akolbe

27 ms·

301.
by akolbe 4y ago
Well said indeed.
302.
by akolbe 4y ago
It's the culture at the very top of the WMF that has allowed this "sketchy" fund to come about. It's even worse with the Wikimedia Endowment at the Tides Foundation. That's over $100 million in donations collected o
303.
by akolbe 4y ago
See e.g. an earlier report in the same community newspaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... The budget and headcount simply keep growing and growing. At the same time, the Foundatio
304.
Wikipedians question Wikimedia fundraising ethics after “somewhat-viral” tweet(en.wikipedia.org)
479 points by akolbe 4y ago|334 comments
305.
by akolbe 4y ago
You've got me looking at strimmers in a completely new light. :/
306.
How Quantum Theories Took over TikTok(slate.com)
2 points by akolbe 4y ago|2 comments
307.
by akolbe 4y ago
Internet hosting costs have long been stable at about $2.5 million. You'll find them on page 5 of the following pdf (the page is numbered 3 and headed "Consolidated Statements of Activities"): https://upload.wikime
308.
by akolbe 4y ago
See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund "The Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund is a new US$4.5 million fund created by the Wikimedia Foundation in 2020, to provide grants to external org
309.
by akolbe 4y ago
See https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March...
310.
by akolbe 4y ago
Easy to corroborate. Here, in the Form 990 tax return: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikim...
311.
by akolbe 4y ago
You mean, what percentage of users will pay for using a website advertised as "The Free Encyclopedia", written by unpaid volunteers? Just saying. If the WMF were working flat out on serving the volunteer community it would be a di
312.
by akolbe 4y ago
The banners have become more intrusive and obnoxious as the organisation has become richer. Ten years ago, they were quite mild by comparison. You wouldn't get ten reminders, the banners didn't cover your entire screen, and they d
313.
by akolbe 4y ago
The funny thing is that the Wikimedia Foundation is trying to get volunteers in Africa and India to edit and contribute content for free – content which then feeds the search engines and voice assistants of trillion-dollar US companies who
314.
by akolbe 4y ago
Back in 2015, the Washington Post published an article titled "Wikipedia has a ton of money. So why is it begging you to donate yours?": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015&#x2F
315.
by akolbe 4y ago
I know a lot of Wikipedians who are quite poor, actually, by Western standards at least. Like living in a bedsit. From a Washington Post article a while back: Justin Anthony Knapp doesn’t necessarily mind that: With nearly 1.5 million cont
316.
by akolbe 4y ago
Sure, there are paid editors performing PR services on Wikipedia (both above-board, declared, and flying under the radar, undeclared). What the WMF does do at times is fund community "organizers" trying to get unpaid volunteer edi
317.
by akolbe 4y ago
This is just another psychological trick. They vastly exceed even their own revenue targets. Compare goals and results: 2020/2021 revenue goal: $108M, increased to $125M, total at end of year: $154M https://commons.wikimedia
318.
by akolbe 4y ago
In part this is a cumulative effect. People are invited to set up a recurring donation, or include the Wikimedia Foundation in their will, so naturally there is a growing base level of steady income each year, with first-time donors on top
319.
by akolbe 4y ago
You're labouring under a severe misconception. Wikipedia is written and curated by unpaid volunteers. The Wikimedia Foundation itself "does not write or curate any of the content found on the projects": https://dif
320.
by akolbe 4y ago
I am uncomfortable with the video stills at the end that do seem to be picking on black people. Maybe I am doing the Twitter user an injustice, but there were four other grant recipients they could have been picking on as well: https:&#x2F
321.
by akolbe 4y ago
I agree, in part. That Twitter thread starts of really well but jumps the shark right towards the end.
322.
by akolbe 4y ago
The actual number of employees included in the $68 million salary bill is far lower, because many of the over 550 WMF staff are contractors : https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/ According to
323.
by akolbe 4y ago
The implied subscription threat is a complete red herring. They should be ashamed for even mentioning it in their fundraising messages. Wikipedians wouldn't work for free for a subscription service. The whole project would fork to a ne
324.
by akolbe 4y ago
I agree with the other replies. Also, last year, the then-Wikimedia CEO Katherine Maher was on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah. (The wife of the WMF’s PR consultant, the Clinton Foundation’s Craig Minassian, works on the show as a producer.
325.
by akolbe 4y ago
Then they should tell donors and prospective donors what they do. As ever, all the content is written by unpaid volunteers (or people paid by others), but still the Wikimedia Foundation's spending doubles every few years. https:/
326.
by akolbe 4y ago
The issue is that they make it sound like they are struggling to have enough money to keep Wikipedia running when they are actually wealthier than ever before. The whole premise of Wikipedia (or aspiration, at least, and yes, not always ful
327.
by akolbe 4y ago
Misnomer. Should be "Defund Wikimedia".
328.
by akolbe 4y ago
Correct, the application is pending. However, the application was made years later than originally promised. Over the past six-and-a-half years, the endowment has accumulated over $100 million, with not a single audited financial statement
329.
by akolbe 4y ago
Costs don't increase by a factor of 50 in ten years. Note I made the same argument in Wikipedia's community newspaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... Read the comments
330.
by akolbe 4y ago
A very good choice, because the Internet Archive is financially far less secure than the Wikimedia Foundation and provides a vital service, by archiving Wikipedia sources before they go offline. This makes sure you can still see in five yea

More ›