Comment by brookst | Hacker News Reader

Comment by brookst | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It’s the dishonesty of Wikipedia that bothers me. The implication is that donations are urgently needed to keep the website running. In reality they have $300m in the bank and revenue is growing every year[0]. Even Wikipedia says only 43% of donations are used for site operations[1], and that includes all of their sites, not just Wikipedia. Fully 12% of the money they collect from you is. . . used to ask you for more money[1]

The whole thing just feels skeezy. They may have a noble mission, and they may need a $300m endowment when previously $100m was the target[2], but they should make that case. Acting like the site is in trouble and desperately needs every penny all the time is just dishonest. It’s like a televangelist is running the place. Now matter how much you give they desperately and urgently need more more more.

0. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...

1. https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goe...

2. https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/22/wikimedia-fo...

What is your problem with [1]?

I think almost every charity, or business, ever created spends some proportion of it's income on advertising / outreach, to increase future income. If they cut that 12%, and it decreased their income to half, or a third, of it's current value, would that make you happy?

Also, please point me to "The implication is that donations are urgently needed to keep the website running.". I've not seen anything like that in any banner I've seen this year. I'd be interested to know if you get different banners to me? Or, are you just assuming the banner says that?

What's the problem with [1]? Well, it says they're swimming in money, and don't need your $2 donation to keep giving your free information.

Most of the arguments, including yours, are 100% qualitative. "They're a good site, so give them money." Or "other charities also spend money on advertising."

We should instead be quantitative : "Yes, you are a worthy cause, but you have plenty now. Other charities are more deserving."

My probables is that 43% is incredibly low. It would score a D on Charitywatch: https://www.charitywatch.org/our-charity-rating-process

We can argue about that extra 30%, but it’s not what people are expecting to pay for.

It’s preposterous. It’s discussed here many times that they don’t need MORE. They keep begging well past the point they need, and they accumulate excessively. And despite this they seem to ignore it when I click “I’ve already donated” and keep pushing the begging. It makes me upset that I’ve donated

I think you're conflating a few things.

On your point 1, it is incredible normal for non-profit organizations to spend quite a bit of money on fundraising. They do this because spending less brings in less, and bringing in less means they cease to exist. As weird as it is to spend a million throwing a party to bring in five million, it works, and it brings in money from different people than letters in the mail or banners on a website do. 12% is half of what Charity Watch still deems "highly efficient" and earns them an A-[0].

On your points 0 and 2, I'm puzzled about what you suggest as an alternative. Should they fire all but a skeleton staff and only operate the website as-is on as little as possible with no expansion into other languages or areas of interest? Maybe that's your implied suggestion, but they clearly disagree.

If the once-a-week banners bother you that much, it suggests that you are using the site very, very frequently. You can either support their mission or not, as you wish, and all of the banners are easily dismissed or ignored. I don't think they're nearly as dishonest as you do, but then, I've worked for non-profits in the past and can read a Charity Watch page.

0. https://www.charitywatch.org/our-charity-rating-process

I’m a big fan of charitywatch! And that link is partly what I base my criticism on: the 43% of Wikimedia spending goes to operations would get them a D.

And I’m afraid you’ve bought into the “Wikimedia is on the verge of extinction” nonsense. There is no need for a skeleton staff and bare bones operations. They have a $300m endowment! They said, as recently as two years ago, that they only need a $100m endowment to meet their mission indefinitely.

What changed that merits a 3x increase? Do they really need to raise $120m per year, as they do now, to avoid the skeleton staff of doom that you propose?

I’ve posted supporting links elsewhere in this thread. I like Wikimedia. They do good work. Their management has run amok and is trapped in a spiral of raising ever-more money to justify more expensive management.

re: "if the once a week banners bother you that much, it suggests you are using the site very, very frequently":

no.

the banners never bothered me when I used the website daily, multiple times a day. They bother me immensely now that I use wikipedia once / twice a month. Now, every time I open it there is the banner asking me to donate (every time more invasive).

How long can a company of that size run without continuous supplies? That $300m will quickly run out, and depending on people’s goodwill is finicky.

They previously said a $100m endowment would be sufficient to operate off of the interest. What changed?

Yes, with ~$3mil in operating expenses (actual wiki) and all ...

the entire pretending they need money thing is a psyop to try to make it seem like they are independent and unbiased when in reality they just parrot whatever the MIC shits out in propaganda rags which they refer to as “reliable sources”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com