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.)<p>I kept thinking... so? What's your point?<p>People run these WMF hitpieces all the time, and they are <i>absolutely enraged</i> that Wikipedia dared to splash a dialog box asking for <i>their money</i>. 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<p>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?<p>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.<p>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?
Another HN discussion of effectively the same thing (from 9 months ago):
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33403233">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33403233</a><p>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.<p>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?<p>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 <i>is prohibited by law</i> from making political donations.<p>C'mon guys. This stuff is <i>easy</i> to verify for yourselves. I expect better from HN.