent on salaries.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    I think an earlier version of the essay focused much more on hosting. It should be noted that when you run your own data center that means that money that would have gone to AWS as a "hosting cost" now gets spread around to other sections. Its cheaper overall but shows up in different sections. There are things i disagree with about how wmf spends its money, but just saying it spends too much money without breaking it down is meaningless. As an absolute number it is way lower than comparable websites. Maybe its spent on wrong things, but to be convincing you need to actual talk about how its wrong. Saying zOMG WMF pays about 1% of what equivalent companies pay in salaries,is not convincing that they are overspending.
    - akolbe 3y ago
      Well, I definitely thought that the $600+K severance for Katherine Maher was too much. It's 150% of her salary. Same for Janeen Uzzell pockeding $300+K in severance after only having been there for two years and a bit. Plus the now-cancelled Knowledge Equity Fund disaster seems to have been their brainchild. I know, nobody is perfect, cock-ups happen everywhere, etc. But the conduct and transparency around money just has never been that stellar at Wikimedia. (The Endowment has made it worse.) The other aspect is that Wikimedia has always made it sound like they needed money to keep Wikipedia up and running, while having eight-figure surpluses year after year and continually growing their headcount. At least that has now somewhat improved for the moment, but it took a revolt by Wikipedians to make it so: https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/wikipedia-wikimedia-foundation-donate.html https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/wikipedia-wikimedia-fou... Left to their own devices, the Wikimedia Foundation would just have continued what they were doing all along.
qingcharles 3y ago
Raises some interesting points, but is horribly cynical. It does appear that Wikipedia has enough money in the bank, though. Jimbo still has my vote though.

by 0l 3y ago

Wikipedia does not need your money: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has...

hayst4ck 3y ago

I don't donate to Wikipedia because they need money. I donate to Wikipedia because I think they are a force for good in this world and I don't believe there is such a thing as a free lunch. Wikipedia is an institution that has improved my life and I think that deserves investment.

hgsgm 3y ago
Donations don't pay the authors and editors.
tivert 3y ago
> I don't donate to Wikipedia because they need money. I donate to Wikipedia because I think they are a force for good in this world and I don't believe there is such a thing as a free lunch. If you donate to an organization that doesn't need the money, you might as well assume that money will be wasted on something with the similar societal benefit as a party full of hookers and blow.
z_open 3y ago
I think it does a lot of harm along with the good. They don't seem to enforce much for policies that bias any article that's non-technical. Also they redonate a lot of donated money, some of which goes to some dubious places. I would think that's reason enough to not donate.
- ianvisits 3y ago
  "some of which goes to some dubious places." As Wikipedia would say... [citation neeeded].
  - akolbe 3y ago
    According to tax forms just released last week, the outgoing Wikimedia CEO Katherine Maher got $623,286 in severance pay in 2021: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikimedia_Foundation_2021_Form_990.pdf#page=50 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikim... She made a total of $798,632 that year. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikimedia_Foundation_2021_Form_990.pdf#page=49 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikim... Another manager who had been there for less than two-and-a-half years got $324,748 in severance, more than 100% of her salary in her last full year of employment ... Discussion on the Wikimedia mailing list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/LUM4FS6ABPG4TBUFF6QHYJD3FT36W2AU/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list...
    - akolbe 3y ago
      Also, $100 million have gone into an "Endowment" that has never to this day, in nearly a decade of existence, published audited accounts. Report in Wikipedia's community newspaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/News_and_notes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... Promises have been made for years that the Endowment, held by the Tides Foundation, would "soon" be registered as a separate 501c3 nonprofit org and start filing public accounts ... still hasn't happened.
  - 0l 3y ago
    Things like this, for example: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/08/wikimedia-foundation-announces-first-grant-recipients-of-new-4-5-million-equity-fund/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/08/wikimedia-fo... If users support these organisations, they can donate directly, especially given that most Wikimedia donors have no idea their money is not being spent on Wikipedia itself.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      I wasn't a fan of those grants but it was a one time thing they did that was a relatively small portion of their budget.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  Truth is biased. I am OK with someone taking a stand on what the truth is and the fact there are meta discussions on what the truth is is reassuring. If someone thinks Taiwan is a part of China, they are going to feel like an authoritative source of information describing Taiwan as a sovereign country is "harmful." Fascist ideology doesn't want the idea of truth to exist and Wikipedia weighing in and saying "this is the best approximation of truth we got" is a small but powerful assault against fascist ideology. The purpose of free speech is to protect speaking truth to power. If there is no conception of what truth is then how can one speak truth to power? "Dubious donations" seems like the epitome of FUD.
  - Bran_son 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - z_open 3y ago
    Every nontechnical article is full of selective quotes, from borderline random people, which have no place in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia has facts. That's not what Wikipedia even tries to do. If it wasn't auch a great source for the sciences I would be ok with it going away.
    - doctor_eval 3y ago
      > That's not what Wikipedia even tries to do I think it’s exactly what Wikipedia tries to do. But given the scale of things its not going to get it right every time.
- komali2 3y ago
  > I think it does a lot of harm along with the good. You said "also they redonate..." so you seem to consider that a separate issue. Thus, what "harm" have you found wikipedia to have done, specifically?

bawolff 3y ago

There are valid criticisms to be made of wikipedia's spending (like any large org), but i always thought this article is stupid. Yes, wikipedia's hosting costs increased over time from when it was a tiny site that was down constantly and super slow, to a top website with multiple data centers and high reliability. It would be a red flag if that didn't happen.

akolbe 3y ago
Let's not say "hosting costs". Actual hosting costs are less than $3 million a year: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2021-2022_Audit_Report.pdf#page=6 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikim... $100 million or so are now spent on salaries.
- bawolff 3y ago
  I think an earlier version of the essay focused much more on hosting. It should be noted that when you run your own data center that means that money that would have gone to AWS as a "hosting cost" now gets spread around to other sections. Its cheaper overall but shows up in different sections. There are things i disagree with about how wmf spends its money, but just saying it spends too much money without breaking it down is meaningless. As an absolute number it is way lower than comparable websites. Maybe its spent on wrong things, but to be convincing you need to actual talk about how its wrong. Saying zOMG WMF pays about 1% of what equivalent companies pay in salaries,is not convincing that they are overspending.
  - akolbe 3y ago
    Well, I definitely thought that the $600+K severance for Katherine Maher was too much. It's 150% of her salary. Same for Janeen Uzzell pockeding $300+K in severance after only having been there for two years and a bit. Plus the now-cancelled Knowledge Equity Fund disaster seems to have been their brainchild. I know, nobody is perfect, cock-ups happen everywhere, etc. But the conduct and transparency around money just has never been that stellar at Wikimedia. (The Endowment has made it worse.) The other aspect is that Wikimedia has always made it sound like they needed money to keep Wikipedia up and running, while having eight-figure surpluses year after year and continually growing their headcount. At least that has now somewhat improved for the moment, but it took a revolt by Wikipedians to make it so: https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/wikipedia-wikimedia-foundation-donate.html https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/wikipedia-wikimedia-fou... Left to their own devices, the Wikimedia Foundation would just have continued what they were doing all along.

qingcharles 3y ago

Raises some interesting points, but is horribly cynical. It does appear that Wikipedia has enough money in the bank, though. Jimbo still has my vote though.