7 ms·

FTA: > As of December 31, 2021, the Endowment held $105.4 million. There is currently $99.33 million in the investment account and $6.07 million in cash. An ad

FTA: > As of December 31, 2021, the Endowment held $105.4 million. There is currently $99.33 million in the investment account and $6.07 million in cash. An additional $8 million raised in December will be transferred to the Endowment in January 2022. Damn. Regardless of their questionable politically-motivated donations, I feel like they're being disingenuous when they plaster the "PLEASE DON'T IGNORE THIS" donation banners all over Wikipedia. Seems like they have tons and tons of cash.

MathMonkeyMan 3y ago
I'm wondering if I'll ever see the day when somebody who asks me for money actually needs it.
- sseagull 3y ago
  It’s like universities with billions already in their endowment fund. Whatever it is, it isn’t enough, and the fund better be bigger next year. It’s the equivalent of individual people who never feel financially secure, even with millions in the bank.
- m463 3y ago
  Isn't that just life though? The people who ask for things are the ones who get them. Squeaky wheel gets the oil.
  - MathMonkeyMan 3y ago
    A squeaky wheel at least needs lubrication. I'm not the judge of who "actually needs" money, but surely there are tons of people in the world (maybe in my neighborhood) who are struggling and would be helped by having some of my money. None of those people are asking me for change on the street or sending me donation letters. Disjoint sets.
LewisVerstappen 3y ago
Frankly, wikipedia’s gotten significantly worse as a source of knowledge over the last few years as well. Tons and tons of astroturfing & bias with articles. There’s obviously tons of politicial bias but there’s also lots of individuals writing their own bias as a “uninterested third party” when in reality they’re emphasizing the narrative most favorable to them. You see it a ton with wikipedia pages of entrepreneurs, journalists & obviously politicians.
- newaccount74 3y ago
  That has always been the case on Wikipedia. Some articles have editors watching over them who revert any edit that doesn't fit their narrative.
  - joker_minmax 3y ago
    I see this happening a lot more than it used to, though. Even if the edits are "I changed this quote because it's a fringe theory that misleads readers about what [article topic theory] represents", the edit will be reverted so that the misleading text remains, to serve a point.
- FreshStart 3y ago
  It turns out states and companies can donate full-time personal to subvert a open source foundation.
- hulitu 3y ago
  > also lots of individuals writing their own bias and 3 letter agencies. Whenever a subject is a bit sensitive, you can feel their influence.

MathMonkeyMan 3y ago

I'm wondering if I'll ever see the day when somebody who asks me for money actually needs it.

sseagull 3y ago
It’s like universities with billions already in their endowment fund. Whatever it is, it isn’t enough, and the fund better be bigger next year. It’s the equivalent of individual people who never feel financially secure, even with millions in the bank.
m463 3y ago
Isn't that just life though? The people who ask for things are the ones who get them. Squeaky wheel gets the oil.
- MathMonkeyMan 3y ago
  A squeaky wheel at least needs lubrication. I'm not the judge of who "actually needs" money, but surely there are tons of people in the world (maybe in my neighborhood) who are struggling and would be helped by having some of my money. None of those people are asking me for change on the street or sending me donation letters. Disjoint sets.

LewisVerstappen 3y ago

Frankly, wikipedia’s gotten significantly worse as a source of knowledge over the last few years as well. Tons and tons of astroturfing & bias with articles. There’s obviously tons of politicial bias but there’s also lots of individuals writing their own bias as a “uninterested third party” when in reality they’re emphasizing the narrative most favorable to them. You see it a ton with wikipedia pages of entrepreneurs, journalists & obviously politicians.

newaccount74 3y ago
That has always been the case on Wikipedia. Some articles have editors watching over them who revert any edit that doesn't fit their narrative.
- joker_minmax 3y ago
  I see this happening a lot more than it used to, though. Even if the edits are "I changed this quote because it's a fringe theory that misleads readers about what [article topic theory] represents", the edit will be reverted so that the misleading text remains, to serve a point.
FreshStart 3y ago
It turns out states and companies can donate full-time personal to subvert a open source foundation.
hulitu 3y ago
> also lots of individuals writing their own bias and 3 letter agencies. Whenever a subject is a bit sensitive, you can feel their influence.