zlacker

>>mikece+(OP)
You have to appreciate the complete transparency, gently nudging towards giving without ever begging for it.

Refreshing compared to the alternative that Wikipedia is showing, with the tantrum-like emails we receive from their CEO like "LAST REMINDER" or "We've had enough" ; which they ironically send to people who gave.

>>charle+Yl
Wikipedia is particularly insulting because they make enough money to cover the actual costs of running Wikipedia (the site) in days if not hours, and could operate for years without any additional donations: >>32840097

>>halyco+7t
Is that including staff + trying to do new stuff or just the servers.

>>mhh__+kz
Why should Wikipedia do new stuff? Or rather, why is it okay for Wikipedia to lie to people to get funding for their new pet projects?

>>_Alger+ZG
> Why should Wikipedia do new stuff?

Because it's not perfect yet?

The point of Wikipedia is not to have some servers ticking over. The project has a vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."

I agree it's not ok for them to lie, and am bothered enough by their dubious fundraising tactics that I stopped donating. But that's a totally separate concern than whether Wikipedia's mission is complete.

>>wpietr+AM
> The project has a vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."

That's not their vision. Not only do they require entries to be notable, they'll remove information from articles that are, in their editorial judgment, too long. Neither action is compatible with the goal of sharing the sum of all knowledge.