• venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    I thought this was gonna be about Wikipedia finally shutting down because nobody donates

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      They are actually getting too many donations, many times more than they need to run wikipedia. There was and is a big conflict about the unsustainable growth of donations to the foundation and its questionable use of those funds.

      • Phoenix3875@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Wikimedia Foundation (the org behind the Wikipedia and similar projects) does get more donations than their operational cost, but that’s expected. The idea is that they’ll invest the extra fund[1] and some day the return alone will be able to sustain Wikipedia forever.

        Although, some have criticized that the actual situation is not clearly conveyed in their asking for donation message. It gives people an impression that Wikipedia is going under if you don’t donate.

        Others also criticized that the feature development is slow compared to the funding, or that not enough portion is allocated to the feature development. See how many years it takes to get dark mode! I don’t know how it’s decided or what’s their target, so I can’t really comment on this.

        They publish their annual financial auditions[2] and you can have a read if you’re interested. There are some interesting things. For example, in 2022-2023, processing donations actually costs twice as much as internet hosting, which one would expect to be the major expense.


        1. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy:Wikimedia_Foundation_Investment_Policy ↩︎

        2. https://wikimediafoundation.org/annualreports/2022-2023-annual-report/#toc-by-the-numbers ↩︎

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Similar to Mozilla (but not from donations but instead of its millions paid to it by Google)

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        they’re a non profit, so their either banking money in a proverbial “war chest” or they’re just nabbing donations to be used in the future, for large expansions or what not.

        It’s an interesting problem to have, being a non profit entity.

      • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

        Remember, if you donate to the WMF, they will use that money to enforce “WMF global bans” against users trying to make useful contributions but who once looked at the wrong people funny.

        • tabular@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          Who’s trying to making useful contributions but got banned, and what were they banned for?

          • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            3 months ago

            One of the earliest global bans was against user “russavia” - research him and you’ll know what I’m talking about. After that I stopped following Wikimedia internals because it was 100% clear that they were now just completely arbitrarily banning people.

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              27
              ·
              3 months ago

              Banned user Russavia edited two of the oligarch articles. He was a very active administrator on Wikimedia Commons, who specialized in promoting the Russian aviation industry, and in disrupting the English-language Wikipedia.

              After finally being banned on the English Wikipedia, he created dozens of sockpuppets. Russavia, by almost all accounts, is not a citizen or resident of Russia, but his edits raise some concern and show some patterns.

              In 2010, he boasted, on his userpage at Commons, that he had obtained permission from the official Kremlin.ru site for all photos there to be uploaded to Commons under Creative Commons licenses. He also made 148 edits at Russo-Georgian War, and 321 edits on the ridiculously detailed International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both of these articles were, at one time, strongly biased in favor of Russia.

              Idk, when you’re using Wikipedia as a tool to push Russian propaganda, it seems fair that you’d be banned. That’s not what Wikipedia is for. He’s free to start russopedia.ru or whatever if he wants to do that.

              • 0x0@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                the ridiculously detailed

                An encyclopedia calling an article ridiculously detailed is… interesting.

                • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Kinda burying the lede on that complaint…

                  and 321 edits on the ridiculously detailed International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both of these articles were, at one time, strongly biased in favor of Russia.

                  Wikipedia cares more about bias than* ridiculous details, especially when the ridiculous detail is there to put bias into the article

                • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  reads almost like it’s talking about the situation at hand having been extensively and thoroughly documented to the point of it being impossible to “be wrong” to me

                • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I think their point was that since he got Russian government permission to use Russian gov media, and he wrote a very detailed (although very biased in favour of Russia) article, then they think he is receiving assistance from the russian government to push Russian propaganda.

            • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 months ago

              You could have just said you’re upset that a Russian propagandist was banned. Would have been quicker and more honest lol.

            • weststadtgesicht@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Great. Making generalizing statements based on ONE case from over 10 years ago, which was - at best - debatable (see other response).

              • JackbyDev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                To be fair, they were asked for an example and they gave one. I’m not saying I agree with them but this feels unfair to say.