zlacker

>>nickpa+(OP)
Eh. If you don't want to donate, don't, but I don't quite get the outrage here. The Wikimedia Foundation is still small as far as charities go and is visibly making Wikipedia better: the new UI is a breath of fresh air, and given the insane complexity of MediaWiki markup, the visual editor is a piece of unimaginable technical wizardry. Wiktionary is an unheralded gem and even Wikidata is starting to be genuinely useful.

For what it's worth, Charity Navigator gives them 4 out of 4 stars with a 98.33/100 rating: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703

Meanwhile eg the American Cancer Society gets 73/100 and spends more on fundraising than WMF's entire budget, so oncologists can snort blow off hookers in Vegas, but nobody cares.

>>ripper+m8
Be wary of the cogs grinding in the background that can lead to an article like this hitting popularity.

There are many people with axes to grind with wikipedia - disagreements with the way certain topics are represented, and the way wikipedia has become a huge resource for information and news is not good news for everyone.

I spend way more money on entertainment being piped into my TV, or deliveries happening a day quicker than I do on a website I use several times a day.

>>dm319+Gh
> There are many people with axes to grind with wikipedia

Check the wikipedia page for the author of the article, he has been against wikipedia for 20 years now. Got his job in the Daily Telegraph by insulting Google and wikipedia repeatedly about how woke they are.

>>Arkhai+bk
That makes a lot of sense. I don't like to characterise 'left' and 'right' as being more or less factual, but we've experience a distorted massaging of facts in my country from papers like the Daily Telegraph. There are a bunch of people who like to say things to persuade people of their point of view, and are upset when the evidence doesn't agree with them. I can see something like wikipedia making these people upset.