5 ms·

Why did they not donate to Wayback Machine instead? Wikimedia is doing just fine and their fund raising is mostly for advertising and marketing. The site is a

Why did they not donate to Wayback Machine instead? Wikimedia is doing just fine and their fund raising is mostly for advertising and marketing. The site is at zero risk of running out of operating funds. Personally, I'd rather see money go to historic records than revisionist, popular encyclopedia. Source: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_P... Last financial report: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_Reports/Financial_Statements_Ending_June_30_2012_and_2011 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_Reports/Financ...

tptacek 14y ago
Because they already donated to Wikimedia. Two good times to recommend alternative charities: (i) on threads where people ask, "where should I donate my money", and (ii) on threads about disasters, when you have an opportunity to spur donations to targeted charities. You almost certainly didn't mean anything by this comment, but you generally want to avoid the appearance of litigating someone's good deed as a missed opportunity to do a better deed. Donations to Wikimedia are a good thing, worthy of congratulations.
- IheartApplesDix 14y ago
  Certainly, if I was in politics, I'd take your advice. I think it's fair to question where donations go and the decision process, even after the fact. There's always next year.
  - kjackson2012 14y ago
    It's not a fair question. It's a terrible question because every charity has their own merits, and any ensuing discussion is not fruitful and only causes conflict. What's makes it even worse is your self-righteous tone. Your unfair question basically boils down to "My worthy cause is more worthy than your worthy cause!"
    - chc 14y ago
      I believe he's actually arguing "Regardless of which cause is more worthy, my cause needs the money and Wikimedia doesn't."
    - IheartApplesDix 14y ago
      I think you're reading way to much into this. You probably shouldn't be making any technical decisions if you're going to take every bit of advice personally.
- JoeAltmaier 14y ago
  Yeah, telling people what they mean is also pointless, but ok. I was also a little disappointed to see Wikimedia called a 'charity'. Because people ask you for money does not make them a worthy cause. Now, I'm sure Wikimedia is doing what they do out of the goodness of their hearts. But its not the same as feeding the hungry. In fact, its kind of a first-world problem being solved, isn't it?
Maxistentialist 14y ago
Max here from Cards Against Humanity. We talked about donating to the Wayback Machine, but ultimately decided that a contribution Wikipedia would help more people with a more fundamental need.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
xxpor 14y ago
Pray tell, how is Wikipedia revisionist?
- trhtrsh 14y ago
  "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that _anyone can edit_."

tptacek 14y ago

Because they already donated to Wikimedia. Two good times to recommend alternative charities: (i) on threads where people ask, "where should I donate my money", and (ii) on threads about disasters, when you have an opportunity to spur donations to targeted charities. You almost certainly didn't mean anything by this comment, but you generally want to avoid the appearance of litigating someone's good deed as a missed opportunity to do a better deed. Donations to Wikimedia are a good thing, worthy of congratulations.

IheartApplesDix 14y ago
Certainly, if I was in politics, I'd take your advice. I think it's fair to question where donations go and the decision process, even after the fact. There's always next year.
- kjackson2012 14y ago
  It's not a fair question. It's a terrible question because every charity has their own merits, and any ensuing discussion is not fruitful and only causes conflict. What's makes it even worse is your self-righteous tone. Your unfair question basically boils down to "My worthy cause is more worthy than your worthy cause!"
  - chc 14y ago
    I believe he's actually arguing "Regardless of which cause is more worthy, my cause needs the money and Wikimedia doesn't."
  - IheartApplesDix 14y ago
    I think you're reading way to much into this. You probably shouldn't be making any technical decisions if you're going to take every bit of advice personally.
JoeAltmaier 14y ago
Yeah, telling people what they mean is also pointless, but ok. I was also a little disappointed to see Wikimedia called a 'charity'. Because people ask you for money does not make them a worthy cause. Now, I'm sure Wikimedia is doing what they do out of the goodness of their hearts. But its not the same as feeding the hungry. In fact, its kind of a first-world problem being solved, isn't it?

Maxistentialist 14y ago

Max here from Cards Against Humanity. We talked about donating to the Wayback Machine, but ultimately decided that a contribution Wikipedia would help more people with a more fundamental need.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

xxpor 14y ago

Pray tell, how is Wikipedia revisionist?

trhtrsh 14y ago
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that _anyone can edit_."