this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
190 points (96.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26968 readers
1469 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

They have millions to spare every year, yet their hosting costs is just a couple thousand.

And yet they insist on community moderators, who aren't trained, paid or impartial. A lot of the information on the site has been quite terrible recently.

Meanwhile, they beg and beg for more money. Where that cash goes? Well a big chunk of it is labeled "other" and "community projects". They currently have about 250 million sitting in the bank. Enough to keep their hosting services running for over 400 years if their funding were to abruptly stop.

And then still, they accept grants on top of donations.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f6/Wikimedia_Foundation_2024_Audited_Financial_Statements.pdf

Their hosting is a couple million a year, and they have $80 million in cash, not $250.
Their cash flow from donations after expenses is about $6 million.
They absolutely cannot keep running for 400 years without further funding.
If nothing else, people are needed to run the servers and actually manage the basic operations of the foundation.

They're definitely not in a dire financial situation, but they're not centuries of hands off operation by any means.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Why the pizza are there wikipedia articles about this disagreeing? And their info page?

Welp, either way I've found them unreliable recently

If you use it frequently, and have money to spare for that (after maybe considering other projects that may better align with you personally), yes.

I donate a small amount every year. Before now, I had not given much thought about its internal politics or whether they really need it to stay afloat (my contribution is too small to make a difference anyway).

To me, it's more of a way of being thankful for having ad-free content with a good enough material.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 117 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

maybe redirect that to archive.org

I feel like they need it more... they've just been hacked and they might need more resources to upgrade their security.

But both are good causes. But make sure you have enough emergency funds saved for yourself first.

Edit: Another argument for archive.org over wikipedia is that wikipedia is mostly a text based site. archive.org , in contrast, can store photos, videos, software, and various media thay requires more storage. The entire English wikipedia is only about 100GB (excluding videos), but archive.org is probably in the Terabytes or more.

[–] otacon239@lemmy.world 40 points 6 days ago

Their software collection alone has reached the petabyte mark: https://archive.org/details/software?tab=about

[–] nik9000@programming.dev 30 points 5 days ago

I worked for them ten years ago. I was excited to do something important for once. And it was better than competing with Amazon for book sales. I was really helping.

I eventually left because I didn't think we were being a great steward of donor money. And I didnt have the best relationship with my boss. Nice guy, but we didn't clock.

Back then they spent like half their money on donations and programs trying to get more editors. That included supporting projects in smaller languages and diversity on current projects. Mostly good stuff as far as I could tell.

Where they invested their money for tech was where I disagreed. But even so, I've donated since then. They are supporting important work. Everyone makes mistakes.

Ultimately, I dunno.

[–] Modva@lemmy.world 49 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Yes definitely. Anything that spreads knowledge should be hugely supported.

Be very suspicious of anyone advocating for less support of knowledge sharing.

[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

this is my take also. def be suspicious of anyone trying to hide or gatekeep knowledge, transparency is key. it doesn't hurt anyone to be properly informed. I say "properly" because look at MAGA bullshit.

we all do better with real, legit knowledge.

BRAWNDO! it's what plants crave!

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 73 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

I don't anymore.

they do not need your money, and it's disingenuous of them to imply they do.

The manipulative aspect of their annual fundraisers is very unsettling.

here are some numbers from 2022:

https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-next-time-wikipedia-asks-for-a-donation-ignore-it/

they have at least 400 million in reserves now and the estimate is $10 million a year to maintain the site and pay all their employees.

their higher executives are each paid hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

they're not struggling to keep the lights on for the next half century.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 91 points 6 days ago (23 children)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f6/Wikimedia_Foundation_2024_Audited_Financial_Statements.pdf

https://wikimediafoundation.org/annualreports/2022-2023-annual-report/

They have approximately $80 million in cash, and it costs them about $100 million to pay their staff. They have $274 million in total assets, counting endowment investments.

It's extremely unclear where that site came up with $400 million.

I'm not sure why you'd link to a two year old opinion piece on it, when all of their financials are publicly available and provided without commentary.

They received cash in excess of expenses of about $6 million, and including non-cash assets their total assets increased by about $16 million in 2024.

Their CEO makes about $500 thousand a year, and the rest of their executive team ranges in salary from $300 to $100 thousand.
It's not a small salary, but it's not preposterous for one of the most visited sites in the Internet that also operates as a charity to have decently compensated executives.

They are not in financial trouble, but it's not accurate to say they can keep the lights on for the next 50 years.

[–] Rookwood@lemmy.world 35 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Those salaries are not competitive. Not that they should be because executive pay is out of control, but they are also in no way extravagant and possibly too low or at least the bare minimum to retain any kind of decent talent to run the operation.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 17 points 6 days ago

Looking at the profiles for the executives, you definitely get the feeling that they're either the sort that prioritizes "my work put good into the world and you don't need to squint to see it" over cash, so "yeah, that lets me live" is sufficient, or their seemingly going for a high score for number of "oh, nice!" organizations they can put on their CV, and the total compensation from them all is probably more than competitive.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] dditty@lemm.ee 7 points 6 days ago

Yeah I no longer donate as well for this same reason. They are not hurting for cash

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] otterpop@lemmy.world 38 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 28 points 5 days ago

This is why I just block their fucking "we're in trouble and need your help" banners. Their income is public knowledge. They don't actually need help.

[–] PetteriPano@lemmy.world 26 points 5 days ago

I used to donate, but I haven't for at least 10 years.

Their financing is public. They would have enough cash to keep the lights on for decades.

They've been investing to be reliant on donations in the future. I see a conflict of interest there and I'd rather have them be relying on donations.. especially since they have received enough cash to do so.

TL;DR, I'm happy to donate for running Wikipedia, not happy to donate for them to become a fund.

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 31 points 6 days ago

Right now, I'm leaning towards "no" on account of them allegedly being awash with money.

In the vein of alternative places to donate, consider your Fediverse instance(s). If you're a Linux user, a few pennies towards your distro of choice wouldn't go amiss either. (I'd also say archive.org, but someone else suggested that already.)

You may already be donating to these places, but this comment is also for the handful of other people who might see it, and like one of those arcade coin waterfalls, might trickle down into the conscience of someone who has cash to donate.

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 27 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I am not sure whether the wikimedia foundation actually needs money from individuals. From what I could find by searching "Does Wikipedia need donations", they seem to have plenty of money. I've also seen from people that after donating, they like to haunt your email inbox for more money.

I myself prefer donating elsewhere instead. In my opinion a good alternative is archive.org. It's hard to track how much they get sued, and now they even were hacked recently.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 17 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I donate a bit each year, and I wouldn't say they are bothersome. I get an email once a year where they ask if I'd like to donate again, not counting the receipt from the actual donation. It seems disingenuous to complain about the receipt.

[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yeah I'll give em $20 some years and never got hit with emails. EDIT: just checked i have 2 solicitation in my inbox this year

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 17 points 5 days ago

I have in the past, but at this point I need my money more than they do, and even if I get a job where it becomes financially possible to donate, there are other organizations that need it more than Wikipedia

[–] tal@lemmy.today 20 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I do.

I think that it's one of the services that dramatically enhances not just my online experience, but also the world's. And I'd rather have it donation supported than ad-supported or similar.

There aren't many services that I'll donate to, but this is one.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 21 points 6 days ago

You’re better off shooting your instance the money, but Wikipedia has remained a genuinely good quality company. If you want to give them money in recognition of this fact, no one sane will call you a dumb dildo with hairy feet.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 17 points 6 days ago

You have my permission

[–] Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 6 days ago
[–] stinerman@midwest.social 10 points 5 days ago

I do not. Not as long as Jimmy Wales is involved with it. I strongly disagree with his objectivist philosophy.

There are certainty worse places to send your money, though.

[–] Bougie_Birdie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 6 days ago

I barely have two dollars to rub together and I still try to

I guess I'm probably overdue to make a donation myself

[–] mumblerfish@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If you do, their e-mails asking you to donate again are a bit weird and manipulative. Their subject lines are like "FIRSTNAME - I've had enough", "Our final email" (got several of those), "It's non-negotiable".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 8 points 6 days ago

Do you use Wikipedia? If so, yes.

[–] Libb@jlai.lu 7 points 6 days ago

If you can afford it, yes. If you use it, yes.

Maybe not each year. I mean, I donate a couple hundreds every few years because back in those days I certainly was not paying for a brand new printed encyclopedia every single year either ;)

[–] rain_worl@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

i think it's mostly for maintaining the servers, the actual article writers are random people on the internet, who probably recieve no money

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 6 days ago

No. The articles are written by volunteers and will not be improved by your donation.

In theory, your donation does keep the servers running, but they have plenty of money to do that, and most of the money nowadays goes to paying way too many employees many of whom don't do anything very useful or important.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago

You know how people will donate money to streamers if they do stupid stuff? If you can do that, you can do this.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 points 6 days ago
load more comments
view more: next ›