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
Stop conflating wikipedia and wikimedia.

Little of the new stuff is for wikipedia and what's there is of questionable value.

>>concor+dW2
Why not? Wikimedia intentionally conflates the two in their own funding drives, which is exactly the issue we are discussing in this thread.