zlacker

Read the donation page and see if you feel the same way:

https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Landi...

We ask you, humbly, to help.

We'll get straight to the point: Today we ask you to defend Wikipedia's independence.

We're a non-profit that depends on donations to stay online and thriving, but 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way. If everyone who reads Wikipedia gave just a little, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come. The price of a cup of coffee is all we ask.

...

We know that most people will ignore this message. But if Wikipedia is useful to you, please consider making a donation of or whatever you can to protect and sustain Wikipedia.

>>sokolo+(OP)
Yes, it's in a whiny tone. The fact that it will go down is your interpretation. An alternative interpretation could be "98% of people get asymmetric value out of Wikipedia, please make it less asymmetric".

In fact, if they stop begging, what percentage of their users will contribute? Will it remain at 2%?

>>jevgen+Vt
What else would "We ask you, humbly, to help...We're a non-profit that depends on donations to stay online" mean if not to raise the possibility to go down is present?

>>sokolo+ov
That they are a non-profit funded by donations, maybe? Just a wild guess. /s

>>jevgen+Vt
You mean, what percentage of users will pay for using a website advertised as "The Free Encyclopedia", written by unpaid volunteers?

Just saying. If the WMF were working flat out on serving the volunteer community it would be a different matter. But it's taken on a life of its own, with Wikipedia as its cash cow.

>>_glsb+iw
"...to stay online" is relevant in that clause.

>>sokolo+wr1
Which is still true.

>>akolbe+mP
No, I'm asking how many people will donate, if everybody thinks that it's not urgent and somebody else will?