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
The issue is that they make it sound like they are struggling to have enough money to keep Wikipedia running when they are actually wealthier than ever before.

The whole premise of Wikipedia (or aspiration, at least, and yes, not always fulfilled ...) is that people should have information so they can't be manipulated.

It kind of sucks to see the very organisation hosting the site do the opposite, don't you think?

>>akolbe+79
Marketing. They hired someone(s) with marketing experience.

>>ianai+va
Half-truths. They hired someone with half-truths (bordering on lies) experience.

>>zelphi+Td
So. Marketing?

>>LightG+lg
It is possible to raise interest in something without lying about it. Whether you will fully understand it or not is up to you.

>>kordle+hl
This is loser logic. It's possible to play by self-imposed self-hindering rules, sure, but your competitors probably aren't. In business, you play the game that exists, not the game you want to exist. Politics is how you do the "game you want to exist" part.

>>criley+Gp
This line of thinking is how we get dystopia.

>>JohnFe+Ku
Sounds like he read the acts of Purdue Pharma and DuPont as a manual for how to operate a business.