3 ms·

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 runnin

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.
_Algernon_ 1y ago
If the donation is given on the false belief that the donations are necessary to keep Wikipedia running, I'd argue donors are being conned into donating. And that is exactly the message the donation banners convey.
margalabargala 1y ago
> I don't really understand the angst against the Wikimedia Foundation. > No one's being conned into donating. These statements are consistent but they are what's getting in your way of understanding. For a lot of people, what the Wikimedia does to raise donations does constitute conning people into donating. Hence the angst.

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.

_Algernon_ 1y ago

If the donation is given on the false belief that the donations are necessary to keep Wikipedia running, I'd argue donors are being conned into donating. And that is exactly the message the donation banners convey.

margalabargala 1y ago

> I don't really understand the angst against the Wikimedia Foundation. > No one's being conned into donating. These statements are consistent but they are what's getting in your way of understanding. For a lot of people, what the Wikimedia does to raise donations does constitute conning people into donating. Hence the angst.