48 ms·

Wikipedia's mission has always been about democratizing access to information. If they're directing funds to social justice causes, it's likely an extension of

Wikipedia's mission has always been about democratizing access to information. If they're directing funds to social justice causes, it's likely an extension of that mission. Social justice is about leveling the playing field, and what better way to do that than by improving access to knowledge? Also, another point, Wikipedia has a large community of volunteers who can influence its direction. It's not solely up to Jimmy Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation. An as per their financials, they publish annual reports and financial statements that anyone can access. The question of transparency might be more about public perception and understanding of these reports rather than the availability of the information.

nailer 3y ago
[flagged]
toomuchtodo 3y ago
I believe the distaste is with the donation banners begging for donations like they're going out of business while funneling funds to these campaigns that donors might not realize their donations are going to, versus keeping the lights on. If you have to "manage the facts" to get the donation volume you're after, that's the problem. Perhaps allow for folks to provide a directed donation to Wikipedia proper, while also allowing unrestricted donations for the social stuff. Otherwise, you're no better than the Red Cross [1] [2], riding on your brand to raise funds while not delivering the impact your donors expect of you. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G_dBggzu-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G_dBggzu-c [2] https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-... (previously donated to Wikipedia, now directing those funds to the Internet Archive instead)
- weatherlight 3y ago
  I get the concern about transparency and donor expectations. But let's not forget that Wikipedia's mission is broader than just 'keeping the lights on.' It's about democratizing access to information. Social justice causes aim to do the same by leveling the playing field. If you're donating to Wikipedia, you're supporting that broader mission, not just server costs. As for directed donations, that's an interesting idea, but it could also complicate the operational aspects of running a not-for-profit. And if you're not comfortable with how Wikipedia uses its funds, redirecting your donations to another cause you support, like the Internet Archive, is a reasonable course of action.
  - nailer 3y ago
    You need to explicitly state how the social justice causes that money is being given to increase access to information rather than repeatedly state they may potentially do that.
    - atoav 3y ago
      First we would need to define what "social justice" is in this context (other than a very, very loaded term that is used to start flame wars). So what does wikipedia do when it "does social justice"? Because the way I think about wikipedia their most important resource isn't content, it is people — and people tend to move in social spaces. We probably agree that an encyclopedia that should be worth it's paper/bytes that encyclopedia needs to represent reality. Representing reality has historically not worked well when all writers came from the same background and demographic, as this leads to blind spots or common misconceptions that occur in that populus to be reproduced. So having a more diverse cast of writers helps the quality of the built-in checks and balances because the holes in their perception are less likely to align. On top of that if more writers feel welcome (it is a social space after all), there will also more content on more topics. So when the telegraph polemically demands wikipedia should focus on the content, they might want to consider that they actually do.
    - weatherlight 3y ago
      Sure, let's entertain the idea that Wikipedia should only use donations for 'keeping the lights on.' By that logic, any organization with a broader mission should only focus on its most immediate, operational needs. Schools should only pay for buildings and teachers, not extracurriculars that broaden students' horizons. Hospitals should only pay for beds and doctors, not research that could save lives in the future. Libraries should just maintain the building and pay librarians, but who cares about carefully selecting books that can educate and empower the community, right? Wikipedia's mission isn't just to exist; it's to democratize access to information. Social justice initiatives often aim to do the same by providing resources and platforms for marginalized communities. So, if you're donating to Wikipedia, you're supporting that broader mission, not just the electricity bill. and most imporatntly, if you don't like it, don't donate.
Dalewyn 3y ago
>Social justice is about leveling the playing field, Social justice is just a nicer term for anarchy, because it's justice as society (read: certain vocal minority groups) deems it. There is nothing consistent nor fair about it, because what justice is can differ from day to day depending on the mood of society. Leveling the playing field, as you put it, is done by pursuing legal justice: Writing and passing legislation and judging all parties concerned before a court of law equally and fairly. Neither have anything to do with democratizing access to information either.
- weatherlight 3y ago
  Interesting perspective, but I disagree. Social justice isn't about anarchy; it's about addressing systemic inequalities that legal justice sometimes overlooks or even perpetuates. Laws are often a reflection of societal values, which can be biased. Social justice aims to challenge and change those biases. As for democratizing access to information, it's directly related. Information is power. When you make information accessible, you empower people to make informed decisions, challenge biases, and even influence those very laws you're talking about. So, in a way, social justice and information access are two sides of the same coin.
  - nailer 3y ago
    Most of the social justice I’ve seen recently has been attempting to promote and formalise biases, for example racial discrimination against Asians and Europeans for US university admissions.
    - weatherlight 3y ago
      the concept of Social Justice is a wide field and has existed since the moment human beings started to organized themselves into tribes. Its not just "promoting and formalizing" ideas that you just happen to disagree with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice?useskin=vector#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice?useskin=vector#...
mixmastamyk 3y ago
Sounds nice, but doesn't excuse them from asking for money to support the sites then using ~98% of the money for salaries and pet causes. Wiki{m,p}edia has some 'splaining to do!

nailer 3y ago

[flagged]

toomuchtodo 3y ago

I believe the distaste is with the donation banners begging for donations like they're going out of business while funneling funds to these campaigns that donors might not realize their donations are going to, versus keeping the lights on. If you have to "manage the facts" to get the donation volume you're after, that's the problem. Perhaps allow for folks to provide a directed donation to Wikipedia proper, while also allowing unrestricted donations for the social stuff. Otherwise, you're no better than the Red Cross [1] [2], riding on your brand to raise funds while not delivering the impact your donors expect of you. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G_dBggzu-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G_dBggzu-c [2] https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-... (previously donated to Wikipedia, now directing those funds to the Internet Archive instead)

weatherlight 3y ago
I get the concern about transparency and donor expectations. But let's not forget that Wikipedia's mission is broader than just 'keeping the lights on.' It's about democratizing access to information. Social justice causes aim to do the same by leveling the playing field. If you're donating to Wikipedia, you're supporting that broader mission, not just server costs. As for directed donations, that's an interesting idea, but it could also complicate the operational aspects of running a not-for-profit. And if you're not comfortable with how Wikipedia uses its funds, redirecting your donations to another cause you support, like the Internet Archive, is a reasonable course of action.
- nailer 3y ago
  You need to explicitly state how the social justice causes that money is being given to increase access to information rather than repeatedly state they may potentially do that.
  - atoav 3y ago
    First we would need to define what "social justice" is in this context (other than a very, very loaded term that is used to start flame wars). So what does wikipedia do when it "does social justice"? Because the way I think about wikipedia their most important resource isn't content, it is people — and people tend to move in social spaces. We probably agree that an encyclopedia that should be worth it's paper/bytes that encyclopedia needs to represent reality. Representing reality has historically not worked well when all writers came from the same background and demographic, as this leads to blind spots or common misconceptions that occur in that populus to be reproduced. So having a more diverse cast of writers helps the quality of the built-in checks and balances because the holes in their perception are less likely to align. On top of that if more writers feel welcome (it is a social space after all), there will also more content on more topics. So when the telegraph polemically demands wikipedia should focus on the content, they might want to consider that they actually do.
  - weatherlight 3y ago
    Sure, let's entertain the idea that Wikipedia should only use donations for 'keeping the lights on.' By that logic, any organization with a broader mission should only focus on its most immediate, operational needs. Schools should only pay for buildings and teachers, not extracurriculars that broaden students' horizons. Hospitals should only pay for beds and doctors, not research that could save lives in the future. Libraries should just maintain the building and pay librarians, but who cares about carefully selecting books that can educate and empower the community, right? Wikipedia's mission isn't just to exist; it's to democratize access to information. Social justice initiatives often aim to do the same by providing resources and platforms for marginalized communities. So, if you're donating to Wikipedia, you're supporting that broader mission, not just the electricity bill. and most imporatntly, if you don't like it, don't donate.

Dalewyn 3y ago

>Social justice is about leveling the playing field, Social justice is just a nicer term for anarchy, because it's justice as society (read: certain vocal minority groups) deems it. There is nothing consistent nor fair about it, because what justice is can differ from day to day depending on the mood of society. Leveling the playing field, as you put it, is done by pursuing legal justice: Writing and passing legislation and judging all parties concerned before a court of law equally and fairly. Neither have anything to do with democratizing access to information either.

weatherlight 3y ago
Interesting perspective, but I disagree. Social justice isn't about anarchy; it's about addressing systemic inequalities that legal justice sometimes overlooks or even perpetuates. Laws are often a reflection of societal values, which can be biased. Social justice aims to challenge and change those biases. As for democratizing access to information, it's directly related. Information is power. When you make information accessible, you empower people to make informed decisions, challenge biases, and even influence those very laws you're talking about. So, in a way, social justice and information access are two sides of the same coin.
- nailer 3y ago
  Most of the social justice I’ve seen recently has been attempting to promote and formalise biases, for example racial discrimination against Asians and Europeans for US university admissions.
  - weatherlight 3y ago
    the concept of Social Justice is a wide field and has existed since the moment human beings started to organized themselves into tribes. Its not just "promoting and formalizing" ideas that you just happen to disagree with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice?useskin=vector#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice?useskin=vector#...

mixmastamyk 3y ago

Sounds nice, but doesn't excuse them from asking for money to support the sites then using ~98% of the money for salaries and pet causes. Wiki{m,p}edia has some 'splaining to do!