3 ms·
It seems a bit silly to base this entire analysis on Wikipedia page views without exploring what else the WMF does. And in any event, I have a really hard time
by squigz 2mo ago
It seems a bit silly to base this entire analysis on Wikipedia page views without exploring what else the WMF does.
And in any event, I have a really hard time getting worked up about the relatively small amount of money they deal with - and use to do a lot of good for the world - while corruption and greedy corporations are as rampant and filthy rich as they are.
- tosti 2mo agoTwo wrongs don't make a right. Corruption is fought best by not allowing it anywhere at all.
- squigz 2mo agoPutting aside that I don't believe WMF is 'wrong' here at all, it's simply not reasonable or healthy to get upset about every wrong thing. One needs to pick their battles.
- tosti 2mo agoTrue that. Getting upset about pretty much anything is rarely useful. IDK who first theorized this, but usually people get upset when they don't fully understand the situation. They who truly grasp the entire situation can't get upset. The real battle is in oneself.
- tdeck 2mo agoPersonally I'm not worked up over it either, but I find the argument that this puts Wikipedia at risk persuasive. If it some point WMF racks up debts they can't pay and puts itself up for sale, these days probably Elon Musk or Larry Ellison would buy it.
- squigz 2mo agoIs the WMF in debt?
- inigyou 2mo agoThe WMF is clearly unable to reduce expenses. If donations ever decrease, it will be bankrupt within two years.
- squigz 2mo ago> The WMF is clearly unable to reduce expenses. Nothing about this is clear. What makes you think that, if the donations were to significantly fall off, they would be unable to reduce expenses?
- xp84 2mo agoTo be fair, you don’t have any evidence that they could. It’s speculation either way. The only data we have is they spend more every year, and that they still have the audacity to aggressively fundraise constantly by plastering every article with ads begging for money. Sometimes I think I’d rather it just had a big banner ad for Coca-Cola on the top.
- squigz 2mo agoI'm not the one claiming anything, waving about some FUDy article. > they spend more every year They also bring in more money every year. > audacity to aggressively fundraise constantly by plastering every article with ads begging for money. This is ... really unnecessarily dramatic and not really truthful. They do a fundraise campaign once a year with an easily-closed banner, the proceeds of which they use to fund many projects that enrich humanity's collective knowledge. Seriously, you guys need to direct your energy elsewhere. The WMF is not the type of org people should be complaining about on HN.