5 ms·

That's insane :/. But, maybe, "on the bright side", The Mozilla Foundation is unrelated in some sense to Firefox? AFAIK, they don't spend any of their money on

by saurik 1y ago

That's insane :/. But, maybe, "on the bright side", The Mozilla Foundation is unrelated in some sense to Firefox? AFAIK, they don't spend any of their money on it anyway. The whole Mozilla situation is even more of a scam than how the Wikimedia Foundation uses sob stories about paying for Wikipedia to get people to donate money to an entity which spends almost no money on Wikipedia... but, at least it does run Wikipedia! lol :/. There is another interesting detail from your reference that makes it seem even worse to me: it says the CEO's salary is "paid only by a related for-profit"; at first, I was thinking "ok, at least the Foundation in fact is spending the money it is being donated (though, not on Firefox)"... but then I realized that means the Corporation is, in fact, spending $7m that it could have spent on Firefox.

anonymousab 1y ago
> AFAIK, they don't spend any of their money on it anyway The glass-half-full take I heard a while back was: at least every dollar they take from the foundation donations for these causes is a dollar that they could have found a way to take from Firefox development instead.
- hoseja 1y ago
  Every dollar they take from the foundation donations for these causes is a dollar that enables them to better sabotage Firefox development actually. If they were starved like cancerous tumour the body might heal and survive.
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    "If we destroy the organization responsible for this thing I like, then only the bad parts of the organization will die and the thing I prefer will become better!" No, if you destroy the flawed-but-sometimes-okay organization you just wind up with something worse. There is no magic save-the-thing-you-like fairy. Large bureaucracies don't "learn their lesson" from being torn down. Vote against increased taxes because the road department already has "such a large budget" and "maybe this will teach them to cut the administrative fat"? No, you'll just wind up with more potholes. Vote for Donald Trump because you think the Federal Government is wasteful and the Democrats need to be taught a lesson? No, you'll just get billionaire tax cuts, erosion of civil liberties, and absolutely no behavior change from the people you wanted to "punish". Everything just gets worse.
    - hoseja 1y ago
      And eventually, out of the blue sky, Kali will reach with her crimson palms.
KPGv2 1y ago
> The whole Mozilla situation is even more of a scam than how the Wikimedia Foundation uses sob stories about paying for Wikipedia to get people to donate money to an entity which spends almost no money on Wikipedia... but, at least it does run Wikipedia! lol :/. I don't think these are comparable at all or how it's a scam. The CEO of the entire wikimedia foundation makes half a million a year. The foundation is considered a GREAT charity to donate to by Charity Navigator. https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703 https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703
- knome 1y ago
  wikipedia still being around after all this time and still maintaining links to just download the entire thing and having no ads makes whatever they're doing good to me, ha.
  - NewJazz 1y ago
    I love other wikimedia projects like Wiktionary and wiki commons too.
    - ashoeafoot 1y ago
      And they do experiment and i think the passion for the society upholding project that is the encyclopedia is still there. Its the same wirh web archive.
- twelvechairs 1y ago
  Wikimedia is run transparently which is great but I dont really believe they need the money when you see their financial statement (link below) and think about what they need to run. Plenty of really deserving charities running on the sniff of an oily rag not paying 100m in salaries plus travel, conferences etc. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f6/Wikimedia_Foundation_2024_Audited_Financial_Statements.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f6/Wikim...
  - 1y ago
BeetleB 1y ago
I don't really understand the angst against the Wikimedia Foundation. They are transparent. No one's being conned into donating. As long as Wikipedia is running fine, and is not degrading, and they're not actively harming it, I don't care. People routinely spend money on much worse things. Is donating $3 to Wikimedia once a year really worse than giving 50-100x more to Starbucks?
- LtWorf 1y ago
  > No one's being conned into donating You've never seen the banners asking for money to cover the costs of the servers?
  - aydyn 1y ago
    They're saying its not a con because they agree with it and its a good thing. It's doublespeak, maybe even to themself.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      Sophists railing against Socrates seems about right.
- Eostan 1y ago
  People get annoyed at them for their massive banners begging for money making it seem like wikipedia is on the verge of being closed down unless you donate despite the fact they have a ton of money they have saved away which could keep wikipedia running for decades. Even long running wiki editors and donators get pissed off with the behavior of the wikimedia foundation as not enough of this money actually seems to get spent on Wikipedia. Kinda similar to the whole Firefox situation now I come to think about it.
- solarkraft 1y ago
  > No one's being conned into donating They are. The banners are dishonest every year, making it seem like they can barely keep the lights on.
- 1y ago
KurSix 1y ago
Mozilla's setup feels more like a shell game

by saurik 1y ago

anonymousab 1y ago

> AFAIK, they don't spend any of their money on it anyway The glass-half-full take I heard a while back was: at least every dollar they take from the foundation donations for these causes is a dollar that they could have found a way to take from Firefox development instead.

hoseja 1y ago
Every dollar they take from the foundation donations for these causes is a dollar that enables them to better sabotage Firefox development actually. If they were starved like cancerous tumour the body might heal and survive.
- margalabargala 1y ago
  "If we destroy the organization responsible for this thing I like, then only the bad parts of the organization will die and the thing I prefer will become better!" No, if you destroy the flawed-but-sometimes-okay organization you just wind up with something worse. There is no magic save-the-thing-you-like fairy. Large bureaucracies don't "learn their lesson" from being torn down. Vote against increased taxes because the road department already has "such a large budget" and "maybe this will teach them to cut the administrative fat"? No, you'll just wind up with more potholes. Vote for Donald Trump because you think the Federal Government is wasteful and the Democrats need to be taught a lesson? No, you'll just get billionaire tax cuts, erosion of civil liberties, and absolutely no behavior change from the people you wanted to "punish". Everything just gets worse.
  - hoseja 1y ago
    And eventually, out of the blue sky, Kali will reach with her crimson palms.

KPGv2 1y ago

> The whole Mozilla situation is even more of a scam than how the Wikimedia Foundation uses sob stories about paying for Wikipedia to get people to donate money to an entity which spends almost no money on Wikipedia... but, at least it does run Wikipedia! lol :/. I don't think these are comparable at all or how it's a scam. The CEO of the entire wikimedia foundation makes half a million a year. The foundation is considered a GREAT charity to donate to by Charity Navigator. https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703 https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703

knome 1y ago
wikipedia still being around after all this time and still maintaining links to just download the entire thing and having no ads makes whatever they're doing good to me, ha.
- NewJazz 1y ago
  I love other wikimedia projects like Wiktionary and wiki commons too.
  - ashoeafoot 1y ago
    And they do experiment and i think the passion for the society upholding project that is the encyclopedia is still there. Its the same wirh web archive.
twelvechairs 1y ago
Wikimedia is run transparently which is great but I dont really believe they need the money when you see their financial statement (link below) and think about what they need to run. Plenty of really deserving charities running on the sniff of an oily rag not paying 100m in salaries plus travel, conferences etc. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f6/Wikimedia_Foundation_2024_Audited_Financial_Statements.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f6/Wikim...
- 1y ago

BeetleB 1y ago

I don't really understand the angst against the Wikimedia Foundation. They are transparent. No one's being conned into donating. As long as Wikipedia is running fine, and is not degrading, and they're not actively harming it, I don't care. People routinely spend money on much worse things. Is donating $3 to Wikimedia once a year really worse than giving 50-100x more to Starbucks?

LtWorf 1y ago
> No one's being conned into donating You've never seen the banners asking for money to cover the costs of the servers?
- aydyn 1y ago
  They're saying its not a con because they agree with it and its a good thing. It's doublespeak, maybe even to themself.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    Sophists railing against Socrates seems about right.
Eostan 1y ago
People get annoyed at them for their massive banners begging for money making it seem like wikipedia is on the verge of being closed down unless you donate despite the fact they have a ton of money they have saved away which could keep wikipedia running for decades. Even long running wiki editors and donators get pissed off with the behavior of the wikimedia foundation as not enough of this money actually seems to get spent on Wikipedia. Kinda similar to the whole Firefox situation now I come to think about it.
solarkraft 1y ago
> No one's being conned into donating They are. The banners are dishonest every year, making it seem like they can barely keep the lights on.
1y ago

KurSix 1y ago

Mozilla's setup feels more like a shell game