4 ms·

The issue is that wikipedia has necessary expenses (keeping the servers running) and optional ones (paying people to take photos of German music festivals). Ye

by smackfu 14y ago

The issue is that wikipedia has necessary expenses (keeping the servers running) and optional ones (paying people to take photos of German music festivals). Yet all their guilt-tripping asking for money is focused on the necessary expenses. I'm sure that is more effective, but that doesn't mean I don't feel misled.

Argorak 14y ago
That could have been conveyed in a much shorter article that doesn't discredit honest projects of community members. Also, I don't feel guilt-tripped. What do you expect? A multi-paragraph article on top of each page? If you click through, for example in Germany, you get a pretty detailed explanation of where your money goes: https://spenden.wikimedia.de/spenden/Ihre_Spende_wirkt https://spenden.wikimedia.de/spenden/Ihre_Spende_wirkt The largest part: support for volunteers. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?
- smackfu 14y ago
  > Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? That's the heart of the issue, right? Is the Wikimedia Foundation just supposed to run a website that is edited by volunteers, or is it supposed to also do other things that further the same goals as the actual Wikipedia? The foundation itself has the latter viewpoint, while I expect most people donating are just donating to pay for the former.
  - Argorak 14y ago
    > I expect most people Please put numbers on the table, because I expect "most people" to be fully aware of how that non-profit thing works.
    - smackfu 14y ago
      Ok, fine. Neither side has numbers. But based on the pervasive banners, I thought wikipedia was still in dire straits and needed my money urgently just to keep the servers and bandwidth running. Now that I know they are doing just fine, I doubt I will contribute again. I'd rather put my charity donations to more worthy causes.
      - rohamg 14y ago
        me too. except add "needy" after "worthy".

by smackfu 14y ago

Argorak 14y ago

That could have been conveyed in a much shorter article that doesn't discredit honest projects of community members. Also, I don't feel guilt-tripped. What do you expect? A multi-paragraph article on top of each page? If you click through, for example in Germany, you get a pretty detailed explanation of where your money goes: https://spenden.wikimedia.de/spenden/Ihre_Spende_wirkt https://spenden.wikimedia.de/spenden/Ihre_Spende_wirkt The largest part: support for volunteers. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?

smackfu 14y ago
> Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? That's the heart of the issue, right? Is the Wikimedia Foundation just supposed to run a website that is edited by volunteers, or is it supposed to also do other things that further the same goals as the actual Wikipedia? The foundation itself has the latter viewpoint, while I expect most people donating are just donating to pay for the former.
- Argorak 14y ago
  > I expect most people Please put numbers on the table, because I expect "most people" to be fully aware of how that non-profit thing works.
  - smackfu 14y ago
    Ok, fine. Neither side has numbers. But based on the pervasive banners, I thought wikipedia was still in dire straits and needed my money urgently just to keep the servers and bandwidth running. Now that I know they are doing just fine, I doubt I will contribute again. I'd rather put my charity donations to more worthy causes.
    - rohamg 14y ago
      me too. except add "needy" after "worthy".