> Just remember that less that 5% of your donation will go to hosting I don't understand why you find this surprising. I think the people who work on the site

> Just remember that less that 5% of your donation will go to hosting I don't understand why you find this surprising. I think the people who work on the site deserve to be well paid for their work, just like anybody else. I think the outreach efforts are interesting as well. > and even less will go the people who actually created the content This argument makes little sense to me: nobody who contributes content to Wikipedia has any expectation of ever being paid for it. > That said, you do not seem to have a good understanding of the word "clickbait" Your definition of clickbait is far too narrow IMO. Your article takes some facts about Wikipedia's finances and presents them with very little context in a way that is intended to elicit an emotional response from people who aren't familiar with the scale on which they operate. Most egregiously, you present $50MM as though it were some huge amount of money, when in reality that's pocket change compared to the financial resources of most entities that host and maintain websites like Wikipedia. And if you think "Stop donating to Wikipedia" isn't an inflammatory headline, you're deluding yourself. You wrote this article to piss a bunch of people off and get publicity for your new site: that's textbook clickbait.