Comment by leokennis
3 years ago
I might be too simple of a person, but I donate €10 per year to Wikipedia which is nothing. In return, I get immediate access to a veritable wealth of accurate and up to date knowledge on more or less everything.
It’s such an amazingly great deal that I honestly think, who the F cares that they could have spent that money in a slightly more optimized way? Who cares that Jimmy Wales drives a BMW instead of a Volkswagen?
Who is the loser here? Do we really need to get this level of angry online because an already amazing situation isn’t perfect?
Arguably, Wikipedia is the loser, because you are rewarding a management mindset that thinks manipulating the public for financial gain is okay.
Wikipedia is the most widely read reference source on the planet. Wouldn't you rather it was stewarded by an organisation that was honest with the public?
There are other losers. This man, guilt-tripped into donating to Wikipedia when all he has is $18 to his name is a loser:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising/Archive_6#S...
Actually, that sounds wrong. He is a wonderful man, but one that really should not have been put in this invidious position.
What about her?
https://twitter.com/tizzie/status/1570095249044967424
There are other losers still. People in India and South Africa are scared into donating to Wikipedia by emails that raise the spectre of a subscription fee, or of Wikipedia blinking out of existence for lack of funds.
There are other charitable causes they could have donated to in their own country, rather than sending money to the US, money that might have saved lives in their own country, rather than added another treat to a US employee's benefits package.
Those are some of the "losers".
What "treat" are you referring to? Employees need to be compensated for a company to be competitive.
Speaking of manipulative your augment takes a complex situation and turns it into "poor people using the last of their money to pay for US employees extra benefits"
Treats mentioned here ...
https://wantremote.com/company_for_remote_job/wikimedia-foun...
... include "reimbursement for mind, body and soul activities such as fitness memberships, massages, cooking classes and much more"
This is a fine thing I'm sure, but I wouldn't want it to be paid for by Indian or African donors worried Wikipedia will disappear, or start charging a subscription, if they don't donate.
So fundraising appeals in the developing world in particular should be dialed right down:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
5 replies →
> guilt-tripped into donating to Wikipedia when all he has is $18 to his name is a loser:
If Wikipedia didn't "guilt-trip" him into it I'm sure some Nigerian prince would have.
What a smug dismissal of a comment obviously crafted with care.
> Who is the loser here?
When you have big money then you think like big money. What people are angry about is WMF becoming too big and the heads managing this budget becoming independent of the actual foot soldiers. It's not about starving wikipedia, it's about not making it bigger than it needs to be, because the bigger you are, the more problems you have.
> who the F cares that they could have spent that money in a slightly more optimized way?
It's not about optimizing stuff, it's about not growing into a monster.
I don't see what's wrong with the outrage considering it's fleecing people's good will. Once upon a time when Wikipedia was the only service of its kind maybe there was more reason to ignore this kind of behavior but YouTube does more to bring knowledge to people these days so I think it's fair to have some kind of bar for behavior
> Who cares that Jimmy Wales drives a BMW instead of a Volkswagen?
Jimmy is not a wikimedia foundation employee (he is a board member, but that is unpaid). None of the donations are going to him.