5 ms·

If you believe Wikipedia's mission is important, but their amount of spending is creating risk, what do you do? Starving them of cash isn't a great answer. Th

by mlyle 3y ago

If you believe Wikipedia's mission is important, but their amount of spending is creating risk, what do you do? Starving them of cash isn't a great answer. That's why speech is cool: people can say "hey, maybe you should be building more reserves and be used to running as a leaner operation, to be able to tolerate downturns. It's not clear all your spending is really supporting the mission." > If fundraising dips in the future, so what? They cut back? It's sad to see folks get laid off, but that's essentially what the author is arguing for, so it's kind of moot. That's often easier said than done. Figuring out how to constrain growth now (and build reserves) is better than facing hard choices in a panic later.

bastawhiz 3y ago
> That's often easier said than done. Figuring out how to constrain growth now (and build reserves) is better than facing hard choices in a panic later. And as the data at the top of the essay shows, they already demonstrated this during the pandemic! And they have an extremely healthy reserve. Even if their fundraising got halved, they'd still be able to continue for quite a few years before having to reduce expenses by any significant amount. You can say "hey, maybe you should be building more reserves" but this is an organization with _a quarter billion dollars_ on hand and growing. Expenses might be high, but how much reserve do you expect them to keep? At some point you're just hoarding cash. An organization simply can't make the argument "hey, please donate to us to keep us running" when they spend very little and have hundreds of millions of dollars in reserve. Nobody would donate to Wikipedia if they knew it could survive on a few million dollars each year and it had hundreds of millions of dollars handy, and no new work was being done to add services and improve existing services. There has to be a balance, and where they are now is extremely balanced.
- eganist 3y ago
  > Nobody would donate to Wikipedia if they knew it could survive on a few million dollars each year and it had hundreds of millions of dollars handy, and no new work was being done to add services and improve existing services. I mean, I would. I'd rather they fulfill their core mission on ROI alone than waste it on stuff that evidently adds no value. I'd donate for that. I won't donate to see it wasted.
- mlyle 3y ago
  > And as the data at the top of the essay shows, they already demonstrated this during the pandemic! For one year, they contracted spending less than 1%, before more than making up for it and growing faster on average for those 2 years than most. > Expenses might be high, but how much reserve do you expect them to keep? When the expenses are growing exponentially, all reserves look small. > Nobody would donate to Wikipedia if they knew it could survive on a few million dollars each year and it had hundreds of millions of dollars handy, and no new work was being done to add services and improve existing services. So better they be wasteful, so they can raise more money to be wasteful with? Do I have that right?

by mlyle 3y ago

bastawhiz 3y ago

> That's often easier said than done. Figuring out how to constrain growth now (and build reserves) is better than facing hard choices in a panic later. And as the data at the top of the essay shows, they already demonstrated this during the pandemic! And they have an extremely healthy reserve. Even if their fundraising got halved, they'd still be able to continue for quite a few years before having to reduce expenses by any significant amount. You can say "hey, maybe you should be building more reserves" but this is an organization with _a quarter billion dollars_ on hand and growing. Expenses might be high, but how much reserve do you expect them to keep? At some point you're just hoarding cash. An organization simply can't make the argument "hey, please donate to us to keep us running" when they spend very little and have hundreds of millions of dollars in reserve. Nobody would donate to Wikipedia if they knew it could survive on a few million dollars each year and it had hundreds of millions of dollars handy, and no new work was being done to add services and improve existing services. There has to be a balance, and where they are now is extremely balanced.

eganist 3y ago
> Nobody would donate to Wikipedia if they knew it could survive on a few million dollars each year and it had hundreds of millions of dollars handy, and no new work was being done to add services and improve existing services. I mean, I would. I'd rather they fulfill their core mission on ROI alone than waste it on stuff that evidently adds no value. I'd donate for that. I won't donate to see it wasted.
mlyle 3y ago
> And as the data at the top of the essay shows, they already demonstrated this during the pandemic! For one year, they contracted spending less than 1%, before more than making up for it and growing faster on average for those 2 years than most. > Expenses might be high, but how much reserve do you expect them to keep? When the expenses are growing exponentially, all reserves look small. > Nobody would donate to Wikipedia if they knew it could survive on a few million dollars each year and it had hundreds of millions of dollars handy, and no new work was being done to add services and improve existing services. So better they be wasteful, so they can raise more money to be wasteful with? Do I have that right?