Okay, so I read this article to the end (right down to the ironic "Become a Supporter" button, which I thought was another screenshot at first, but it's a real button.)
I kept thinking... so? What's your point?
People run these WMF hitpieces all the time, and they are absolutely enraged that Wikipedia dared to splash a dialog box asking for their money. These are the same people who regularly visit ad-infested news sites and tolerate (while still screaming about) all manner of tracking and monetization as they browse. But Wikipedia, which is 100% ad-free, and 99% free of dialogs asking for donations, how dare they!!1
So this particular hitpiece says there's a lack of transparency and that Wikimedia is doing a politics. Sure, I suppose we can all use more transparency, especially with a non-profit, but legally, they don't need to tell you more than they already do. Solution is easy: don't donate. But why write a hitpiece?
If only you knew what for-profit, opaque corporations, which never beg for donations, did with their endowments and revenue. Not just corporations, but universities too; it's not like Wikimedia is some isolated, evil money-grubbing beggar waiting to do supreme evil with your $5. Wikimedia simply wishes to pull their weight in a pond full of heavyweights. And they have the brand recognition and the influence to do some pretty amazing things, for better or worse.
Do you hate Wikipedia's politics or something? Are you envious of their highly-ranked and highly-respected position on the Web? Are you really just mad about that dialog box as you were freeloading on our freely-licensed Creative Commons content?
Politics aside, I do think it's an incredibly bad look to regularly break out the sad eyed Jimbo Wales banner begging for money to help keep Wikipedia running when they're so far away from a shortage of funds that they feel they can give part of the donations away to other organizations.
When you accept charitable donations, you have a duty to use those donations for the intended purpose. You aren't legally required to do this, but you're expected to do it. If you don't do it, or misrepresent what you're asking for, people will get upset. They will feel like you squandered their donation. They will write about it, and tell their friends.
I don't think this is strange at all. WMF has a reasonably good name due to the value and popularity of Wikipedia. Reputation is fickle though. It doesn't take much before WMF becomes that organization that said they needed money, but gave away all the donations (even if they only gave away a small portion; but that's public perception for you).
It's also important to emphasize that for an organization like the WMF, reputation is everything. You can not do donation-based charity work without a good reputation. The entire model hinges on the organization being trusted.
Bryan Lunduke has kind of gone off the deep end the past few years. It does always seem bizarre that Wikimedia alone gets called out when companies like Apple alone have enough in just cash to fund Wikimedia for the next 1,000 years.
Unless you believe that any cent over the cost to do business is unethical to collect, why should Bryan Lunduke be any more qualified to be able to determine that Wikimedia is misusing their money than the people running the organization. I am assuming here that he is okay with private property rights.
> Sure, I suppose we can all use more transparency, especially with a non-profit, but legally, they don't need to tell you more than they already do. Solution is easy: don't donate. But why write a hitpiece?
When you assume it's just going to Wikipedia, you don't know not to donate. Thus, you see articles like making people aware in the first place.
I agree. I'll just stop donating money like you suggest. But if you're wondering what the purpose of the article was, it was to inform people like myself who didn't know their regular donations weren't actually paying for wikipedia. It seems best to just contribute article fixes, wikimedia images, etc, and direct support of the actual wikipedia/media projects going forwards. Not money.
I don't understand the comparisons to megacorps. It's not like anyone is donating to Apple or the NYT.
The patrons of creative commons are by no means free loaders, and that concept being injected belittles a lot of the point.
>Do you hate Wikipedia's politics...
That's exactly the point, how would they know? What if they know they dislike the politics but wish to continue to support infra costs and the like because of the real value Wikipedia offers the world? No option.
I think it is disingenuous to talk about "freeloading" when the license that the content was released under, was freely chosen? No one is forcing anyone to license content under Creative Commons...
They can do what they want, and caveat emptor for anyone wanting to make donations. I'm glad there are regular reminders that hopefully are well publicised that your money is not strictly going towards keeping a big free encyclopedia running.
A non profit is "trust us, we know what's best", while a cooperative is legally controlled by it's member on the basis of one member, one vote, and profits, if any, are distributed between members. I wonder how different would be a cooperative Wikipedia versus the non-profit Wikipedia we got.
Overcoming systemic bias is critical for a global democratized information platform like Wikipedia, ensuring that all cultures, languages, and histories are represented fairly and comprehensively. This isn't merely a 'political' stance but a necessary step in ensuring the inclusivity and universality of knowledge.
Also, comparing the costs of the "Knowledge Equity Fund" to just server expenses is an oversimplification. The intricacies of verifying, curating, and representing diverse knowledge sources can't merely be equated to server space costs. Such comparisons seem more than a little disingenuous, given the complexity and importance of the work involved. What's the point of running a $2.4 millions server full of garbage?
Like this type of drive by analysis? Be sure to follow my HN profile and donate to my PayPal.
Yeah, uh good. Wikipedia now does two things better than anyone. Capturing and disseminating information and fundraising. I work at a nonprofit that has pivoted from surplus to deficit. We stored up a cash reserve in the fat years, misspent a bunch of it on ostensibly beneficial endeavors that ended up being kinda worthless and now we're eating our reserves to stay alive. Our fundraising operations are functional but withered and we're definitely leaving money on the table by not having the wherewithal to reach donors. I can only say I'm jealous of WMF and wish they'd come give us some lessons.
Wikimedia is a 501(c)(3) organization, a type of NPO, that is exempt from federal income tax and as such is prohibited by law from making political donations.
C'mon guys. This stuff is easy to verify for yourselves. I expect better from HN.
While 501(c)(3) orgs are prohibited from making electoral office campaign donations, they may engage in many other political activities and expenditures. Some of the ways they may engage with politics and public policy include lobbying (within limits) and support of ballot initiatives.
NoZebra120vClip|2 years ago
I kept thinking... so? What's your point?
People run these WMF hitpieces all the time, and they are absolutely enraged that Wikipedia dared to splash a dialog box asking for their money. These are the same people who regularly visit ad-infested news sites and tolerate (while still screaming about) all manner of tracking and monetization as they browse. But Wikipedia, which is 100% ad-free, and 99% free of dialogs asking for donations, how dare they!!1
So this particular hitpiece says there's a lack of transparency and that Wikimedia is doing a politics. Sure, I suppose we can all use more transparency, especially with a non-profit, but legally, they don't need to tell you more than they already do. Solution is easy: don't donate. But why write a hitpiece?
If only you knew what for-profit, opaque corporations, which never beg for donations, did with their endowments and revenue. Not just corporations, but universities too; it's not like Wikimedia is some isolated, evil money-grubbing beggar waiting to do supreme evil with your $5. Wikimedia simply wishes to pull their weight in a pond full of heavyweights. And they have the brand recognition and the influence to do some pretty amazing things, for better or worse.
Do you hate Wikipedia's politics or something? Are you envious of their highly-ranked and highly-respected position on the Web? Are you really just mad about that dialog box as you were freeloading on our freely-licensed Creative Commons content?
marginalia_nu|2 years ago
When you accept charitable donations, you have a duty to use those donations for the intended purpose. You aren't legally required to do this, but you're expected to do it. If you don't do it, or misrepresent what you're asking for, people will get upset. They will feel like you squandered their donation. They will write about it, and tell their friends.
I don't think this is strange at all. WMF has a reasonably good name due to the value and popularity of Wikipedia. Reputation is fickle though. It doesn't take much before WMF becomes that organization that said they needed money, but gave away all the donations (even if they only gave away a small portion; but that's public perception for you).
It's also important to emphasize that for an organization like the WMF, reputation is everything. You can not do donation-based charity work without a good reputation. The entire model hinges on the organization being trusted.
kemotep|2 years ago
Unless you believe that any cent over the cost to do business is unethical to collect, why should Bryan Lunduke be any more qualified to be able to determine that Wikimedia is misusing their money than the people running the organization. I am assuming here that he is okay with private property rights.
bitshiftfaced|2 years ago
When you assume it's just going to Wikipedia, you don't know not to donate. Thus, you see articles like making people aware in the first place.
satisfice|2 years ago
I always assumed they were lying when they put up the banners saying they needed money urgently.
Now I know.
That’s the point.
superkuh|2 years ago
I don't understand the comparisons to megacorps. It's not like anyone is donating to Apple or the NYT.
serf|2 years ago
>Do you hate Wikipedia's politics...
That's exactly the point, how would they know? What if they know they dislike the politics but wish to continue to support infra costs and the like because of the real value Wikipedia offers the world? No option.
shrubble|2 years ago
version_five|2 years ago
They can do what they want, and caveat emptor for anyone wanting to make donations. I'm glad there are regular reminders that hopefully are well publicised that your money is not strictly going towards keeping a big free encyclopedia running.
qawwads|2 years ago
Kerb_|2 years ago
Also, comparing the costs of the "Knowledge Equity Fund" to just server expenses is an oversimplification. The intricacies of verifying, curating, and representing diverse knowledge sources can't merely be equated to server space costs. Such comparisons seem more than a little disingenuous, given the complexity and importance of the work involved. What's the point of running a $2.4 millions server full of garbage?
Like this type of drive by analysis? Be sure to follow my HN profile and donate to my PayPal.
tootie|2 years ago
taylodl|2 years ago
C'mon guys. This stuff is easy to verify for yourselves. I expect better from HN.
Drive-by|2 years ago
See the IRS for additional info: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
seba_dos1|2 years ago
The whole mission of Wikipedia is nothing but politics.
dgrin91|2 years ago
Daviey|2 years ago
Nah, not interested.
Slava_Propanei|2 years ago
[deleted]
MagaMuffin|2 years ago
[deleted]
jmye|2 years ago