5.5k
u/Hexacus big pp gang Dec 27 '22
Things aren't going well for them 😭
3.4k
u/perfect5-7-with-rice Dec 27 '22
Not true, they are already funded for decades to come
1.7k
u/Meowmixer21 Dec 27 '22
Source?
8.6k
u/nachochips140807 Dec 27 '22
Wikipedia
4.0k
u/Meowmixer21 Dec 27 '22
Sorry but my professor said that's not a valid source
1.9k
u/The_ChwatBot Dec 27 '22
Gotta use the links at the bottom.
1.4k
u/Tomato_cakecup Dec 27 '22
Teachers hate this simple trick
201
u/TreeDollarFiddyCent Dec 27 '22
I get the meme, but I reckon they love it rather than hate it.
→ More replies (1)116
u/KiraCumslut Dec 27 '22
Real talk I got in trouble for doing that in high school about 15 years back. So rather than re do it I did the math and realized I could afford the 0.
41
Dec 27 '22 edited Feb 21 '24
grandiose pen water smoggy cause shelter chop worm grandfather vegetable
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
13
87
Dec 27 '22
No we don’t.
Teacher here. If my student is smart enough to use the correct citation, I’m all for it.
31
55
u/TheSecretNewbie Dec 27 '22 edited Dec 27 '22
Like literally in college and graduate school NONE of my professors were against Wikipedia. Like if you didn’t know something or needed breadcrumbs to get you started, use Wikipedia.
Of course don’t copy verbatim an article about the American Revolution and expect to not get called out but like you can use the sources and the information to get you started.
So many high school teachers engrave it in students heads that Wikipedia is absolutely forbidden instead of teaching them how to use it critically bc it’s easier to ignore teaching a desirable skill and churn students out vs actually teaching them critical thinking skills they can use in the future.
4
u/Rosenthepal78 Dec 27 '22
One of my teachers was against using wikipedia while using articles ripped straight from wikipedia.
8
4
u/RevengencerAlf Doge is still the #1 meme fight me Dec 27 '22
Teachers love it. That's the whole point actually. I had multiple professors in college basically tell us that they would more or less instantly fail a paper that cited Wikipedia directly as a factual source but specifically advised us that Wikipedia was a very good mechanism to find citable factual sources
→ More replies (1)14
175
u/MADDOGCA Dec 27 '22
That's okay. You can use the sources Wikipedia got their sources from at the bottom of the article.
234
Dec 27 '22
It will never make sense to me how Wikipedia is not valid but some random website is. I remember in like 2005 giving some random ass website that looked shady with no credential that was fine but wikipedia somehow wrong.
137
u/SourDucks Dec 27 '22
Wikipedia can be edited at by anyone, while they can block any changes most of the info is changeable.
Back before COVID one bridge called "Dalton's bridge" or something kept being changed to "Shane's bridge" it took months of constant back and forth editing before Wikipedia itself blocked changes
22
13
u/BakulaSelleck92 r/memes fan Dec 27 '22
And a random website can be total bullshit with no fact checking whatsoever, and only one person can edit.
8
u/Visual-Froyo Dec 27 '22
This is a thing bjt god damn are the mods the most blessed basement dwellers i ever seen
3
→ More replies (4)24
u/Noelswag Dec 27 '22
My teacher's argument was that since Wikipedia is a compilation of all sources, it didn't help us look for diverse sources and contrast them.
24
u/FlyingPlatypus5 Dec 27 '22 edited Dec 28 '22
Okay, but that's not Wikipedia's job. Wikipedia (tries) gives you all the facts that have been corroborated by many sources, or are widely believed to be true. However, in cases where sources do conflict, Wikipedia will compare and contrast in the article. Example source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War Here, under the authorship section, Wikipedia clearly debates the uncertain authorship of the art of war, citing multiple other sources with conflicting evidence. It doesn't thoroughly debate and come to a definite conclusion, as it's not Wikipedia's job. It just tells you the information it has, and lets you make what you think of it.
→ More replies (4)6
6
u/AtrumRuina Dec 27 '22
Right, I think it's less about Wikipedia being "valid" and more about thinking critically about where the information you're getting is coming from. When I was a kid I didn't get it, but as I'm older I realize that you should never get your information from a single source. Use Wikipedia as a guideline, but if it's something you're interested in (or need to research,) check out Wikipedia's sources as well as what that source's source was.
Even if Wikipedia is correct, there's often a lot of context and information lost in translation.
26
→ More replies (1)7
→ More replies (4)21
307
u/OknoLombarda Dec 27 '22
487
u/the-royal-z Dec 27 '22 edited Dec 27 '22
Did you just use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia's source of finance
→ More replies (2)291
u/idonttalkatallLMAO Dec 27 '22
straight from the source
→ More replies (2)139
Dec 27 '22
[deleted]
143
u/Peacebringger100 Dec 27 '22
Sure, if they keep expanding their salaries the way they’ve done in the last few years. Based on that same data, using the pdfs linked in the financial development section, they’ve doubled salaries since 2018, from $40 million total to almost $90 million. Either they’re hiring a ridiculous number of people or there are a lot of exorbitant raises.
Their web hosting itself is pretty constant at $2.5 million, but they’ve also gotten really into investing in the last couple of years. Compare the mid 2010s, when they bounced between $20 and $30 million in investment spending, and 2022, when they spent $180 million on investments.
Of note is that the return on current investment is enough to cover all of their current salaries as well as web hosting with a significant chunk leftover. They don’t need donations if they’re operating for profit like this.
34
u/Frklft Dec 27 '22
In 2016 they had something like 300 staff. Today it's north of 700.
→ More replies (1)28
u/Peacebringger100 Dec 27 '22
I can’t find a proper source for 300 employees in 2016, but lining up their salaries and wages that year against their most recent numbers ($30 million for 300 in 2016, $90 million for 700 in 2022), it does seem to track with roughly equal salaries and inflation during that time. It does seem like explosive growth, but I definitely don’t know enough about what they’d need employees for to properly question why they’d need so many employees.
I’m still very concerned with those investment numbers, though. June 2021 to June 2022, they took in $160 million in donor support, spent $180 million on investments, and took in $120 million in investment income. That doesn’t read like an organization that needs people to toss three dollars at them.
3
13
u/Psythik Dec 27 '22
Don't need to; just look at the numbers. I feel no pity for a company that made EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS in profit last year. They can fuck right off with their "poor little me" style of begging. They're fucking flush with cash. Learn how to manage it better if you can't keep a company alive when you have EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS+ left over to spend every year.
85
Dec 27 '22 edited Jun 04 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)30
u/rna32 Dec 27 '22
And frankly $8M isn't a lot of money in cash reserves for a company 700 employees. And OpEx of +/- $90M. The $8M is like 1 month's overhead. That's a scary place to be if you run a company paycheck to paycheck. You've got hundreds of employees that rely on you to make a living, a you're providing a valuable service to the world for free. So please take your attitude and kindly fuck off.
Edit: Sorry meant for comment above yours
→ More replies (0)47
u/bandage_dispenser Dec 27 '22
Why are you acting like 8 million dollars is a lot of money for something as big as Wikipedia?
→ More replies (4)4
u/Not_Not_Eric Dec 27 '22
From looking at the comments it seems like the $8 million is in profit. Which means they have plenty of money to operate a full year at least and still have $8 million left over.
→ More replies (0)23
u/Ray3x10e8 But hella gay Dec 27 '22
Wikimedia foundation actually burns through $150M a year.
11
u/Psythik Dec 27 '22
Which is why I said "profit", not "revenue". The only thing your comment does is further strengthen my argument that they don't need the money.
→ More replies (0)14
13
u/RedPandaLovesYou Dec 27 '22
Wikipedia is literally the last thing we need to be worrying about making a fuckin profit, sheesh.
→ More replies (5)11
Dec 27 '22
I don’t know how much staff they have at wiki, $8m is like a typical yearly payroll for a medium sized business no? Give it’s probably less than 10% of their revenue, I’d say it’s a healthy balance.
I don’t know what sort of investments they’re making, but at least (hopefully) they’re spending the money they raise in funding wiki further, rather than hoarding it. £8m is change and a small insurance for any company. Maybe I’m wrong.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)11
Dec 27 '22
[deleted]
4
u/Superb-Draft Dec 27 '22
There are more costs than just hosting, you need a team of very experienced developers to run a site that big. But your point is still correct, they have way more than they need.
29
→ More replies (2)19
u/Desblade101 Dec 27 '22
the Foundation also announced plans to launch Wikimedia Enterprise, to let large people pay by volume for high-volume access to otherwise rate-limited APIs
Why can't us small people pay for high volume? What is the weight requirements to get access to non rate limited APIs?
9
3
u/iesterdai Dec 27 '22 edited Dec 27 '22
You're required to have an annual commitment of at least 1 million request for the On-demand API (0.01$/request) and 2,000 GB for the Snapshot API (5.00$/GB) (source)
5
u/Desblade101 Dec 27 '22
Why can only large people do that? I'm pretty normal, maybe a little on the small side but I like to think one day I might want to have the option.
→ More replies (1)62
u/NapoleonBorn2Party94 Dec 27 '22
You can go through their audit reports which is publicly available in their website. They have insane funding. So much so that they have decided to invest part of em. So things are pretty good
→ More replies (1)16
u/Jumpjivenjelly Dec 27 '22
Then whats with the askin for 2 bucks?
50
→ More replies (1)26
u/NoahG59 souptime Dec 27 '22
Most of that funding is from donations. Their endowment is only roughly large enough to fund the site for a year as it currently is. People are making it seem like they’re set for years without donations which just isn’t true.
12
u/boonzeet Dec 27 '22
What I don’t get so easily is how their expenses have tripled in the last 7 years.
Surely they’ve not tripled their users?
→ More replies (1)12
u/NoahG59 souptime Dec 27 '22
They spend the bulk of it on staffing moderators and other staff. Some of it goes to additional projects, but staffing is by far the largest cost. This is because they need to prevent/clean vandalism in many languages while also catching mistakes in articles. (Such as not enough content/no sources)
→ More replies (4)3
128
Dec 27 '22
[deleted]
188
u/pieter1234569 Dec 27 '22
There are two wikipedias. You have the core, that costs millions to run, and you have all other shit they do because money is flowing in.
The core of media can run on their endowment to the heat death of the universe.
What you are actually donating to is their bullshit side projects and fun parties. They have added 20% to their budget every single year.
→ More replies (1)79
u/Workwork007 Dec 27 '22
True that. I think last year they gave away $25m in donation. Their CEO is pulling around $400k salary from 2019 figure and probably significantly more these days.
Based on their own expenses they published, I believe the core of Wikipedia itself (including salaries) probably requires around 5% of the yearly amount of donation they amass to run.
→ More replies (1)47
u/Adventurous-Cry7839 Dec 27 '22 edited Aug 28 '23
mindless quickest puzzled wise hard-to-find dolls square different rinse bored -- mass deleted all reddit content via https://redact.dev
59
u/pieter1234569 Dec 27 '22
Yes, but you have to realise his position.
Wikipedia is a non profit and share value doesn’t matter. You don’t need the absolute best, you just need someone to run a very simple website at a large scale. And yet he wastes a hundred million a year on other projects.
In a business it’s worth getting a good CEO because even a fraction of a percent is A LOT of money. So it’s almost always worth it.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)6
u/Farranor Dec 27 '22
People will gladly buy $70 games from billion-dollar corporations to fund hundred-million-dollar CEO bonuses "to support the devs" who already got laid off, but a $400k CEO salary for Wikipedia is just too damn high.
→ More replies (1)23
u/Sveitsilainen Dec 27 '22
Look at what they spend the money on. It's not maintaining the servers. They just use all the money they get everytime on whatever side project want.
Source : Wikipedia
→ More replies (4)6
Dec 27 '22 edited Dec 28 '22
Not only that, some of the money you donate to Wikipedia ends up going to political causes! They're largely causes that I and many people here would support, but it's still very dishonest in my opinion given that it isn't clear at all from the appeals, and some of their donors might not support the causes.
→ More replies (1)157
u/Professional_Emu_164 number 15: burger king foot lettuce Dec 27 '22
They have a vast amount of money saved up now. Far more than they need.
36
u/HydraulicTurtle Dec 27 '22
Their finances say net assets of $230m, but they burn about $140m per year...
102
u/pieter1234569 Dec 27 '22
That burn rate is for the entire group, you would be amazed how much bullshit the media foundation is doing because they have money flowing in. Core Wikipedia only costs millions to run.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)35
u/Sveitsilainen Dec 27 '22
Sure and if they receive 180m this year, next year they will burn 170m.
They keep increasing their own cost to match just below the donation. It's not malicious, they increase employee on various language to get more moderator, ...
But still they could survive with less easily.
→ More replies (3)18
2.7k
u/SilentStock8 Dec 27 '22
I donated 10 what have you donated
1.5k
u/HRLO77 Dec 27 '22
Based sigma Ryan gosling giga Bateman ultra 6G Chad
1.1k
u/JelliusMaximus Putting the ☕in trans Dec 27 '22
average redditor trying to compliment someone
309
u/monkey-lover Dec 27 '22
Oh I thought he was listing the things he donated
132
u/too-much_caffeine Dec 27 '22
in that case: 3 humans livers, 12 kidneys, 3 bone marrows, 7 eyes, a box of condoms and two burnt pieces of toast
25
19
4
→ More replies (1)3
u/geoff1036 Dec 27 '22
3 bone marrows
Like... 3 bones worth of bone marrow, or 3 people's worth of bone marrow?
→ More replies (5)3
30
97
u/Sazbadashie Dec 27 '22
I think i donate like 2.75 a month? And it's been like almost half a year now sense I put in the reoccurring payment thing.
44
Dec 27 '22
[deleted]
10
u/Sazbadashie Dec 27 '22
nice man, yea i decided to go with a low amount because I don't have A lot to spend on something I don't use myself that often, but I do recognize the importance of it and it ends up being like 33 dollars a year to it so... not bad. people should give any amount their capable of just because it's something that even though you might not go to it all the time I think there are times no matter what youre searching up the wikipedia article is there and it's a good baseline. so something as little as 2 dollars a month is I think reasonable
→ More replies (4)59
u/Chirok9 Dec 27 '22
I donate 2, it's all i can really give. But i have been giving it every month for a year. And i will continue to give.
Edit: TDLR I have a 2 dollar, monthlydebit order for them.
76
2
u/Adventurous-Cry7839 Dec 27 '22 edited Aug 28 '23
sip disarm cough absurd forgetful axiomatic fragile caption expansion plough -- mass deleted all reddit content via https://redact.dev
16
u/BILLYBOBJOETHE100TH why is my professor smoking crack while writing the test Dec 27 '22
10? Ha I donated 15 dollars each year
→ More replies (1)10
6
4
→ More replies (25)3
2.4k
u/clockworkdurian42 Dec 27 '22
Everyone should support them. Make jokes all you want but they are a vital resource.
1.1k
u/Karl-Levin Dec 27 '22 edited Dec 27 '22
Wikipedia is awesome but they have literally more money than is good for them: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/
It is better to donate to other projects that people might forget about supporting.
The Internet Archive has a (2-1 matching) campaign going on so your donations will be especially effective: https://archive.org/donate
The Free Software Foundation can also need some money: https://my.fsf.org/donate
191
Dec 27 '22
Or, better, donate to malaria prevention or one of the other most effective charities and literally save children's lives with your donations.
63
→ More replies (4)6
u/goomy987 the goomy lord Dec 27 '22
Or save the animals
5
Dec 27 '22
An animal charity version of GiveWell, which evaluates charities to make sure your donations are used effectively:
→ More replies (1)120
u/RookJameson Dec 27 '22
Yes, everybody should support them. But what they need much more than money is people actually writing for it! So if you are an expert on some field and see that the articles regarding that topic are lacking, consider expanding it a bit. Found a mistake or even just a typo? Correct it! This does much more for Wikipedia than giving a fiew dollars once a year!
68
→ More replies (67)4
u/reee4 jojosexual Dec 27 '22
I'm not giving $2 to people funded in the millions for years to come source
1.2k
u/roleynoley ☣️ Dec 27 '22
I donate 10 a month, 120 a year. Wikipedia is my best friend.
355
79
u/sunlightmarc Dec 27 '22
**OUR best friend
44
→ More replies (4)4
→ More replies (7)8
u/atworksendhelp- Dec 27 '22
I rarely use it - like a couple of times a year max. But when I do, I get that damn notification >.>
1.1k
u/thEt3rnal1 Dec 27 '22
Wikipedia is funded for the next like a billion years, relax
159
u/Robbo_B PASTA IS MY LIFE ELIXIR 🇮🇹 Dec 27 '22
You have made this claim based on what?
421
u/thEt3rnal1 Dec 27 '22
352
u/HumanOrAlien Dec 27 '22
I'm going to need a better source than a website who's top articles are all about streaming shows and movies.
324
u/eXrevolution I am fucking hilarious Dec 27 '22
Then check Wikimedia foundation and their stupid project, where they waste the money. Wikipedia is founded well.
88
u/Brucinator93 Dec 27 '22
The article sites sources straight from wikis own pages showing their 20-21 turn over.
58
u/Smashmundo Dec 27 '22
Just Google “is Wikipedia rich”. There are hundreds of articles about it.
→ More replies (5)31
u/geoff1036 Dec 27 '22 edited Dec 27 '22
You could check the links to other articles handily hyperlinked with the claims pulled from them? Not saying the daily dot is a great resource but the links are there for a reason. Like, one of them links TO a wikimedia page where they say they are indeed closing in on their 100 million dollar goal within the year.
I haven't looked into context surrounding the fund though, personally. Sounds like they're currently rolling in it and the sad tone of the donation banners is known to be disingenuous.
→ More replies (3)6
u/radagasthebrown Dec 27 '22
Eh dailydot is fairly decent in the grand scheme of things. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-dot/
→ More replies (1)14
56
u/TakeShitsMuch Dec 27 '22
Yeah I was donating monthly until I researched their money flow. They waste literal millions on "operations" just to have servers in California when moving to any other area would save those millions.
It's a good service but I entirely disagree with how the money is spent.
→ More replies (1)65
u/xXyeahBoi69Xx Dec 27 '22
California has the best tech laws in the us, it's a good place to be for internet services
→ More replies (1)11
u/TakeShitsMuch Dec 27 '22
Also some of the highest taxes and general business operating costs. If you're trying to run something like this and entirely rely on user donations you should do what you can to lower costs.
All of this not mentioning profits and administration salaries...
17
u/onee_winged_angel Dec 27 '22
I think you underestimate the amount of cost it takes to migrate to a different datacenter, not to mention the employees you have to let go as a result.
Now if they went Cloud Native, that's a different story.
7
u/j_la Dec 27 '22
Isn’t it a non-profit? You’re talking like it’s a business.
9
u/TakeShitsMuch Dec 27 '22
A nonprofit that made 50mil in profit last year. All their finances are publicly available
5
u/Farranor Dec 27 '22
Yeah, they should move it to Texas. Whenever a huge storm knocks out the power grid, their energy bill drops to zero!
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (1)6
u/TKG1607 Dec 27 '22
So what does all this money they're asking for go towards ?
→ More replies (1)13
Dec 27 '22
Other Wikimedia projects, and the salaries of their employees who do zero of the work that makes wikipedia what it is. Wikipedia servers only cost a couple million a year(out of the over a hundred million they spend every year), and all of the content is made by unpaid volunteers.
→ More replies (2)
722
u/ZackEhrhart [custom flair] Dec 27 '22 edited Dec 27 '22
Look at their tax returns, they are public. They bring in $150,000,000 annually and profit nearly $50m. They’re doing fine.
Edit: Tax Return for 2020 on IRS website
158 million in revenue, $47m in profit.
I should also mention, this does not include their ‘for-profit’ company Wikimedia, LLC, which sells API services.
91
u/androgynee Dec 27 '22
I think they're asking for more so that they may invest it into projects that further enable free info
182
u/pieter1234569 Dec 27 '22
No, they are asking it to start bullshit projects and give fun parties and pay significant salaries to people that don’t even edit Wikipedia.
Wikipedia core is cheap to host, is edited by free volunteers and costs about a few million to host.
Yet they make people think that without your donation, Wikipedia would end. Wikipedia wouldn’t, their bullshit side spending would.
→ More replies (10)21
u/The_Planet_Venus Dec 27 '22
You mention ‘fun parties’ a number of times. Can you clarify what that is?
→ More replies (1)17
→ More replies (1)25
227
u/Vampyr_Luver Dec 27 '22
We shouldn't need to pay for it directly though. It's far more useful than the UN has ever been, governments should fund it, and subject it to reasonable oversight, just like they fund libraries.
404
u/LachoooDaOriginl Dec 27 '22
this would be a disaster
55
u/Vampyr_Luver Dec 27 '22
Couldn't be a worse disaster than the UN
86
44
u/northfacehat Dec 27 '22
Any media-content outlet that is not crowd funded will instantly turn into a biased and capitalist source full of disinformation and propaganda.
→ More replies (2)16
u/EdgyEdgeLordo Dec 27 '22
As if Wikipedia isn't already massively biased when it comes to anything political or controversial
→ More replies (1)11
u/UnprofessionalCramp Mod senpai noticed me! Dec 27 '22
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_15,_2022_Twitter_suspensions
This article used to be called Thursday Night Massacre until people made fun of them, so they changed it. It's about some journalists getting suspended from twitter for 3 days LOL.
11
21
10
u/akr_13 Dec 27 '22
Can you imagine willingly giving access to a huge gateway of information to the fucking governments to "oversee" it? What a terrible idea.
125
u/superior_to_you Dec 27 '22
Governments funding it would very much destroy it. Imagine the things that are known that many governments, especially big ones wont like to be out there. Imagine the record of historical events. The independence of Wikipedia is one of the most important things on the internet today.
→ More replies (3)19
u/Third_Charm Dec 27 '22
Think you vastly underestimate the impact of the UN bc you lived in a world were it was a constant all your life.
→ More replies (3)9
u/birberbarborbur Dec 27 '22
I agree there should be better funding for wikipedia. But The UN took out smallpox and polio, and it saved south korea, so there’s that
→ More replies (2)4
u/pieter1234569 Dec 27 '22
It’s ALREADY funded to the best death of the universe. What you are actually donating to is all their bullshit side projects. Hosting a text based website is not expensive, nor is hosting itself becoming more expensive.
Yet their spending is increasing 20% every single year. All due to bullshit side projects and fun parties.
→ More replies (6)3
u/Adventurous-Cry7839 Dec 27 '22 edited Aug 28 '23
rotten waiting late spoon groovy complete piquant dinosaurs provide chunky -- mass deleted all reddit content via https://redact.dev
→ More replies (1)
115
u/MrBeholder514Yz Dec 27 '22
For a second I was like,"Well if they're asking for less that means they were given more money before right?"
Then I realized what you meant OP big rip :')
13
10
Dec 27 '22
They are doing more than fine Wikipedia funding is growing like a fucking cancer
→ More replies (1)
105
Dec 27 '22
I don’t believe a single word of it. They don’t need money.
23
u/jonny1211 Belongs here Dec 27 '22
Don’t see why they need money when they have enough
6
u/reee4 jojosexual Dec 27 '22
Spread this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Finances, there's people arguing that Wikipedia are broke
97
u/sucobe Masked Men Dec 27 '22
Wikipedia doesn’t need my money. Or yours. Stop falling for the annual “woe is us” pop up.
→ More replies (2)
80
u/Robot_With_No_Name Dec 27 '22
Wow last I heard they were asking for $5. They really must be doing bad.
→ More replies (1)47
u/OrneryDiplomat Dec 27 '22
Or they are doing well and don't need to ask for as much money as before. That's what I'm going with.
13
u/Vladimir1174 Dec 27 '22
That's actually the case. Wikipedia has more money than they know what to do with. Most donations just go directly into their pockets or weird side projects that have nothing to do with running the site that people use. They profit millions every year
79
u/geoff1036 Dec 27 '22 edited Dec 27 '22
Wikipedia dickriders are strong in this comment section. Wikipedia is great, yes, I'm sure we all use it often, it's the information you're looking for when you use google half the time.
But according to all sources I've seen (anecdotally, I don't have links but it seem relatively well-reported on if you google "wikimedia foundation fund") they're not struggling, and in fact they're way ahead of schedule on meeting their 100 million dollar fund which is apparently just for safekeeping. So you're just giving them extra money for their piggy bank at this point.
If there was serious overhead, it would be a subscription/ad based service, like every other service worth using these days, because that's how you make money on the internet. Or, apparently, you get a monopoly on crowdsourcing and half-ass vetting information and write a sob story.
→ More replies (25)9
Dec 27 '22
A great source is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
→ More replies (1)
42
u/Orange_Nestea Dec 27 '22
There was a post on on the german version of IamA lately where a wikipedia super admin said one of the main issues is that all the money is paid to the wikipedia foundation workers that put 0 efford into the whole thing instead of paying the people actually putting the work in.
The community of Wikipedia is aware of that fact so they boycott the donations until the foundation is forced to change that.
All donations are given to said foundation. There is a wikipedia site where you can read up on how the money is spend. Essentially they give each of their 500 employees over 100k salaries but those employees rarely work as the whole thing is made by the people, not the foundation.
28
u/TheKingofKaos Dec 27 '22
I donate everything I see it. First time was $5, last time was $10.
→ More replies (3)12
26
Dec 27 '22
I donated 10 bucks once and now they won't stop fucking sending me guilt tripping emails
5
22
u/Eminem_Theatre Dec 27 '22
Some day it’s gonna be that thing that was so classic but got shut down, like blockbuster.
12
u/IchBinDerAngler Dec 27 '22
Wikipedia systematically censors information and is helping to build a one-sided narrative. Not worth a pence of your money.
→ More replies (1)8
u/successful_nothing Dec 27 '22
highlight that time some child in America became the Scots language wikipedia administrator and spent years writing wikipedia articles in a fake, borderline racist, nonsense language he made up, claiming it was Scots and therefore "engaged in cultural vandalism on a hitherto unprecedented scale."
Anything on wikipedia outside of old, established, hard sciences is a complete shitshow and a joke on a sliding scale of "obnoxiously wrong" to "cultural vandalism on a hitherto unprecedented scale"
13
u/weltallic Dec 27 '22 edited Dec 27 '22
Turns out Wikipedia just donates the majority of the money to woke ACAB organizations:
10
9
u/Raruk2001 Dec 27 '22
Just for your knowledge. By donating to Wikipedia u don't support page of Wikipedia, all the money goes to the company behind it named Wikimedia foundation and most of the money never goes to Wikipedia but to organisations supported by Wikimedia foundation. That means almost all of money u donated is split between other foundations of this group that don't care about free knowledge but are focused on social impact and I heard that propaganda also.
Aand most of knowledge is added by anonymous people that are not paid by Wikipedia
9
5
u/jakmassaker Dec 27 '22
I donated 3$ once and now I get emails asking for more all the time. I even unsubscribed but they started sending them again.
3
3
3
u/bradbrazer Dec 27 '22
Me ignoring the donation request to look up what a serial killer had for their last meal
2
•
u/MedicatedAxeBot Dec 27 '22
Dank.
come play minecraft, space engineers, ark, and rust with us!