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)
 
I donated $2 ten years ago, before it all started going really sour. The fuckers have hounded me ever since and they refuse to go away. They're almost as bad as the Surf Life Savers. At least they haven't rang me... yet.
 
Wikipedia has a reputation of teachers banning it on research papers.
it is lost
Wikipedia has a ton of power tripping mods but still has good info.
If the subject is politically neutral (like how a CRT works) it can be reliable. At least with the sources.

But if that subject is political (like that other kind of "CRT"), one can expect "fact checked" propaganda.
 
If the subject is politically neutral (like how a CRT works) it can be reliable. At least with the sources.

But if that subject is political (like that other kind of "CRT"), one can expect "fact checked" propaganda.
How does one know if a subject is political or not?

There are always obvious ones, but there are plenty that go under the radar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToroidalBoat
Wikipedia has a reputation of teachers banning it on research papers. Stop and think about why that is.

Damn I wish I could find the original quote from Wikipedia or Wales or whoever. It was something like "GamerGate has a reputation of harassing women. Stop and think about why that is."
In terms of school, Wikipedia is only useful for finding other, actually worthwhile references. I used it a few times for a bullshit class I had to take, and it was very useful for padding out my bibliography.
 
How does one know if a subject is political or not?

There are always obvious ones, but there are plenty that go under the radar.
If you can think of a way that someone would change their vote on it, or that it's a bribe, it's political.

Pizza, not political.
Serving pizza to children, political.

Pizza should not be political, but never underestimate the grudge of a hungry child.
 
So this is the type of person that falls for those ads. I knew someone had to otherwise they would’ve stopped by now.
 
Thanks for the advice, but I was going to do that anyway. I don't give my money to beggers who are flush with cash and probably don't like me.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lady Adjani

If you use Wikipedia, you've seen pop-ups like this. If you're like me, you may have donated as a result. Wikipedia is an amazing website, and the appeals seem heartfelt. But I've now learnt the money isn't going where I thought...

1665771372060.png
1665771390287.png
The organisation which administers Wikipedia - to whom the money goes - is the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Wikimedia is a San Francisco non-profit with 400 employees - which has exploded in size in recent years.
1665771489569.png
In a decade, Wikimedia's spending has soared: from $10 million in 2010 to $112 million by 2020. This suprised me, seeing as Wikipedia seems to be functionally the same website it was 10 years ago. So what explains this huge increase?
1665771536986.png
1665771577196.png
1665771594511.png
Maybe more people use the site, making it more expensive to run? No: 2021 website hosting cost $2.4 million - which is LESS than it did in 2012. In fact, according the Wikimedia Foundation's own website, less than half of what they spend goes on directly supporting the website.
1665771629635.png
1665771647124.png
1665771664800.png
Bear in mind - Wikipedia used to be an incredibly cheap, volunteer run website. Watch a minute of this video of Jimmy Wales talking about how Wikipedia operated back in 2005:


So where is the money going? Well, a lot of it Wikimedia gives away to other organisations. And a significant portion of their staff are employed in that process. From 2012 to 2020, the spending on salaries increased fivefold, and $22.9 million was given in grants.

At this point, you should know that while Wikipedia emphasises a "Neutral Point of View", Wikimedia is openly politicized. It is a full participant in America's culture wars, and this helps us understand how they spend the donations.

1665771746534.png
1665771764146.png
Let's take a look at two big recipients. The SeRCH Foundation received a quarter million dollars of donor cash. Glancing at the website, you could assume it was about the admirable goal of minority representation in STEM
1665771793771.png
1665771811368.png
However on closer inspection, it turns out to be a bit more unusual than that. They're proponents of an "Intersectional Scientific Method" involving "hyperspace"(?) Their output is extremely long YouTube videos which get about 50 views a time
1665771882644.png
1665771904054.png
In the videos they discuss issues in science like objectivity (they're against it) and bias (they're in favour). There's been one new video in the last year.
1665771941011.png
1665771967519.png
1665771985474.png
1665772003396.png
Also enjoying Wikimedia's largesse was Borealis Philanthropy. Borealis is yet another grant giving organisation: They're even more political, and fully committed to driving America's cultural revolution.
1665772031616.png
1665772050096.png
Wikimedia gave $250,000 to Borealis's Racial Equity in Journalism Fund. That money was then cascaded down to a dozens of ideologically aligned news outlets across the US.
1665772078101.png
1665772096270.png
Thus, the money you give to keep Wikipedia online is diverted to bankroll the inescapable American culture war.

Back in 2017, a Wikipedian called Guy Macon wrote a strident article entitled "Wikipedia has a Cancer". He predicted Wikimedia's runaway spending would bankrupt Wikipedia, resulting in its takeover by Facebook or Google.

Since then, Wikimedia's budget has almost doubled.
1665772148206.png
What Macon misunderstood is that orgs like Wikimedia are not cancers. They are parasites that cannot survive outside their host. Almost nobody would donate to Wikimedia so it could spend money on these causes - without Wikipedia, Wikimedia would starve.

In the west, an advanced industry of NGOs, charities, and foundations has evolved which funds so much of the weirdness in our daily lives. A caste of activist-professionals have emerged, which inevitably capture any non-profit with spare cash.

This is what is sometimes called The Blob: a powerful but inconspicuous force that has given us the dysfunction of the 21st century.

Wikipedia is an amazing and important website. But it doesn't need your money. It has enough to stay online, improve and grown. What it needs more donations for is to fund one side in the United States' culture war.

A sad footnote to this: In 2021 SeRCH ran their own funding programme, "Hot Science Summer".

In deciding who to fund, the key criteria was use of the Intersectional Scientific method. Everything else - a scientific background, data - was optional. What could possibly go wrong?

1665772217846.png
1665772236785.png
One of the projects was into spatial learning in the California Two-Spot Octopus, for which the researcher got 12 hatchling octopuses. Unfortunately, the lab experiment went horribly wrong, killing the poor creatures before the research could be concluded.



I knew Wikipedia had a leftist slant but I never knew it was this fucking Godawful.
 
It's especially bad because it's intentionally misleading. What's really sneaky about the way they do it is there's no option to designate your contribution for any purpose. You think it's going to support the site but in reality it can be used for anything they want.

If you designate a contribution, it needs to be used for its intended purpose (or not used if it's an endowment corpus). If they don't do that, the NFP will find itself in a huge amount of trouble. Sometimes they'll play games with transfers between funds and things like that but in the end your money winds up in the right place. This is why they have so little in temporarily/permanently* restricted net assets and so much in unrestricted* net assets. It's more like a private family foundation than a regular charity in that regard.

*These are the old names for the net assets prior to an ASU issued a few years ago, in their FS you'll see them called with/without donor restrictions.
 
Last edited:
Wikipedia spending money on radical political agendas instead of fixing their site for volunteers to add new information is the worst example of money laundering I’ve seen in years.

If anything, I can see more people over the years follow through with investigations into non-profits because of it. This is just the BLM scam all over again.

So letting Black women do whatever they want is left-wing. Is this some kind of fetish?
When black women are not being used as tools to propagandize this site as neutral and apolitical.

This idea of going against objectivity because it is “colonialist” is just backwards level social justice thinking, that one will realize that science is getting destroyed from within by these types of people.
 
Last edited:
Back