I have donated in the past, but then there were wild accusations, people saying it’s not needed, it’s to fund other things, and so on and so forth.
Yesterday I got the popup begging for a couple of euros, so what’s the status? Should I donate or is it a waste of time and money?
Cheers
Remember that there is a lot of anti-Wikipedia propaganda going around these days. Most “outrage” against Wikipedia is created and pushed artificially.
It’s just that one dude here
Ia it the.dude that’s downvoting everything here?
In the current day and age of misinformation I think donating is more important than ever. It doesn’t need to be much.
Wikipedia is being actively attacked by fascists who dont want it to exist or be well maintained. More important than ever. Criticism can be safely ignored.
“Fascists criticize Wikipedia, therefore all criticism is done by fascists”
I criticize them and I do not share the ideas you’re saying I do.
No I’m saying even if it’s imperfect–they really don’t want it to exist, so it’s probably important that it does.
Obviously, preserving Wikipedia is important. Donating is not the way to do it though
If Elon doesn’t like it then you know Wikipedia is good.
I’ve increased the amount I donate since the campaign to discredit them has been in effect.
Maybe they aren’t perfect, but I don’t like the idea of a world without such a wonderful resource being freely available to everyone no matter their background or financial status.
I used it a lot as a student but couldn’t afford to donate then. I don’t use it directly a lot these days, but I’m sure indirectly it contributes to articles I read, & I can afford to donate now, so I try to pay it back & some.
Information is power, & those in/with power seem to currently be trying their best to bring everyone else down. Any small thing I can do to help prevent that is a win in my book.
I give small monthly donations to three things:
- Wikipedia
- EFF
- Internet Archive
Also, make sure to get a copy from Kiwix:
Also donate to Kiwix
Ideally one pre-LLM. They have a snapshot from 2022.
I noticed an initial bump in LLM-generated text when ChatGPT first came out, but I think Wikipedia is starting to get a better handle on counteracting it. Better than a lot of other places on the internet, that’s for sure
I love Wikipedia and have donated a lot of time and money, but damn is their foundation wasteful
Every organisation appears wasteful. Whether it’s a non-profit, local club, or government organisation.
Source?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
This fails to convey how painfully tedious the communication is between the foundation and the community. At this point it feels like the tension between high executives and an union, with the executives having the deep conviction that they are good and that the union will magically recognize it, if only they could perpetually delay every one of their demands.
The tension has decreased a ton with the CEO-ship of Iskander, with many long-requested features being delivered
Reddit users and now lemmy users seem to have a riotous distaste for non-profits generally.
Wikipedia is one of the last, good parts of the internet, and it’s under increasing threat.
Nope
Wikimedia the tool is great, the foundation behind it, not so much
mind giving us some reasons for this position? not a critique, genuinely curious
Thanks for asking! The subject has been coming up for quite some time. I might edit this comment with more sources later on, because I’ve learned about this a few years ago and don’t keep a full list of my sources on me.
I have a few reasons for this:
- The Wikimedia Foundation (the entity that receives your donations) only uses a really small fraction of your donations for the Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. The rest goes into various non-essential spendings. [1]
- They’re not efficient about spendings. Each year they receive more, and each year they spend more, way more than they should compared to Wikipedia’s growth.
- The WMF doesn’t really do much on Wikipedia. All the writing and nearly all the moderation is done by volunteers.
- They block anonymous proxies, VPNs, Tor exit nodes from editing, even if you create an account. No exceptions for regular people.
This comment is still being modified, please wait 👷
TYVM
Wikipedia, being a free source of information, is an incredibly important resource and a net good for humanity. But since Wikipedia is free for all they rely on donations to keep the lights on.
There are groups who would prefer it if that free access to information did not exist, or could be more easily be controlled and/or manipulated. It is in their interest to convince people not to donate to Wikipedia
I’m convinced that this “don’t donate to Wikipedia” messaging that has cropped up in recent years is a psyop, set up by these groups with the goal to starve Wikipedia of income.
Don’t fall for it. Support one of the last truly good places on the internet.
I never donated. Until the fascists told me not to donate. Now I donate regularly.
Usually its the far right or tankies that hate wikipedia, it seems pretty neutral for the most part.
they hate it, because it has all the info of everything bad that a republican/conservative, far right government did, and its very hard to deflect/ or deny the amount of evidence from it.
I was hearing that Wikipedia makes more than enough money from things outside of donations that it seems scammy to ask for donations the way they do from leftists before Trump’s first term.
I was hearing that Wikipedia makes more than enough money from things outside of donations
dumb question but how does wikipedia make money outside donations? is there merch somewhere?
Grants and they also have a for-profit venture in Wikimedia Enterprises.
TY!
Nope
DONATE!
Wikipedia made a conscious choice to remain free, ad free and neutral.
They get my money! Even if they don’t need it.
This question got asked a couple years ago and I said what I found in their reported finances. Unless something changed over the last couple years, they likely still need the money.
Your analysis only addresses the income vs. expenditure being relatively balanced. It doesn’t address the criticisms OP was hearing about. The primary criticism is that the foundation only needs a fraction of their current expenditure if all they did was run Wikipedia.
I do not have the means to donate to things that I care about. Most weeks, the difference between overdrafting my bank account or not is literally a few cents. I donate the $3.10 every time the pop up shows up on Wikipedia. I’m sure there are other organizations that need the money more, but I think Wikipedia is SO important, and so far has remained earnest in their behavior. Proud of you for donating what you could, glad I could help a little bit too.
Be well, friend
Hey, I remember a time when if I lost a 5€ bill, that meant I’d eat for 5 euros less that month.
We’ve got your back, take care of yourself and consider donating when you’ve come around and can do it without second thoughts.
Cheers and hang in there, it’s worth it!
I simultaneously believe that Wikipedia is valuable and that it’s not clear that WMF needed $185 million dollars.
As far as I can tell the situation has not significantly changed since “the last time(s)” this was discussed. Wikipedia remains a valuable resource, and WMF continues to aggressively increase both spending and fundraising revenue. Whether you think that means you should donate or not is probably the same answer as it was several years ago for most individuals based on personal preferences.
edit: typo
I think the answer has changed a bit since they got a much better CEO who’s doing a lot more communication and engagement with the community, which dictates what Wikipedia looks like
Before posting I read the recent annual reports which she advertises having a hand in as part a push for greater transparency, but was still left very unsatisfied personally (half the budget – over $90 mil – just hand-waved away as “infrastructure” spending? Really?). So despite being an improvement, I didn’t feel that the CEO change has had much effect on the scales of “donate vs not”. Perhaps for others it might, but my comment still reflects my best judgement.
