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
Those are just non-profit fundraiser consulting tactics. Don't take them personally, just ignore them. The reason they exist is that Wikipedia has too much money, so they spend some on consultants who say they can raise more. It's weird, but that's how the world works.

I would much prefer the Wikipedia endowment model of non-profit orgs. They have a standard operating procedure with a predictable budget, and endowment that let's them run indefinitely, and we just have to suffer through pledge drives. I just block them with ublock filters. I gave them 6 dollars back in 2012, and according to their marketing that is enough for life.

>>GabeIs+nn
So...is Wikipedia at the level where they can invest to ensure they're sustained indefinitely?

>>Obscur+vp1
Wikipedia? Yes easily.

Wikimedia? No, they're a money black hole and will eat whatever you give them.

>>concor+EG2
You ever checked out Uncyclopedia? Nothing on that site is not like, hysterically funny and random. I'm glad Wikipedia has been such as inspiration to us all XD

Edit: check out https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Krispy_Kreme XD