Hacker News Reader

Comment by Causality1 | Hacker News Reader

Putting all the arguments aside, I had no idea Wikipedia was so far in the black. The donation begging had me thinking they were desperately clinging to life. I don't like that. From now on my annual Wikipedia donation will be going to the Internet Archive.

View on HN

I agree. The cup-of-coffee keeps wikipedia running strategy feels kinda scummy, but hey, it's probably how they got so far in the black in the first place. No incentive for them to stop the campaign.

The Internet Archive is also a profoundly worthwhile charity. But those of us with a little understanding of the space would be remiss to not point out that this article is dishonest and you're falling for it. It isn't uncommon for nonprofits (and Wikipedia is not only a nonprofit but is functionally infrastructure at this point; its survival is important beyond its own self-perpetuation) to try to build up an endowment in order to survive lean times. This is normal. You're falling for an okeydoke. Please don't.

If their actual goal was to build up an endowment to survive lean times, their spending profile would be quite different.

That may be an ancillary goal of theirs, but it’s demonstrably not close to the primary one (in a revealed preference sense).

Building up an endowment is fine. Misleading me to think that Wikipedia is close to shutting down due to lack of funds is uncool. I don't care that they spend too much money; I care that they convinced me they're broke.

What exactly is dishonest about the article? The author's criticism is that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't building up its endowment fast enough, and that it instead uses the donations on frivolous spending.

Wikipedia is my charity of choice. I am very happy that they are well in the black. I think it would be a disaster if it was ever "monetised", and I want to keep them comfortable with their current path.

The Internet Archive has been spamming me every year since I've donated. They've apologised once after the first spam (last year) which is fair enough, but just yesterday I've received yet another spam asking me to donate more despite never opting into any of that, and no apology this time.

I highly recommend not donating to an entity that can't even be bothered to respect your time.

If you let me know what your email address is I will ensure we take you off our list and on behalf of the Internet Archive I, and we, apologize to you. Please feel free to send your request to info@archive.org and please reference me, Mark Graham in your email. I will look out for it. We appreciate the support you have given us in the past and are very sorry for not respecting your request to not get more email from us. I assure you we have no desire to send email to anyone who does not want to get it. In fact, just the opposite!

Thanks! I've already replied to the original e-mail and will let your colleagues deal with it; if I don't get any reply I'll get back to you directly.

To clarify, I have never explicitly requested "not getting more email from you" (in fact I'm sure the unsubscribe link works fine), I just haven't opted into any e-mail in the first place besides it being mandatory to provide an e-mail address when donating, but I didn't expect it would be kept for anything other than the receipt and any legal obligations. It's most likely against the GDPR as well if you think your organisation falls under the regulation.

So my problem is less about unsubscribing from the list and more about why I was on the list in the first place which is the only reason I'm making a big deal about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com