zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. cxr+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-10-12 12:13:05
> I donate to Wikipedia.

Have you? Wikipedia doesn't accept money. Wikimedia does, though.

> I do not feel outraged that they use whatever persuasive tactics that they use - this is necessary in the modern world.

Necessary how? For what?

I donate to Wikipedia—as a Wikipedian. I've contributed a bunch of time editing content and doing lots of gnomish things to create value so that Wikipedia is a "great service". Millions of others have, too. But neither I nor any of the other people have anything to do with your donations.

Don't misunderstand: this is not a call-to-action for revenue sharing in the vein of the articles constantly appearing about the sustainability of FOSS; I'm not saying "give us a cut". What I am saying is that the Wikimedia fundraising tactics are thoroughly unnecessary to the actual production costs of Wikipedia that Wikimedia is responsible for.

Am I outraged? No. Do I recognize what WMF is doing as borderline slimy? Yes.

f8376c7f9d4e7f2c03d4dc6e7ced48bdc5f9b4019d94e7dc77c048226dbce9aa

replies(1): >>shephe+gs1
2. shephe+gs1[view] [source] 2022-10-12 18:55:15
>>cxr+(OP)
> I donate to Wikipedia

Have you? Wikipedia doesn't accept money. Wikimedia does, though.

replies(1): >>cxr+Py1
◧◩
3. cxr+Py1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-12 19:25:45
>>shephe+gs1
Yeah, I have.

Your (bad) attempt to be clever notwithstanding, my comment makes it clear that I'm not referring to donating money. That's not true of the person I responded to. Try again.

replies(1): >>shephe+e63
◧◩◪
4. shephe+e63[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-13 05:51:37
>>cxr+Py1
Ah, you're right. I thought it was ironic that you made the same mistake the previous comment did, but that isn't the case. It wasn't clear to me the first time I read your comment.
[go to top]