4 ms·

The next time Wikipedia asks for a donation, ignore it (2022)

49 points by xqcgrek2 2y ago

MissTake 2y ago
(2022)
infoseek12 2y ago
With a few prominent exceptions, the Wikipedia Foundation has been wise enough to enjoy the perks parasitism and not get in the way. However, their stated fundraising goal is amassing a large enough endowment that they can exist perpetually on it’s interest. I sometimes worry if they ever achieve their goal they might not be wise enough not to kill the golden goose.
- defrost 2y ago
  It's still the case that third parties can fork the wikipedia articles and host them at home or in local communities. The concern you raise is that they become too big to fork a popular alternative, branching from just prior to exceeding some it sucks now threshold.
  - chasil 2y ago
    Any forking attempt that violates any terms of service will see a warchest arrayed against it.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  4% of $400M is $16M, more than enough to cover annual Wikipedia infrastructure costs in perpetuity. What would one consider “enough” if this is not it? I think it’d be fine if they stated their endowment target to achieve perpetuity (as a donor, I want to give to orgs who think in 100 year or perpetual terms, instead of having to waste resources constantly to have to sing for their meal), but find it exceptionally poor taste to beg as if they’re going out of business. I assume this is because if donors knew they already had $400M in the coffers, donation volume would decline. I don’t believe greater transparency is unwarranted, considering both their non profit status and mission.
paulette449 2y ago
After reading this one-sided article, I checked out the rest of the website. Sadly I did not find evidence to support their statement that they "have no allegiance to any political party or tradition." And this article is a prime example. Ever since the right discovered that Wikimedia makes donations to "social justice" groups, they've been gunning for it. This hit piece is one of many.
- fp64 2y ago
  I haven’t checked the website or who is behind it, I came to the same conclusion that donations to WMF do not actually benefit the operation of that website a couple years ago and stopped all my donations. I feel it is dishonest to request donations this aggressively and painting it like the website might shut down otherwise, which is not true. Finance whatever groups you want with that money, but don’t make it look it it would benefit the website - But please, explain to me, why should I start donating again, maybe there is a factual error in the article or my own research? Or is all you come up with really just “something something the right”?
- 0dayz 2y ago
  It's not very surprisingly that it got a real political bias: >UnHerd was founded in 2017 by the billionaire hedge fund manager Sir Paul Marshall as its owner and publisher and conservative British political activist Tim Montgomerie as its editor The only "left-leaning" political people they invite are either saying similar statements to what the conservatives says (no to LGBT, no to abortion or no to feminism) or it's the kind of radical and divisive left leaning person that is just a useful idiot to the conservative (such as leftists who claim anyone who doesn't follow their belief is somehow a paid shill).
- sherburt3 2y ago
  Does a political affiliation, explicit or implicit, invalidate their criticism of Wikimedia?
  - happytoexplain 2y ago
    The parent is suggesting that Unherd doesn't fulfill their own claim (the quote), and whatever that implies on this topic (hypocrisy, dishonesty, whatever). They don't imply what you suggested.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
(2022) discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33174533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33174533
ilyagr 2y ago
It's a pity that the article doesn't suggest who to give money to instead. The most similar organization I know that probably needs the money is https://archive.org/donate https://archive.org/donate. There were just some bad news about them (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40754229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40754229, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41895764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41895764), but it would be a real shame if the Wayback machine stopped working and we lost the internet's history. Then there's always https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/. Then there are non-tech organizations to donate to, for example https://www.givedirectly.org/ https://www.givedirectly.org/ or a local food bank.
ggm 2y ago
I often wonder how many of these appeals are purely to ensure 501(c) status is maintained because of evidence there is no single-funding-agency capture. If you don't ask for, and accept donations, your primary source may be your only source, and it's my belief this risks the 501(c) determination: it's not about the money, it's about being seen to solicit, and accept the money from the wider sources.
basedrum 2y ago
Weird site, weird argument. Legit propaganda vibes with just enough truth to make you think what about... they are right to feel legitimate. But arguing that Wikipedia editors are the proletariat who are getting screwed by the people who work to run the site? AI could have written a better argument
YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
>> The NGO world of which the Wikimedia Foundation is now part uncannily follows Marx’s prediction that the middle class would devise an infinite number of ways of enriching themselves, while ensuring the proletariat, the volunteers at the Wiki-face, don’t share the riches. It's amazing how prescient Marx was to predict Wikipedia in the 19th century.

49 points by xqcgrek2 2y ago

(2022)

With a few prominent exceptions, the Wikipedia Foundation has been wise enough to enjoy the perks parasitism and not get in the way. However, their stated fundraising goal is amassing a large enough endowment that they can exist perpetually on it’s interest. I sometimes worry if they ever achieve their goal they might not be wise enough not to kill the golden goose.

defrost 2y ago
It's still the case that third parties can fork the wikipedia articles and host them at home or in local communities. The concern you raise is that they become too big to fork a popular alternative, branching from just prior to exceeding some it sucks now threshold.
- chasil 2y ago
  Any forking attempt that violates any terms of service will see a warchest arrayed against it.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
4% of $400M is $16M, more than enough to cover annual Wikipedia infrastructure costs in perpetuity. What would one consider “enough” if this is not it? I think it’d be fine if they stated their endowment target to achieve perpetuity (as a donor, I want to give to orgs who think in 100 year or perpetual terms, instead of having to waste resources constantly to have to sing for their meal), but find it exceptionally poor taste to beg as if they’re going out of business. I assume this is because if donors knew they already had $400M in the coffers, donation volume would decline. I don’t believe greater transparency is unwarranted, considering both their non profit status and mission.

paulette449 2y ago

After reading this one-sided article, I checked out the rest of the website. Sadly I did not find evidence to support their statement that they "have no allegiance to any political party or tradition." And this article is a prime example. Ever since the right discovered that Wikimedia makes donations to "social justice" groups, they've been gunning for it. This hit piece is one of many.

fp64 2y ago
I haven’t checked the website or who is behind it, I came to the same conclusion that donations to WMF do not actually benefit the operation of that website a couple years ago and stopped all my donations. I feel it is dishonest to request donations this aggressively and painting it like the website might shut down otherwise, which is not true. Finance whatever groups you want with that money, but don’t make it look it it would benefit the website - But please, explain to me, why should I start donating again, maybe there is a factual error in the article or my own research? Or is all you come up with really just “something something the right”?
0dayz 2y ago
It's not very surprisingly that it got a real political bias: >UnHerd was founded in 2017 by the billionaire hedge fund manager Sir Paul Marshall as its owner and publisher and conservative British political activist Tim Montgomerie as its editor The only "left-leaning" political people they invite are either saying similar statements to what the conservatives says (no to LGBT, no to abortion or no to feminism) or it's the kind of radical and divisive left leaning person that is just a useful idiot to the conservative (such as leftists who claim anyone who doesn't follow their belief is somehow a paid shill).
sherburt3 2y ago
Does a political affiliation, explicit or implicit, invalidate their criticism of Wikimedia?
- happytoexplain 2y ago
  The parent is suggesting that Unherd doesn't fulfill their own claim (the quote), and whatever that implies on this topic (hypocrisy, dishonesty, whatever). They don't imply what you suggested.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

(2022) discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33174533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33174533

ilyagr 2y ago

It's a pity that the article doesn't suggest who to give money to instead. The most similar organization I know that probably needs the money is https://archive.org/donate https://archive.org/donate. There were just some bad news about them (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40754229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40754229, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41895764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41895764), but it would be a real shame if the Wayback machine stopped working and we lost the internet's history. Then there's always https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/. Then there are non-tech organizations to donate to, for example https://www.givedirectly.org/ https://www.givedirectly.org/ or a local food bank.

ggm 2y ago

I often wonder how many of these appeals are purely to ensure 501(c) status is maintained because of evidence there is no single-funding-agency capture. If you don't ask for, and accept donations, your primary source may be your only source, and it's my belief this risks the 501(c) determination: it's not about the money, it's about being seen to solicit, and accept the money from the wider sources.

basedrum 2y ago

Weird site, weird argument. Legit propaganda vibes with just enough truth to make you think what about... they are right to feel legitimate. But arguing that Wikipedia editors are the proletariat who are getting screwed by the people who work to run the site? AI could have written a better argument

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago

>> The NGO world of which the Wikimedia Foundation is now part uncannily follows Marx’s prediction that the middle class would devise an infinite number of ways of enriching themselves, while ensuring the proletariat, the volunteers at the Wiki-face, don’t share the riches. It's amazing how prescient Marx was to predict Wikipedia in the 19th century.