zlacker

I'd also add that while arguments that Wikipedia is bloated beyond their mission is worthy of discussion, saying that Wikipedia should only be funding their current site is too narrow. I think Wikipedia should be able to pursue projects such as their wiki textbooks idea (which was ultimately a failure, but still worth trying).

>>threat+(OP)
It's fine to pursue projects outside the core mandate, but don't do it with money you were given under the pretense that the core mandate was at risk.

>>threat+(OP)
I think that's fair enough, but there's also a reasonable criticism that they are a) not being straight about that ambition in their fundraising efforts and b) some of their projects are significantly more political than textbooks.

And trust me, agreeing with Unherd about anything does not sit naturally to me.

>>cwillu+m1
Agreed. I'd appreciate it if there were a way to restrict the usage of donations to the causes I care about within the foundation.

>>threat+(OP)
I'm fine with pursuing other projects, it gets weird when they end up spending huge amounts of their money by giving grants to other organizations. I'd have no problem donating knowing they use it to fund projects, but knowing that they pretty much redonate much of it makes it feel pointless.

>>cwillu+m1
I'm entirely fine for funds to be spend on developing technology or even hosting of such resources.

On other hand, as any of it is spend on political propaganda while they have huge reserves... No money from me. If you want to do lies and propaganda start a new charity.

>>threat+m5
That's essentially pointless though. They may earmark your $10 for the core mission, but that just means another $10 that wasn't specified doesn't have to be used for the core, and gets used for their political initiatives. It's entirely semantics and doesn't change behavior at all unless an overwhelming majority earmark their donations the same way.

>>seneca+lD
That "unless" clause at the end of your comment is precisely the point though. Just because you don't want to support most of the things that WMF are doing doesn't mean that others don't want to. If a majority of donors earmark their donations, then they will collectively have rebuked the foundation. If a majority of donors don't earmark their donations, then they will have collectively approved of the foundation's actions.