Wikipedia is an institution that has improved my life and I think that deserves investment.
Fascist ideology doesn't want the idea of truth to exist and Wikipedia weighing in and saying "this is the best approximation of truth we got" is a small but powerful assault against fascist ideology.
The purpose of free speech is to protect speaking truth to power. If there is no conception of what truth is then how can one speak truth to power?
"Dubious donations" seems like the epitome of FUD.
I think it’s exactly what Wikipedia tries to do. But given the scale of things its not going to get it right every time.
You said "also they redonate..." so you seem to consider that a separate issue. Thus, what "harm" have you found wikipedia to have done, specifically?
As Wikipedia would say... [citation neeeded].
If users support these organisations, they can donate directly, especially given that most Wikimedia donors have no idea their money is not being spent on Wikipedia itself.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikim...
She made a total of $798,632 that year.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikim...
Another manager who had been there for less than two-and-a-half years got $324,748 in severance, more than 100% of her salary in her last full year of employment ...
Discussion on the Wikimedia mailing list:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
Promises have been made for years that the Endowment, held by the Tides Foundation, would "soon" be registered as a separate 501c3 nonprofit org and start filing public accounts ... still hasn't happened.
If you donate to an organization that doesn't need the money, you might as well assume that money will be wasted on something with the similar societal benefit as a party full of hookers and blow.
Yes, wikipedia's hosting costs increased over time from when it was a tiny site that was down constantly and super slow, to a top website with multiple data centers and high reliability.
It would be a red flag if that didn't happen.
Also, slightly tangential, but the little blurb at the top of that essay is my favorite kind of Wikipedia-y snark:
> "WP:CANCER" redirects here. For editors who improve Wikipedia's articles about actual physical cancer, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Hematology-oncology task force.
You can actually download the whole thing if you want.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikim...
$100 million or so are now spent on salaries.
It should be noted that when you run your own data center that means that money that would have gone to AWS as a "hosting cost" now gets spread around to other sections. Its cheaper overall but shows up in different sections.
There are things i disagree with about how wmf spends its money, but just saying it spends too much money without breaking it down is meaningless. As an absolute number it is way lower than comparable websites. Maybe its spent on wrong things, but to be convincing you need to actual talk about how its wrong. Saying zOMG WMF pays about 1% of what equivalent companies pay in salaries,is not convincing that they are overspending.
Plus the now-cancelled Knowledge Equity Fund disaster seems to have been their brainchild. I know, nobody is perfect, cock-ups happen everywhere, etc. But the conduct and transparency around money just has never been that stellar at Wikimedia. (The Endowment has made it worse.)
The other aspect is that Wikimedia has always made it sound like they needed money to keep Wikipedia up and running, while having eight-figure surpluses year after year and continually growing their headcount. At least that has now somewhat improved for the moment, but it took a revolt by Wikipedians to make it so:
https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/wikipedia-wikimedia-fou...
Left to their own devices, the Wikimedia Foundation would just have continued what they were doing all along.
In my personal opinion, the real waste at wmf is being penny wise and pound foolish (or to give the appearence of being penny wise). That and the rotating door of poor upper management has everyone working in circles and at cross purposes from each other. Its an organization that doesn't know what its trying to achieve so doesn't achieve it. Many of its problems could probably be solved by spending more money doing less things but doing them better.
Jimbo still has my vote though.