zlacker

Wikimedia is vital to Wikipedia, they have little money and pay their exec too little for what they do. IMHO.

>>pastag+(OP)
Then they should tell donors and prospective donors what they do. As ever, all the content is written by unpaid volunteers (or people paid by others), but still the Wikimedia Foundation's spending doubles every few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial...

What's it for? Tell donors what they are funding.

And somehow the priorities are wrong. The Wikimedia Foundation has annual 8-figure surpluses, but volunteers are writing open letters to complain that the Foundation fails to update and maintain critical aspects of the software:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Think_big_-_open_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Coo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...

What the WMF does produce, however, is reams and reams of words about "strategy", "leadership", "codes of conduct" etc.

And millions of dollars are given away to progressive organisations that have nothing to do with Wikipedia:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list...

>>pastag+(OP)
Just because some wikimedia activities (primarily legal compliance, financial management, contractual work for hosting) are vital to wikipedia does not mean others are (arbiter of other charities, social causes, events, etc). And by budget spend and headcount allocation, there's far more of the latter yet they portray it as if it's the former that is at risk

>>akolbe+41
> Tell donors what they're funding

Wikimedia has a 100/100 transparency rating.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703

>>akolbe+41
it’s not at all unusual for an organization to donate to support the society it operates in

>>shadow+Y1
Notably none of the criteria measured in that rating consider their marketing. So yes their policies and filings exist, but those are not what they're presenting to potential donors, so do not prove the ads are not misleading

>>akolbe+41
"The Wikimedia Foundation defines racial equity as shifting away from Eurocentricity, White-male-imperialist-patriarchal supremacy, superiority, power and privilege..."

from the knowledge equity fund page. what the heck

>>Silver+Kb
Meh.

A good encyclopedia would present information from myriad perspectives, not just whatever happened to be "dominant." I want my article about Christoper Colombus to talk about how 19th century immigrants to America, especially Italians, found him inspirational, but also about how he was brutal, greedy, and ineffectual.

(The current Wikipedia article is actually not bad on that front).

>>Macha+G2
https://wikimediafoundation.org/

How is this misleading? They provide an incredibly large amount of information.

And more information can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Disputes

>>jasonl+wr
That is not the place donors get sent, nor the content of the ads shown to potential donors. The ads are screenshotted in the linked article and they lead here: https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Landi...

Yes, users can go elsewhere to find the information. The records are on file in the metaphorical filing cabinet downstairs. But if the messaging you're putting front and center contradicts said records, their existence doesn't counter criticism of the messaging

>>jasonl+wr
There are laws against fine print for a reason. The front page pop up ad tells a different story than a stack of text heavy articles that require no small amount of technical expertise to figure out.

>>Macha+vv
"Elsewhere" in this case is the FAQ link at the bottom of the donation page. If a person has questions, that's what an FAQ is for.

Calls to action are kept intentionally short because the research on human psychology is clear: every additional sentence beyond the first few decreases the odds of a conversion (that's adspeak for "closing the deal").

>>blulul+jw
> The are laws against fine print for a reason

Has Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation broken any?

>>shadow+fy
Yes, this is also why it lies, lying to make the situation seem more ominous also increases the odds of a conversion.

But effectiveness doesn't imply ethicality, so "but it's effective" is not a defense against criticism of ethics.

>>Silver+Kb
The funny thing is that the Wikimedia Foundation is trying to get volunteers in Africa and India to edit and contribute content for free – content which then feeds the search engines and voice assistants of trillion-dollar US companies who do their damnedest not to pay tax in the countries in which they operate.

Yeah, let's get away from imperialism and patriarchalism ...

>>blulul+jw
They haven't broken any laws. And "text heavy articles" are bad now? They share this information, and it's very public.

Prove to me they are lying. Nothing on their donation page seems to be a lie.

Your comment on the other hand is very misleading.

>>Macha+8B
In that case, your comment is a lie, and I can freely dismiss it.

>>Macha+vv
Your opinions are wrong.

Be careful, if you argue that your opinions are not wrong, you'll be admitting your comment here is wrong.