Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia(lunduke.locals.com) |
Wikipedia donations used for politics, not for running Wikipedia(lunduke.locals.com) |
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?
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.
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.
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 always assumed they were lying when they put up the banners saying they needed money urgently.
Now I know.
That’s the point.
I can see them exaggerating, and using extreme pathos to convince you, in a mere dialog, of the need for donations.
At worst, yes, their pleas could mislead the naïve. But they are extremely careful in their wording, and if they were outright lying, then they would suffer for it, perhaps even legally.
It's interesting, because many of the dialogs I see here are actually appealing to people who read Wikipedia the most (and don't edit it.) So I would say that's a good and targeted appeal to the freeloaders.
I am open to correction on this: if you can find a dialog from WMF that outright lied and told a falsehood about a material fact, then show it to us, and prove the fact. As we say, [citation needed].
I'll start you with a helpful image search: https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&sca_esv=558977329&...
I don't understand the comparisons to megacorps. It's not like anyone is donating to Apple or the NYT.
Consumers give them money anyway, it's known as "sales".
What happens is that when companies become large enough, it becomes prudent from a tax perpsective to "give back to the community" and practice philanthropy. Therefore, your iPhone dollars and your NYT subscriptions are going toward charitable causes. You may or may not be able to find out what they are. Many people have gone sleuthing for these links, and made much hay about them.
The other thing corporations do is support employees in various ways. For example, employees might be permitted a certain number of hours of community service for charitable volunteering. Or, employees' charitable donations may be matched by the employer, etc. These matches may be restricted to a shortlist of preferred charities. More hay can be made about all that.
Corporations are also, of course, one of the biggest and most powerful sectors of lobbyists in these United States. Corporations donate the most tax dollars to candidates and campaigns, and they actively send lobbyists to legislatures to ensure that their interests are met. Again, your iPhone dollars at work.
So while Wikipedia is free and open and requesting your donations, you're purchasing gobs of stuff every day from corporations, and that's why people these days often factor in the politics of said corporation in our decisions whether to buy or not buy, and where to buy.
>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.
If it is possible to contribute to WMF monetarily, by volunteering in myriad ways, etc., and it is not supported in any other way, such as ads, subscriptions, corporate sponsors, then technically anyone who reads Wiki*edia or downloads content from Commons, Wikisource, etc., is freeloading without contributing anything.
The WMF doesn't mind, certainly, that there is a large plurality of freeloaders: that's their very model. But they also need money and volunteers to run everything, and that's why they're mugging you with dialog boxes.
If you don't have the time, effort, or expertise to volunteer for WMF, consider donating voluntarily, because you certainly do benefit from their mission, and see above about fungibility.
Frankly, though, it is far, far better to attempt to volunteer in some capacity, because as has been demonstrated, they're financially pretty flush, whereas the volunteer situation is always fairly desperate on several fronts.
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.
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.
C'mon guys. This stuff is easy to verify for yourselves. I expect better from HN.
See the IRS for additional info: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
The whole mission of Wikipedia is nothing but politics.
Nah, not interested.
I think Wikipedia should go away. The entire philosophy is wrong. It’s a toxic mess. But until it does, I don’t see any problem with punishing it by visiting its pages.
Anyone who visits WMF's servers and uses their websites without donating or volunteering is a freeloader, and you are a net drain on WMF's resources. That's why the most donation dialogs appear to people who visit frequently.
They don't "need" your five-dollar donation, because they have other donors. If 100% of their donors decided WMF didn't "need" any money and they all withdrew their donations, WMF would quickly implode. Perhaps you could convince everyone to do so!
Except for "sales," you know what you are getting in return. Someone buying an iPhone knows they are getting an iPhone and that's what they care about. Many people donating to Wikipedia think they are making a donation to keep Wikipedia running, not some other cause they may or may not care about.
Perhaps they should make two huge buttons for donations, labeled "Wikipedia" and "Wikimedia Foundation, and see what happens with donations.
If people have chosen to donate to the WMF because they think all they do is run the English Wikipedia, and haven't done their due diligence, then that's not the WMF's fault. Sure, I suppose that a constant stream of hitpiece articles raises awareness, but they're so biased that it should only be the first step on a long process of due diligence.
Biased negative reporting on charities often proves useful to the people who wish to support such causes. So if you run an exposé on how evil empires carry water for X, Y, and Z, then be prepared to attract people who love X, Y, and Z, and enthusiastically begin to support that evil empire.
"Hit piece" is a value judgement on the negative tone and bias of the article. Another possibility is a "puff piece" in High Times for example, extolling the virtues of the charity's newfound cause.
However, you've nearly constructed a strawman, because nobody would expect an LPFM charity to diversify into cannabis, yet nothing the WMF does is inconsistent with their mission from the start. They've simply expanded, globalized, and broadened in scope; that's the way I see it.