[NoZebra120vClip]

> I don't understand the comparisons to megacorps. It's not like anyone is donating to Apple or the NYT.

Consumers give them money anyway, it's known as "sales".

What happens is that when companies become large enough, it becomes prudent from a tax perpsective to "give back to the community" and practice philanthropy. Therefore, your iPhone dollars and your NYT subscriptions are going toward charitable causes. You may or may not be able to find out what they are. Many people have gone sleuthing for these links, and made much hay about them.

The other thing corporations do is support employees in various ways. For example, employees might be permitted a certain number of hours of community service for charitable volunteering. Or, employees' charitable donations may be matched by the employer, etc. These matches may be restricted to a shortlist of preferred charities. More hay can be made about all that.

Corporations are also, of course, one of the biggest and most powerful sectors of lobbyists in these United States. Corporations donate the most tax dollars to candidates and campaigns, and they actively send lobbyists to legislatures to ensure that their interests are met. Again, your iPhone dollars at work.

So while Wikipedia is free and open and requesting your donations, you're purchasing gobs of stuff every day from corporations, and that's why people these days often factor in the politics of said corporation in our decisions whether to buy or not buy, and where to buy.

[5555624]

>> I don't understand the comparisons to megacorps. It's not like anyone is donating to Apple or the NYT. > > Consumers give them money anyway, it's known as "sales".

Except for "sales," you know what you are getting in return. Someone buying an iPhone knows they are getting an iPhone and that's what they care about. Many people donating to Wikipedia think they are making a donation to keep Wikipedia running, not some other cause they may or may not care about.

Perhaps they should make two huge buttons for donations, labeled "Wikipedia" and "Wikimedia Foundation, and see what happens with donations.

[NoZebra120vClip]

When I give money to a charity, I don't expect anything in return, I'm entrusting that money to them for purposes that they see fit. I choose a charity based on its works and mission.

If people have chosen to donate to the WMF because they think all they do is run the English Wikipedia, and haven't done their due diligence, then that's not the WMF's fault. Sure, I suppose that a constant stream of hitpiece articles raises awareness, but they're so biased that it should only be the first step on a long process of due diligence.

Biased negative reporting on charities often proves useful to the people who wish to support such causes. So if you run an exposé on how evil empires carry water for X, Y, and Z, then be prepared to attract people who love X, Y, and Z, and enthusiastically begin to support that evil empire.

[superkuh]

Right. So if I run a charity for, say, helping low power FM community radio stations and I collect a bunch of money, and then give it to a political group advocating for legalization of cannabis, you'd think that was okay because you don't expect anything in return? It'd be your fault for not knowing I'd changed my charity's mission from the previously publicized LPFM community project to diversify out into legalization efforts. It'd be too bad that no one wrote an article updating you on the change in my hypothetical charity's "mission". And if they did do so, would you call it a hit piece?

[NoZebra120vClip]

Yes, that'd be ok. Yes, it'd be my fault.

"Hit piece" is a value judgement on the negative tone and bias of the article. Another possibility is a "puff piece" in High Times for example, extolling the virtues of the charity's newfound cause.

However, you've nearly constructed a strawman, because nobody would expect an LPFM charity to diversify into cannabis, yet nothing the WMF does is inconsistent with their mission from the start. They've simply expanded, globalized, and broadened in scope; that's the way I see it.