zlacker

In some ways Charity Navigator is like the BBB, and people need to take those ratings with a grain of salt.

What is not said here, but I think it was started this article there was a break-down on Twitter [2] recently where someone broke down the grants Wikimedia Foundation gives to other charities, A lot of Wikimedia has become advocacy for social issues not the spread of free information. Some of those Social issues many of the donors to Wikimedia may not agree with, and it being redistributed to some pretty controversial organizations. People donating to Wikimedia thinking they are advancing Wikipedia but in reality the bulk of the foundation spending is issuing grants to other charities.

>>Meanwhile eg the American Cancer Society gets 73/100 and spends more on fundraising than WMF's entire budget

I am reminded of this TED talk[1] from several years ago that talks about fundraising and charity

[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou...

[2] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1579778161889652736.html

>>phpist+(OP)
Hey, what is "the BBB" here ?

>>navaat+F1
Better Business Bureau

>>navaat+F1
Better business bureau

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Business_Bureau

>>navaat+F1
BBB == Better Business Bureau a private organization in the US that "rates" business based on certain factors and customer complaints. It is often confused with having some kind of governmental authority, approval, or validity when in reality they just a non-profit trade organization.

Very similar to charity navigator but rating for-profit businesses

>>phpist+(OP)
>In the videos they discuss issues in science like objectivity (they're against it) and bias (they're in favour).

Its a shame so much money is being funneled to these groups since that's exactly the opposite goal of most donators to Wikipedia.

>>phpist+72
And it can become a bit of a scam where if you’re a “paying member” of the BBB you can “respond” to complaints and they disappear.

>>phpist+(OP)
That twitter thread is garbage start to finish. It starts with 'wikipedia started out in a basement on a shoestring, so clearly all the millions spent two decades later is being pissed into the wind', which is absurd.

...then attacks SERCH claiming they've done nothing but release 'youtube videos with 50 views', attacks them for not having produced any within the last year (maybe their grant ended?) when if one google "SERCH foundation" they'd quickly see "Our signature program is Vanguard: Conversations with Women of Color in STEM, an online platform and monthly web series focused on women of color in STEM." and further:

> WHAT WE DO

> Produce a live web-series with timely and relevant content

> Celebrate women of color with weekly #WCWinSTEM features

> Publish original content written by and for women of color in STEM

> Foster support and networking via our online platform

> Convene as a community virtually and at in-person events

> Advocate for ourselves + our STEM interests

....and then the big bad boogeymonster really blows its dog whistle when the author associates a foundation distributing grants to journalists who are people of color with "bankrolling the inescapable American culture war." You hear that sound? That's the sound of my eyes rolling, hard. Grants to people of color who work in journalism is furthering a "American culture war." Gosh, those pesky people of color, spreading their "culture war."

The author of the thread then mentions Guy Macon, who, from a quick google, appears to be a transphobic bigot and a troll who made a point of purposefully misgendering a trans wikipedian just to get a rise out of them, and then made a huge scene when he wasn't allowed to erase history and pretend the whole thing didn't happen, and demanded that the person unblock him. Good lord, what a fucking child. https://www.reddit.com/r/RealWikiInAction/comments/rv9x94/gu...

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=292896

....and then it ends somehow vaguely tying wikipedia to an experiment involving octopii hatchlings getting killed, or something.

It's a gish-gallop mess, and what a giant surprise it was to find that the author has a long, rambling thread about police killings in the UK that seems to say "that, really, if those black people just stopped committing crimes, they wouldn't get arrested and shot and stuff": https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1574101120347168770.html

...and their response to "uh, who exactly is this person" is to troll people by giving them the name of an anime: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeKtlilX0AAqnKA?format=png&name=...

>>webere+O3
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you didn't verify, even slightly, anything that tweet-thread author said.

Either that, or like the author, you agree with their claim that grant money going to journalists who are people of color is 'furthering the inescapable American culture war.'

Jeez, how dare those black people engage in journalism that isn't about white culture. They're declaring war on American (white) culture!" /s

>>KennyB+B4
>>>really blows its dog whistle

if you want to know where you lost me, this is where....

Anyone talking about "dog whistle" gets an instant ignore from me.

At the end of the day, my problem with wikimedia is the same problem I have with United Way, and other such "charities". I do not support charities of charities. I want to give directly to a cause I support, The fact that wikimedia is soliciting donations for one thing, then using that money for another is very misleading and IMO unethical, People do not donate to Wikipedia to support SERCH or any of the other organizations, they do so to support wikipedia, that is where the money should be spent.

>>KennyB+a5
I agree, in part. That Twitter thread starts of really well but jumps the shark right towards the end.

>>KennyB+B4
Yet the point overall of that twitter thread seems valid to me.

If widipedia is asking me to donate to support it, but most of the money isn't going to support wikipedia, then that is a bit deceptive. It's especially deceptive when that money isn't just going to the wikimedia foundation's other projects, but as grants to a variety of other organizations that have very different missions.

I think much of the criticism of SeRCH is valid. Their "signature program" hasn't released a video in over 5 years and none ever got over a thousand views. The unclearly related "Vanguard Stem" (I think it is a parent or partner organization) hasn't put out video in over a year. To be clear, a quick google isn't enough to write this organization off, but it did fail to find any information that made SeRCH seem like a legit organization to fund.

>>akolbe+c8
Only if you read it in the most uncharitable way, and ignore the very real aspects of the "Culture War" around things like CRT, Anti-Racism, DEI, ESG, etc that have very real political and partisan aspects to them. Often intersecting with the very concept of what role government should play in people's life, what authority government should have, and how government should regulate both behavior and economies

>>phpist+06
> Anyone talking about "dog whistle" gets an instant ignore from me.

I take it you think a "dog-whistle" is something the left criticizes the right for doing; and I suppose you are of the right. In fact a dog-whistle could be uttered by a politician of any colour; it's simply a message that is more likely to be heard by one particular political group than others.

There are evidently what you might call "anti-dog-whistles": messages that are not likely to be heard by some group. Apparently you belong to the group that can't hear messages containing the term "dog-whistle".

>>phpist+d9
I am uncomfortable with the video stills at the end that do seem to be picking on black people. Maybe I am doing the Twitter user an injustice, but there were four other grant recipients they could have been picking on as well:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Grant_...

This said, I agree with the premise that the Wikimedia Foundation is partisan. Its General Counsel came from the Tides Foundation, which is as partisan as any of its equivalents on the right, and its Chief Advancement Officer, responsible for fundraising and strategic partnerships, had a long career in political philanthropy before joining Wikimedia:

https://sfgov.org/civilservice/sites/default/files/Documents...

https://www.sfweekly.com/news/greening-the-left/

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/COMMUNITY-Growing-ch...

>>denton+ka
No, "dog-whistle" has become the same thing as "conspiracy theorist" but for the charge of racism. It is fraught with overuse to the point of dilution and misuse.

In the same way that anyone that dared suggest that COVID could have been a lab leak before "authority" validated the possibility was marked as being a "conspiracy theorist", anyone that dare challenge the current trends in the arena of ESG, DEI, CRT, and anti-racism must clearly be a racist, and "dog-whistle" to their racist friends because no one could possibly object to these things for any other reason.

In this usage of the term dog-whistle it is likely a Left political cause, however that this not my opposition to the use. dog-whistle is often used in an effort to side-step having to confront the actual issue, and instead lay a charge upon the individual instead of the idea being presented. It is almost like saying "when did you stop beating your wife", any response to the charge will be seen as an admission of guilt.

>>KennyB+B4
> Guy Macon

I have no idea about the other stuff, but I knew the name from The Insult File: https://micans.org/stijn/haphazard/flame.txt

I think he's since removed it from his personal site, but there's plenty of copies, floating around.

>>phpist+06
> Anyone talking about "dog whistle" gets an instant ignore from me.

Yet you continue to engage

>>bombca+Q3
After fighting with Ford over a recall issue for over a year, I opened a claim with the BBB. Two months later they closed it with a note that Ford explained that my car had been determined to be outside the claim (even though it experienced the recall related failure). Four months later, Ford issued be a check for the full cost of the repair, with an apology note. Even though at that point, I had given up.

I have to believe that the BBB claim had some effect on that. The BBB may have accepted Ford's word, and closed the claim, but it resulted in some messaging up the consumer complaint chain.

>>greyha+xp
Yeah it can work sometimes, especially if you get into the “marketing” budget of someone big - they often have some leeway.

>>bombca+Fs
That is one of things people do not understand why "Twitter" Customer service is different than regular customer service

Twitter "Customer Service" is marketing budget

>>akolbe+7c
> I am uncomfortable with the video stills at the end that do seem to be picking on black people.

Ugh, what?

>>akolbe+7c
The videos are what they are claimed to be. The last one features the black lady talking about how get experiments killed octopuses (weird!). You sound like you didn't watch them and are just reacting to the fact that black women are being criticized?

>>phpist+(OP)
> for social issues not the spread of free information

In most cases, openly opposed to the spread of free information.

>>KennyB+B4
The problem with the highlighted organizations is not (only) that they are irrelevant to Wikipedia's mission and the intent of the funders, it's that they don't seem to be doing anything which raises the question of why this specific group is being given free money. The answer can well be corruption or nepotism. Whatever it is, it doesn't look good.

>>phpist+(OP)
> What is not said here, but I think it was started this article there was a break-down on Twitter [2] recently where someone broke down the grants Wikimedia Foundation gives to other charities, A lot of Wikimedia has become advocacy for social issues not the spread of free information

I dont like the knowledge equity grants either, but it was still a tiny portion of Wikimedia foundation's budget. Describing it as "a lot" is outright misleading.

>>greyha+xp
Ford and most corps have a deny-deny-deny culpability policy until the complaint hits someone who can make a decision on the matter (they actually have queues/emails). There is a hard money limit for the peons to be able to admit that it's the company's fault, above that amount it is a blanket deny and delay policy. We had a recent President who also lived by the same policies; lawyers have ingrained into the DNA of business.