Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
James's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
myrmepropagandist

@gleick

I didn't donate to The Wikipedia for years. Because I wrote so many articles for them and thought that was an unpleasant experience* in some ways and more than enough free labor for me.

But last year I relented and started a donation and this makes me think it was a good idea after all.

It's decent enough and THAT is becoming rare online.

24 December at 23:59 | Wall-to-wall | Open on sauropods.win
33 comments
myrmepropagandist

@gleick

Oh how nice it would be were they "woke" at all.

They're just not... deeply broken.

25 December at 0:01 | Open on sauropods.win
Supergrobi

@futurebird @gleick but still the best yet that hopefully all LLMs are breastfed with

25 December at 0:02 | Open on mastodon.berlin
Tim Richards

@futurebird @gleick I've been donating about twice a year - I get a lot of use from it, more so now every other source has been enshittified.

25 December at 0:21 | Open on aus.social
Jay Stephens

@timrichards @futurebird @gleick same - my usage plateaued for a while, then climbed steeply starting about 36 months ago as Google quickly became useless.

25 December at 5:34 | Open on mastodon.social
myrmepropagandist

@gleick

If it's not clear I think it's a good idea to donate to them if:

1. You use it.
2. You can.
3. You care at all if they continue to exist.

Now's a nice moment to start. It will bolster confidence in the face of these public attacks. You can always check in later when the winds shift and stop the donations later.

25 December at 0:53 | Open on sauropods.win
cobalt

@futurebird @gleick I started donating 2-3 years ago. Small amounts “one time”. I figured I likely use it an average of 3/4 times a day! It’s indispensable in some interest areas. Geology and rocks/minerals.

25 December at 0:58 | Open on awscommunity.social
Peter Brown

@cobalt @futurebird @gleick every now and again they send out a reminder that prompts me into a contribution. I have no objections to contributing; I think it’s an excellent organisation and I hope to god Musk keeps his hands off it.

25 December at 14:36 | Open on mastodon.scot
Toni Aittoniemi

@futurebird @gleick I really wish I could!

Due to legislative issues in my country, it is not possible for Wikimedia Foundation to collect donations from here.

And we have a right-wing goverment with some Maga-symphatizers in power right now, too.. 😬

#suomi #rahankeräyslaki #wikipedia #lahjoitukset

25 December at 0:58 | Open on mastodon.green
Martin Rust

@gimulnautti
Your toot sounds like donations to Wikimedia are illegal in Finland. But that's not the case, is it? What I could find out is this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Co
Is that what you're talking about?
@futurebird @gleick

25 December at 8:28 | Open on infosec.exchange
Jonathan Kamens

@futurebird @gleick Please note that as of six months ago the Wikimedia Foundation had over $270 million in net assets.
There's also an endowment worth over $140 million.
Also, according to the most recent IRS Form 990, the CEO makes over $500k per year.
Arguably they don't need your support, and there are other worthy charities that very much do.
Ref:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia
wikimediaendowment.org/wp-cont

@futurebird @gleick Please note that as of six months ago the Wikimedia Foundation had over $270 million in net assets.
There's also an endowment worth over $140 million.
Also, according to the most recent IRS Form 990, the CEO makes over $500k per year.
Arguably they don't need your support, and there are other worthy charities that very much do.
Ref:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia

25 December at 1:13 | Open on federate.social
myrmepropagandist

@jik @gleick

That's good. If they can get a boost in donations they could pad that a little more. It's nice that their finances are transparent, isn't it?

That's a decent endowment but not as much as it seems for one of the most popular websites on the internet in the whole world.

You've brought this up before, but I do not agree that we don't need to worry about the first and most common source that people use globally.

I don't think we should be that naive.

25 December at 1:27 | Open on sauropods.win
myrmepropagandist

@jik @gleick

500K is a fat paycheck, but it is not obscene. Maybe we can complain at them and get it down to 250k but any less than that wouldn't be reasonable.

I'm not exactly an uncritical fan of The Wikipedia at all.

But come on.

25 December at 1:30 | Open on sauropods.win
Michael T. Bacon, Ph.D.

@futurebird @jik @gleick

Right, people get salty about six figure salaries and the obscene reality is that that’s logarithmically closer to the poverty line than the income of most Fortune 500 CEOs.

25 December at 1:36 | Open on social.coop
myrmepropagandist

@MichaelTBacon @jik @gleick

I'm all for finding someone to do the job for maybe a third less. That's part of the oversight they live with and that's good.

Too many things have no such oversight.

Think of a 22 million dollar salary, and that dwarfed by stock options and who knows what else self dealing.

25 December at 1:40 | Open on sauropods.win
Jonathan Kamens

@MichaelTBacon @futurebird @gleick I personally don't think it's particularly useful to compare anyone's salaries to those of Fortune 500 CEOs, logarithmically or otherwise. I find it more instructive to compare them to the rest of the country, the people who aren't blessed with Fortune 500 CEO incomes.
A $500k salary puts someone in the 98th percentile, i.e., they're making more money than 98% of the population. They're not quite in "the 1%," but they're closer than 98% of Americans.

25 December at 1:42 | Open on federate.social
JackieM

@jik @MichaelTBacon @futurebird @gleick

But the CEO of Wikipedia is a CEO of one of the most important websites that exists. So a salary comparison here makes total sense. Honestly $500k seems pretty modest for such an important job.

I honestly think Wikipedia is one of man’s greatest achievements. And I think it’s really so important that it be able to protect itself and its integrity in the near future. Definitely think donations to Wikipedia are well worth it.

25 December at 2:31 | Open on fosstodon.org
Sashin

@Jackiemauro @jik @MichaelTBacon @futurebird @gleick I wonder if they would be happy to do that work for significantly less because of how significant Wikipedia is.

That's an incredible amount of money for one person and it makes me feel a little worse about donating to them.

25 December at 5:14 | Open on veganism.social
JackieM

@sashin @jik @MichaelTBacon @futurebird @gleick

I mean, it is a ton of money but also, do I feel like a talented CEO of Wikipedia contributes 500k worth of value? Probably, yes. Again I’m a huge fan of Wikipedia so I’m biased.

25 December at 5:29 | Open on fosstodon.org
JM MD PhD

@futurebird @jik @gleick not at all obscene for the work in keeping such an important resource available and providing a buffer against corruption and monetization.

25 December at 2:48 | Open on mas.to
Simon Brooke

@futurebird @jik @gleick $500k is seriously obscene -- it's 33 times my income -- but it may be what you need to pay to get someone competent to manage a large and complex IT operation these days.

25 December at 9:53 | Open on mastodon.scot
Jonathan Kamens

@futurebird @gleick I haven't brought this up before, so I think perhaps you're confusing me with someone else.
They've got ~1.5 years worth of operating expenses in the bank. If their finances get worse we'll have plenty of time to donate then. Whereas trans and abortion rescue organizations e.g. are desperate for cash _now_.
The pleas for donations that display constantly on the site, which don't mention their huge cash reserves, don't seem particularly transparent to me.

25 December at 1:35 | Open on federate.social
myrmepropagandist

@jik @gleick

The only non-profits that are durable and get things done have big endowments. It is the correct way to operate.

25 December at 1:38 | Open on sauropods.win
Jonathan Kamens

@futurebird @gleick 🤷 if you are aware of how much money Wikipedia has in the bank and you want to donate to help them grow their endowment, sure.
I brought it up because I think people deserve the transparency you mentioned, and (as I said) I don't think Wikipedia is proactively transparent about this.
Personally, my charity dollars will go to orgs that are much more desperate and whose work more directly impact people's literal survival under a fascist regime.

25 December at 1:50 | Open on federate.social
Dan Shick

@jik @futurebird @gleick all too frequently people who point out the WMF's state of funding fail to include this link: wikimediafoundation.org/suppor

what they have in the bank goes to fund projects and chapters when fundraising comes up short. (they also catch flak for what they spend on fundraising.)

as for ED salary: the WMF is not a charity, it's a nonprofit. for better or worse, what it takes to retain an executive with actual skills is regulated by the market.

@jik @futurebird @gleick all too frequently people who point out the WMF's state of funding fail to include this link: wikimediafoundation.org/suppor

what they have in the bank goes to fund projects and chapters when fundraising comes up short. (they also catch flak for what they spend on fundraising.)

25 December at 10:09 | Open on xoxo.zone
Adam van Sertima

@futurebird @gleick @datn @jik You could add(the current desperation of other charities needs considering, too) 1 or 2 years of operating funds isn’t so much if you have the government of a $20 T/yr nation actively trying to subvert or destroy it.
If Musk gets to remove its charitable status, those funds effectively evaporate.
And yes, it absolutely needs more Women, BIPOC, and Trans people for editing and admin. Guys like me need to support that.

25 December at 15:49 | Open on mastodon.world
Jeff Mitchell

@futurebird @jik @gleick

A couple things occur when I read this article.

1. If Musk is telling his supporters not to donate, regardless if it has an impact on donations, it means that it is a target. Dude is now the king of disinformation attacking anything trying to maintain reality. Definitely requires support.

2. People in these articles talk as if "woke" is a bad thing, an insult. It isn't to me. Diversity and inclusion being used as negatives. I refuse to allow up to be down.

25 December at 2:46 | Open on mastodon.coffee
Stu

@futurebird @jik @gleick you know, if Musk is potentially going after them, a couple of hundred million feels like it could melt away fairly quickly in a big lawsuit. It's a lot of money, but it's not "one of the most visited websites in the world" lot of money, especially when you look at the others.

I think I'll start donating again.

25 December at 2:10 | Open on hachyderm.io
DerangedCrone

@futurebird @gleick I donate every year, and love that they remind me. Wikipedia rules.

25 December at 1:23 | Open on mstdn.social
LucyG

@futurebird i would add that -- while i can't tell people what they *feel*, so i won't say everyone *cares* -- it does *matter* to everyone, whether they know or not, that wikipedia's ideal of a free and well-known encyclopedia continues to exist

25 December at 3:30 | Open on jorts.horse
eh

@futurebird @Jackiemauro Thanks for the reminder. I set up a monthly donation now. ☺️

25 December at 9:22 | Open on functional.cafe
Jay Stephens

@futurebird @gleick
Yeah I think It's super important to hold things like Wikipedia, the Fediverse, Signal, Firefox etc. to very low standards.
Obviously that doesn't mean "don't criticise", or "don't try to improve".
But at the end of the day we need to support anything that offers even a partial alternative to the dismal, billionaire-run main square of the web, no matter how imperfect.

25 December at 5:31 | Open on mastodon.social
Go Up