Business The next time Wikipedia asks for a donation, ignore it - The online encyclopaedia is not short on cash and funds are used to fund activists

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
1665582554655.png

No one wants to be a bad person, and you probably felt pretty bad when you saw the heart-breaking appeal and just carried on clicking. Wikipedia is midway through a six-week fund-raising drive in Anglophone regions including the United States, the UK, New Zealand and Australia. The banner ads beg for “just £2”, which doesn’t sound like much, for all that free information. But before you start feeling too guilty, it’s worth considering some facts.

These banner ads have become very lucrative for the NGO that collects the money — the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit based in San Francisco. Every year the NGO responsible for the fundraising adds tens of millions of dollars to its war chest. After a decade of professional fund-raising, it has now amassed $400 million of cash as of March. It created an endowment, managed by the Tides Foundation, which now holds well over $100 million of that. The Foundation wanted to hit that figure in ten years, but found it had sailed past it in just five. In 2021, the appeals raised a total of $162 million, a 50% year-on-year increase. Yet the running costs of Wikipedia are a tiny fraction of the amount raised each year.

1665582608359.png

Indeed, in the 2012/13 year the Foundation budgeted for $1.9m to provide all its free information on tap.

“WMF has operated in the past without staffing and with very minimal staffing, so clearly it’s _possible_ to host a high traffic website on an absolute shoestring,” acknowledged the Foundation’s then VP of engineering, Erik Möller, in 2013. He put the running costs at $10 million a year. Being generous, as some costs fall every year, let’s double that. Wikipedia can operate quite comfortably with the cash it has already, without running another banner ad, for twenty years. So where does the money go?

Not on the people doing the actual work on the site, of course. Wikipedia’s Administrators and maintainers, who tweak the entries and correct the perpetual vandalism, don’t get paid a penny — they’re all volunteers. What has happened is that the formerly ramshackle Foundation, which not so long ago consisted of fewer than a dozen staff run out of a back room, has professionalised itself. It has followed the now well-trodden NGO path to respectability and riches. The Foundation lists 550 employees. Top tier managers earn between $300,000 and $400,000 a year, and dozens are employed exclusively on fund-raising.

The NGO world of which the Wikimedia Foundation is now part uncannily follows Marx’s prediction that the middle class would devise an infinite number of ways of enriching themselves, while ensuring the proletariat, the volunteers at the Wiki-face, don’t share the riches. Understandably, the relationship between the unruly Wikipedia workers and their bourgeoisie betters at the Foundation is strained. When the Wikimedia Foundation proposed changing its name to the Wikipedia Foundation, many of them decided it was a slur and the attempt faltered. For the first time this year, dissent is evident: many recently condemned the Foundation for continuing to run misleading and aggressive appeals.

Without many people realising, Wikipedia has become the world’s most aggressive online chugger. It’s okay to say no.

https://unherd.com/thepost/the-next-time-wikipedia-asks-for-a-donation-ignore-it/ (Archive)
 
lol if you're a big enough sucker to think Jimbo needs your money. at what degree of obviousness do you consider people falling for a scam something akin to natural selection

No one wants to be a bad person, and you probably felt pretty bad when you saw the heart-breaking appeal and just carried on clicking.

>felt pretty bad
lol. lmao

1665584081300.png
 
It's $CURRENT_YEAR+8, I learned to not throw money at every banner ad I saw in the 2000's. And the only reason I don't say 19XXs is I'm a poorfag and am not sure I had dialup pre-2000.

They're awfully :optimistic: if they think I even considered donating and not even getting a True & Honest tag and internet stickers for the effort.
 
Anyone else remember when wikipedia got caught colluding with Google? They'd set up sweatshops in Mexico to click through wikipedia search engine returns, thousands a minute, forcing the SEO into a tailspin while boosting Google's own usage numbers just at the right time to sell the idea of advertising with them. They've never been short of a few quid, or transparent about how they spend their naive donor's pennies.

The Wild West era of the internet applied equally to what are now giant megacorporations as much as it did the rest of us.
 
Literally millions of dollars to run a black & white website with the occasional JPEG sprinkled in between.

Get fucked.

There is a guy I know who hosts a massive free website, all in HTML and is one of the major resources of information who goes out of his way to find old documentation and digitise it and then post up detailed write ups an has been doing it since 1999 when hosting was expensive - it costs him £90 a year for the hosting and extra bandwidth, he'd pay for it himself but makes enough selling printed copys of manuals and the odd hard to find reproduction parts / spares that he can keep it going and DVD's of the site as well.

It's all a one man effort and he does all the fact checking and it's detailed fact checking too.

Wikipedia's infrastructure costs are minimal for the size of the site and they get a lot of hardware given to them for free, and they also have a lot of free bandwith given to them by uni's and some NGO's - they could run it and pay the staff with there donations and still have millions left over.

So I feel get fucked is a understatement.
 
Glad the word is getting more widespread, but it's been a meme making fun of Jimbo Wales and his constant e-begging for half a decade now. How are people so terminally online so slow on the uptake?
It takes awhile before people go through the denial stage of realizing the charity they've been donating to was a scam all along,
 
Back