4 ms·

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 ab

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.
  - 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. > Sure Then do it. Your reply didn’t provide an answer.
    - weatherlight 3y ago
      That's not how anything works. You aren't a stock holder. They are not beholden to you. You are donating money. They run the org they decide what's best to accomplishing their goals. If you don't like it, don't donate.
      - mixmastamyk 3y ago
        We are talking about them misleading folks with their donation drives. Paying themselves 10x while workers get nothing. “Don’t donate if you don’t like it” is not even near good enough, sorry.
      - nailer 3y ago
        I asked you to explicitly state how the social justice causes increase access to information. You replied sure but then didn't do this. I asked you again. You didn't do this. You may get more attention and interest from other people if you stop pretending to respond to them.

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.
- 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. > Sure Then do it. Your reply didn’t provide an answer.
  - weatherlight 3y ago
    That's not how anything works. You aren't a stock holder. They are not beholden to you. You are donating money. They run the org they decide what's best to accomplishing their goals. If you don't like it, don't donate.
    - mixmastamyk 3y ago
      We are talking about them misleading folks with their donation drives. Paying themselves 10x while workers get nothing. “Don’t donate if you don’t like it” is not even near good enough, sorry.
    - nailer 3y ago
      I asked you to explicitly state how the social justice causes increase access to information. You replied sure but then didn't do this. I asked you again. You didn't do this. You may get more attention and interest from other people if you stop pretending to respond to them.