[jmye]

Do you think they should have to embrace austerity because they’ve asked for donations? Or do you think they can use donations in lieu of advertising dollars and otherwise function like any other similar company? Do you think it’s possible they were invited by google.org or received donations for the off-site itself?

I guess I’m not sure why this is remotely worth commenting on, but it seems to have struck a nerve. It’s like being upset that NPR takes donations but then gives its staff 15 minutes off to watch a tiny desk concert sometimes.

[Levitz]

>Do you think they should have to embrace austerity because they’ve asked for donations?

"Not embracing austerity" is one thing, "asking for donations" is another thing, "what Wikimedia currently does" is something completely different from these two things.

When you get a banner featuring Jimmy Wales with the words "Please read: A personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales" and then something like this:

>To all our readers in the UK,

>Please don’t scroll past this. This Friday, for the 1st time recently, we interrupt your reading to humbly ask you to support Wikipedia’s independence. Only 2% of our readers give. Many think they’ll give later, but then forget. If you donate just £2, or whatever you can this Friday, Wikipedia could keep thriving for years.

The impression is that Wikipedia (NOT Wikimedia) is in need of money to keep operating, which is simply not true.

Wikipedia has got more than enough money to keep operating, if Wikipedia, ever in our lifetimes, goes under, it won't be because they weren't given enough money but because they mishandled it.

It's like having a beggar come to you saying that he needs to eat, then seeing him 20 minutes later driving a porsche. I consider this to be abhorrent behavior. I donated once and will NEVER. EVER do it again and I advise nobody does it. If you want to do a good deed donate to the Internet Archive.

[moritzwarhier]

> if Wikipedia, ever in our lifetimes, goes under, it won't be because they weren't given enough money

I agree, I think it will be because they'll accept more money from commercial actors on the terms of whoever these actors are – Google currently does not seem to force any conditions on WP, as far as I can tell.

> If you want to do a good deed donate to the Internet Archive.

I agree with this as well but I consider both Wikimedia and the Internet Archive as extremely important.

Charitable causes always are at risk of "wasting" money. But the reason for that is that in a purely capitalistic sense the cause itself is not profitable.

[starkparker]

The Rockefeller Foundation donated $1 million to Abstract Wikipedia toward the development of Wikifunctions a couple weeks ago: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/07/12/abstract-wikipedia-gai...

Wikifunctions also got nine Google employees from a Google.org Fellowship in April 2022: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/04/14/google-org-fellowship-...

The people whose business models benefit from this project's success will ensure it's staffed and funded. Your donations are emphatically not needed, nor will declining to donate do anything to slow it down.

[moritzwarhier]

Thanks, I haven't been donating to WP but did not know all of that either (apart from the Google employees who are mentioned and linked already in the conversations referenced in this thread).

1 million doesn't even seem that much, but still, yes, nobody knows what donations actually mean behind the scenes (who believes in philantropy anyway?)

I mean, it's clear how much Google and others profit from WP and especially Wikidata already.

But does this mean they control the platform?

[panarky]

Because nobody who survives on donations or taxes should have the luxury of consuming more than 800 calories per day.