3 ms·
Their endowment has been growing for years, and that has earned them quite a lot of criticism. Now they aim to shrink it somewhat, by supporting archives (which
by CameronNemo 3y ago
Their endowment has been growing for years, and that has earned them quite a lot of criticism. Now they aim to shrink it somewhat, by supporting archives (which Wikipedia articles often depend on). Perhaps they simply don't know how to efficiently spend your donations!
- palmer_fox 3y agoI would definitely express more support for any investment that directly supports Wikipedia. For examle, creating a fund to improve the quality, the scope, the number of translated articles about Filipino people and their history. Yes please. Any donations to vague causes like "growing advocacy" will forever be questonable in my view.
- BizarroLand 3y agoThey could have just as easily put a redirect or post donation page in and said, "Thank you for your support, here are some other worthwhile charitable causes you can invest in!" and have gotten $1,000,000 in further donations for them over the last year. That would have been upright and trustworthy, if a bit annoying. Finding out that they are re-donating my donations irks me. I don't like it. I like the stated missions statements of the charities they donated to, but I don't know anything about them. Are they good charities? What were the grants used for? Who's going to put the effort in to let me know that this wasn't a greedy soulless con job and some of the money I spent to protect a huge trove of human knowledge actually went to some greedy dickhead in Brazil and there's not a dang thing I can do about it? I'm not donating to Wikipedia & co again until those questions are answered, and I'm not putting any more effort into finding the answer than spitting this rant out. There's too much shifty questionable things going on to blindly trust any longer.