4 ms·

To put into perspective: the Wikimedia Foundation manages one of humanity’s greatest achievements. I thought it was an open secret that they’re pretty flush wi

To put into perspective: the Wikimedia Foundation manages one of humanity’s greatest achievements. I thought it was an open secret that they’re pretty flush with cash overall despite the constant nag for justadollar’. I dunno, maybe I’ve been desensitised but these numbers are not horribly shocking to me, and when put in the context of the immense value the project brings to the rest of the world… I mean come on, look at some of the comments posted here. “Con artists”, are you serious?

tombert 3y ago
"Con artists" might be a strong term, but honestly I can't blame people for being upset. Obviously Wikipedia is a pretty useful tool, I don't think anyone disputes that, but I think people can be forgiven to think that half-page-sized banners begging for money indicates that they're strapped for cash. They will have messages like "If everyone reading this right now gave a buck then this donation drive would be finished in five minutes". In hindsight, it feels a bit deceptive even if it's not an outright lie. Should anyone go to jail for this? No, I think that would be ridiculous, but it does kind of erode a bit of the trust that I had for Wikimedia.
- Clubber 3y ago
  I see your point, but let me counterpoint. Anybody with any financial sense should save their money and not spend it as soon as they get it. This is to prepare for the drought years. Could this be something like that?
  - tombert 3y ago
    Forgive me, I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say. You're saying that by giving a large severance to people no longer affiliated with the company, it's a form of saving money? I'm not trying to straw-man, I'm genuinely not sure what I'm responding to.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      >You're saying that by giving a large severance to people no longer affiliated with the company, it's a form of saving money? No, I'm saying having a large amount of cash on hand is a hedge against drought periods. I suspect they have a certain monetary goal during donation drives, so meeting those goals is part of their funding strategy. Some drives exceed goals, some don't. They need to account for runway or future lack thereof. Replying specifically to this: >They will have messages like "If everyone reading this right now gave a buck then this donation drive would be finished in five minutes". In hindsight, it feels a bit deceptive even if it's not an outright lie. FWIW, 1.5x severance doesn't seem excessive to me, I wish that would be the industry norm for everyone. If it were, there'd be a lot fewer stressed out people right now.
rob74 3y ago
One of humanity's greatest achievements, built by unpaid volunteers - so yes, some might find it shocking that none of the money from the donations that Wikipedia asks for year after year goes to these volunteers, while quite a lot of it is spent on large salaries and even larger severance packages.
- chasd00 3y ago
  The money we donate also goes to lots of random causes not related to wikipedia. I wonder what percent of the budget goes to actual wikipedia hosting and maintenance costs.
MagicMoonlight 3y ago
If people donate 100m to an organisation claiming to be a charity and 99m goes into the pockets of the people running it then they’re going to question their donation. Why are donations being spent on enriching people instead of improving the project? Millions of dollars would pay for a hell of a lot of articles written by experts in their field.
- Akronymus 3y ago
  Wikipedia is explicitly against articles written by experts. Because those are primary sources while wikipedia only allows secondary ones (IMO the biggest mistake, as it allows the HUGE bias it has)
  - detaro 3y ago
    No. But it expects experts to still provide citations and sources when writing articles (and not to excessively self-cite)
  - krageon 3y ago
    An expert can write an article and cite the correct sources to go along with it. If anything, the fact that they are an expert makes this easier.

tombert 3y ago

"Con artists" might be a strong term, but honestly I can't blame people for being upset. Obviously Wikipedia is a pretty useful tool, I don't think anyone disputes that, but I think people can be forgiven to think that half-page-sized banners begging for money indicates that they're strapped for cash. They will have messages like "If everyone reading this right now gave a buck then this donation drive would be finished in five minutes". In hindsight, it feels a bit deceptive even if it's not an outright lie. Should anyone go to jail for this? No, I think that would be ridiculous, but it does kind of erode a bit of the trust that I had for Wikimedia.

Clubber 3y ago
I see your point, but let me counterpoint. Anybody with any financial sense should save their money and not spend it as soon as they get it. This is to prepare for the drought years. Could this be something like that?
- tombert 3y ago
  Forgive me, I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say. You're saying that by giving a large severance to people no longer affiliated with the company, it's a form of saving money? I'm not trying to straw-man, I'm genuinely not sure what I'm responding to.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >You're saying that by giving a large severance to people no longer affiliated with the company, it's a form of saving money? No, I'm saying having a large amount of cash on hand is a hedge against drought periods. I suspect they have a certain monetary goal during donation drives, so meeting those goals is part of their funding strategy. Some drives exceed goals, some don't. They need to account for runway or future lack thereof. Replying specifically to this: >They will have messages like "If everyone reading this right now gave a buck then this donation drive would be finished in five minutes". In hindsight, it feels a bit deceptive even if it's not an outright lie. FWIW, 1.5x severance doesn't seem excessive to me, I wish that would be the industry norm for everyone. If it were, there'd be a lot fewer stressed out people right now.

rob74 3y ago

One of humanity's greatest achievements, built by unpaid volunteers - so yes, some might find it shocking that none of the money from the donations that Wikipedia asks for year after year goes to these volunteers, while quite a lot of it is spent on large salaries and even larger severance packages.

chasd00 3y ago
The money we donate also goes to lots of random causes not related to wikipedia. I wonder what percent of the budget goes to actual wikipedia hosting and maintenance costs.

MagicMoonlight 3y ago

If people donate 100m to an organisation claiming to be a charity and 99m goes into the pockets of the people running it then they’re going to question their donation. Why are donations being spent on enriching people instead of improving the project? Millions of dollars would pay for a hell of a lot of articles written by experts in their field.

Akronymus 3y ago
Wikipedia is explicitly against articles written by experts. Because those are primary sources while wikipedia only allows secondary ones (IMO the biggest mistake, as it allows the HUGE bias it has)
- detaro 3y ago
  No. But it expects experts to still provide citations and sources when writing articles (and not to excessively self-cite)
- krageon 3y ago
  An expert can write an article and cite the correct sources to go along with it. If anything, the fact that they are an expert makes this easier.