|
Top-level
 If it's not clear I think it's a good idea to donate to them if: 1. You use it. 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. 26 comments
@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.  @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.. 😬 @gimulnautti 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. 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.  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. 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. @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. @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.  @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. @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. @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.  @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. @futurebird @gleick I haven't brought this up before, so I think perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. The only non-profits that are durable and get things done have big endowments. It is the correct way to operate. @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. @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. 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.  @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. @futurebird @gleick I donate every year, and love that they remind me. Wikipedia rules. @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 |
Gregory's Server
@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.