2 ms·
The thing that rubs me the wrong way about WP (and one of the core issues in this controversy) is "taxation without representation". Wikipedia is perfectly hap
by avaer 3mo ago
The thing that rubs me the wrong way about WP (and one of the core issues in this controversy) is "taxation without representation".
Wikipedia is perfectly happy to promote the grand narrative that they are the thankless sacred keepers of humanity's knowledge. They'll take your edits. And they are perfectly happy to take your money for this divine goal. Just take a look at the marketing they plaster onto every page during the fundraising drive.
But the second that someone commits the grave sin of "canvassing" outside of Wikipedia to bring attention to an issue they care about, they get banned, and the discussion is ended. There's just a total lack of accountability for anything unless you play by the thick codex of online governance rules they made up.
It's why I haven't ever donated anything to Wikipedia.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- Alpha3031 3mo agoI think it's rather positive that Wikipedia editorial decisions are entirely independent of the foundation which accepts (and begs for) donations because nobody has to care about your decision not to donate. It's not as if donations go to editors anyway, and there are plenty of the editor community who are rather more severe in their dislain for how the foundation conducts fundraising (I wouldn't say it's a majority, most probably don't care, but certainly a sizable minority) and would probably prefer you not donate anyway. On the other hand, I do think a majority of the community supports the policy of being resistant towards non-neutral outside coordination used to manipulate and undermine the integrity of internal decision making processes.