it’s the first article that popped up with reliable numbers, but there are plenty of articles criticizing the amassed wealth of wmf while they’re asking for money every year.
unsurprisingly, the WMF reports that WMF are spending their money responsibly and are barely managing to sustain themselves, while every journalist that looks into it confirms that WMF have plenty of money and have not needed to do these fundraising drives for years, and will not have to for decades.
$100 million is purely cash on hand, it doesn’t take into account any otger WMF assets.
it’s nice that you’re excited about Wikipedia, and it can be a useful resource, but these are not contentious facts.
Wikipedia has plenty of money, they spend it irresponsibly, and every year they are taking and millions of dollars that they add to that stack.
important to note, Wikipedias value to the end users is contributed two and maintained by unpaid volunteers.
first article that popped up with reliable numbera
Except…the numbers weren’t reliable. Where did they get $400 million in cash from? That’s just not a thing.
$100 million is purely cash on hand, it doesn’t take into account any otger WMF assets.
It’s $80 million cash, $274M counting all assets, like it says in the audit and my comment.
unsurprisingly, the WMF reports that WMF are spending their money responsibly and are barely managing to sustain themselves
Are you saying that their financial audit is fraudulent? “Wikipedia is committing tax fraud” is a pretty hot take, not gonna lie.
Their financial report also doesn’t claim they’re barely scraping by, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that.
Wikipedia has plenty of money, they spend it irresponsibly
That’s a different argument which you seemingly haven’t actually argued. “They make enough money, here’s some incorrect financial claims to justify it” is very different from “I don’t think they spend money wisely, and need to change what they spend on”.
it’s nice that you’re excited about Wikipedia, and it can be a useful resource, but these are not contentious facts.
I never actually made a statement for or against donation, I only pointed out that your information was incorrect. “$400 million cash” is a very different situation than “$80 million cash”.
I’m gonna disagree very strongly that these are “not contentious facts”, because they’re not correct in the slightest. Being off by $320 million dollars strongly undercuts the credibility of an argument.
Honestly, I’m confused about why you seem so angry at Wikipedia.
That article is at least accurate in how it describes their financial situation. It’s also kind of amusing that the author concludes that donation is reasonable:
So, bottom line: Should someone with financial means donate when they see Wikipedia’s banner ads running in December? It depends. In my view, people who volunteer a lot of time improving Wikipedia’s content have already made their “gift” and should feel no obligation. For everyone else, the calculus is personal. One volunteer suggested donating to smaller but allied organizations like OpenStreetMap, which provides map data that is used for Wikipedia pages. Other contributors said that even if Wikipedia is only indirectly supported by the WMF, the WMF is still the best-positioned organization to advance free knowledge overall by virtue of its scale and connections.
Clearly, Wikipedians are right to engage in vigorous discussion about how donations are solicited from visitors and to oversee how those funds are actually spent. For me, there’s also the small matter of the external environment. In recent years, Wikipedia has been attacked by authoritarian regimes and powerful billionaires—people who do not necessarily benefit from the free flow of neutral information. If $3 helps hold them off, then that’s coffee money well spent.
they should ask a question if they want a specific answer.
you’ll notice that they complained about not receiving an answer despite 1. they didn’t ask any questions for the first dozen comments or so until I repeatedly taught them how questions work and 2. I responded to the relevant parts of every one of their comments that I hadn’t answered fully before.
their comments do not entitle them to a response, especially if, as in this case repeatedly, their response is flawed, irrelevant or has already been answered.
I correct them, they say " fine. you’re correct but I don’t like it."
I don’t care if they like the truth of the matter or not., and it doesn’t matter If they like being corrected or not, so I’m not going to address that.
If you scroll up, you’ll see that every part of every one of their comments stems from a single rounding error from one number among dozens from two otherwise solid articles for no other purpose than for the commenter to get a foot in the door of denying the actual crux of the argument, which is that Wikipedia does not need your money and them pretending they do to stay in business is manipulative and flat-out false.
that is a straight up fact, and after accepting that in I believe their second comment, they’re trying to deny that they were wrong by pointing out a tangential rounding error.
they’re looking for a gotcha through an insignificant detail.
I think they forgot what they were talking about in the first place to be honest, or that they already conceded the point of the main argument and can only remember their overwhelming personal commitment to that rounding error(or typo? who knows?)
I’m honestly curious what point you think I’m responding to that you didn’t make.
You did actually use grossly inaccurate financial data when the tax documents were publicly available.
From your source: "After a decade of professional fund-raising, it has now amassed $400 million of cash as of March”.
From you: “they have at least 400 million in reserves now”.
Their financial audit, that I linked to, shows that they have nowhere near that much cash. They don’t even have that much total assets if you count their endowment, real estate, and computer hardware.
The entire reason for my comment was that I read that number, thought “wow, that number seems preposterous”, and looked up their financial report which shows that indeed, it’s a totally bogus number detached from reality.
You seem deeply upset that someone might not just accept your opinion at face value, and it seems to be making you respond like an asshole instead of “not responding because you don’t care”, or actually giving some sort of response.
“a two year old opinion piece on it,”
it’s the first article that popped up with reliable numbers, but there are plenty of articles criticizing the amassed wealth of wmf while they’re asking for money every year.
unsurprisingly, the WMF reports that WMF are spending their money responsibly and are barely managing to sustain themselves, while every journalist that looks into it confirms that WMF have plenty of money and have not needed to do these fundraising drives for years, and will not have to for decades.
$100 million is purely cash on hand, it doesn’t take into account any otger WMF assets.
it’s nice that you’re excited about Wikipedia, and it can be a useful resource, but these are not contentious facts.
Wikipedia has plenty of money, they spend it irresponsibly, and every year they are taking and millions of dollars that they add to that stack.
important to note, Wikipedias value to the end users is contributed two and maintained by unpaid volunteers.
here’s another good article;
https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/wikipedia-wikimedia-foundation-donate.html
I made sure it was also 2 years old because I think it’s funny your ageist about facts.
I’ll talk to you in 50 years and we can settle this.
Except…the numbers weren’t reliable. Where did they get $400 million in cash from? That’s just not a thing.
It’s $80 million cash, $274M counting all assets, like it says in the audit and my comment.
Are you saying that their financial audit is fraudulent? “Wikipedia is committing tax fraud” is a pretty hot take, not gonna lie.
Their financial report also doesn’t claim they’re barely scraping by, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that.
That’s a different argument which you seemingly haven’t actually argued. “They make enough money, here’s some incorrect financial claims to justify it” is very different from “I don’t think they spend money wisely, and need to change what they spend on”.
I never actually made a statement for or against donation, I only pointed out that your information was incorrect. “$400 million cash” is a very different situation than “$80 million cash”.
I’m gonna disagree very strongly that these are “not contentious facts”, because they’re not correct in the slightest. Being off by $320 million dollars strongly undercuts the credibility of an argument.
Honestly, I’m confused about why you seem so angry at Wikipedia.
Yes, I am ageist about facts. What a weird thing to take issue with. The financial state of an organization two years ago doesn’t have as much bearing on if they should get donations as the current financial statement does.
Does this financial statement from 2006 feel just as relevant and make you want to donate to them?
That article is at least accurate in how it describes their financial situation. It’s also kind of amusing that the author concludes that donation is reasonable:
Wow, you really like make believe huh?
pretending I said things I didn’t and then arguing against them isn’t the gotcha you apparently think it is, Don Quixote.
but if it makes you feel better, float your own boat.
Maybe respond with points instead of general vague insults?
They quoted you and responded to multiple points. You’ve just hand waved and thrown out random insults.
they should ask a question if they want a specific answer.
you’ll notice that they complained about not receiving an answer despite 1. they didn’t ask any questions for the first dozen comments or so until I repeatedly taught them how questions work and 2. I responded to the relevant parts of every one of their comments that I hadn’t answered fully before.
their comments do not entitle them to a response, especially if, as in this case repeatedly, their response is flawed, irrelevant or has already been answered.
I correct them, they say " fine. you’re correct but I don’t like it."
I don’t care if they like the truth of the matter or not., and it doesn’t matter If they like being corrected or not, so I’m not going to address that.
If you scroll up, you’ll see that every part of every one of their comments stems from a single rounding error from one number among dozens from two otherwise solid articles for no other purpose than for the commenter to get a foot in the door of denying the actual crux of the argument, which is that Wikipedia does not need your money and them pretending they do to stay in business is manipulative and flat-out false.
that is a straight up fact, and after accepting that in I believe their second comment, they’re trying to deny that they were wrong by pointing out a tangential rounding error.
they’re looking for a gotcha through an insignificant detail.
I think they forgot what they were talking about in the first place to be honest, or that they already conceded the point of the main argument and can only remember their overwhelming personal commitment to that rounding error(or typo? who knows?)
but that’s okay.
it’s funny.
You seem so defensive, fuck
weird non-sequitur.
how?
What are you even talking about?
“Why” was a typo, fixed it.
Don Quixote is a famous literary figure who creates monsters out of his own failing perception and then attacks them.
he’s an analogy of you fabricating points I haven’t made so you have something to struggle against.
Har har har.
I’m honestly curious what point you think I’m responding to that you didn’t make.
You did actually use grossly inaccurate financial data when the tax documents were publicly available.
“I’m honestly curious what point you think I’m responding to…”
are you? you don’t sound very curious. you haven’t asked a single question.
“You did actually use grossly inaccurate financial data”
your make-believe is showing.
From your source: "After a decade of professional fund-raising, it has now amassed $400 million of cash as of March”.
From you: “they have at least 400 million in reserves now”.
Their financial audit, that I linked to, shows that they have nowhere near that much cash. They don’t even have that much total assets if you count their endowment, real estate, and computer hardware.
The entire reason for my comment was that I read that number, thought “wow, that number seems preposterous”, and looked up their financial report which shows that indeed, it’s a totally bogus number detached from reality.
You seem deeply upset that someone might not just accept your opinion at face value, and it seems to be making you respond like an asshole instead of “not responding because you don’t care”, or actually giving some sort of response.
“You seem deeply upset”
nope I forget you’re here until you comment again and I have to correct you all over again.
correcting people is fun for me, so this isn’t particularly upsetting.
“your opinion”
not my opinion, dozens of accurate numbers from two articles, one of those many numbers in one of those articles you have picked out to focus on.
One of the articles overestimated a budget by 100 million, four instead of three, that’s not going to bother me too much.
you seem deeply upset by one source’s overestimate.
“that number seems preposterous…a totally bogus number detached from reality…”
yeah who the heck could write four instead of three?
how could anyone make that mistake? they must be nuts!
adding one number in hundreds of millions of dollars of asset valuation?
how could that even happen?
guess we’ll never know…
“giving some sort of response…”
you keep whining about receiving a response (desperate), but you still haven’t asked a question.
do you know how responses work? (that was a question. see the curly thing at the end? there’s another!)
go ahead, check your comment. not a single question, you’re just rehashing you’re earlier mistakes I have to correct all over again.
which is fun.
I’m down.
deleted by creator