Well it's all in the black and white in the accounts which go back 17 years, based on what I can see they have a run rate of about 2 years. Tides is a charity that manages endowments for other charities, which is not unusual as endowments give a reliable source of funding. I've always understood that wikipedia content was created and edited by volunteers, and I don't think this blog says anything different - it is just highlighting that wikipedia remains a human created source for free information, which is funded by donations.
On that last paragraph, when asked "do donations to wikipedia go to the writers of wikipedia?" ChatGPT answered: "No, donations to Wikipedia go to the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that operates Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for maintaining and improving Wikipedia, but the writers of Wikipedia are volunteers who do not receive any financial compensation for their work. The foundation uses the donations it receives to support the infrastructure and operations of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects."
Which is mainly correct: Wikipedia donations go to an iffy SF-based charity that doesn't pay Wikipedia writers or editors a cent of it, something their fundraising ads have never made clear. The "mainly correct" part is most Wikimedia funds go to things that have little or nothing to do with Wikipedia, but Chat GPT is close enough and closer than most people get.
Maybe sometimes removing human bias - the notion we want donations to fund Wikipedia, not an questionable charity that siphons the money -- isn't such a bad thing after all.
Wikipedia Foundation it's not an 'iffy SF-based charity'. It's a non profit that hosts Wikipedia, and supports free knowledge projects and advocacy as part of its mission to collect education information and make it freely available. It's transparent about it's activities and financials, regulated as a charity and publishes annual reports. The requests for donations that I see reference Wikimedia Foundation. https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-2021-annual-report/financials/#section-1
Iffy was being polite - fraudulent is more accurate. Transparent, huh? Where did the funds in prior years sent to Tides go to? Ads imply they’re running low on funds which is an outright fabrication: they have enough to pay for Wikipedia for a century in reserves and their “endowment” slush fund if they only funded Wikipedia. There are plenty of examples of misleading ads and you’ll find many people — including this blog post — which believe, wrongly, their donations fund the content which is entirely false.
The Hobbes/Locke example is amazing - erudite, plausible, well written - and complete crap. As in Towering Inferno “it’s out of control and headed our way”
Well it's all in the black and white in the accounts which go back 17 years, based on what I can see they have a run rate of about 2 years. Tides is a charity that manages endowments for other charities, which is not unusual as endowments give a reliable source of funding. I've always understood that wikipedia content was created and edited by volunteers, and I don't think this blog says anything different - it is just highlighting that wikipedia remains a human created source for free information, which is funded by donations.
On that last paragraph, when asked "do donations to wikipedia go to the writers of wikipedia?" ChatGPT answered: "No, donations to Wikipedia go to the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that operates Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for maintaining and improving Wikipedia, but the writers of Wikipedia are volunteers who do not receive any financial compensation for their work. The foundation uses the donations it receives to support the infrastructure and operations of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects."
Which is mainly correct: Wikipedia donations go to an iffy SF-based charity that doesn't pay Wikipedia writers or editors a cent of it, something their fundraising ads have never made clear. The "mainly correct" part is most Wikimedia funds go to things that have little or nothing to do with Wikipedia, but Chat GPT is close enough and closer than most people get.
Maybe sometimes removing human bias - the notion we want donations to fund Wikipedia, not an questionable charity that siphons the money -- isn't such a bad thing after all.
Wikipedia Foundation it's not an 'iffy SF-based charity'. It's a non profit that hosts Wikipedia, and supports free knowledge projects and advocacy as part of its mission to collect education information and make it freely available. It's transparent about it's activities and financials, regulated as a charity and publishes annual reports. The requests for donations that I see reference Wikimedia Foundation. https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-2021-annual-report/financials/#section-1
Iffy was being polite - fraudulent is more accurate. Transparent, huh? Where did the funds in prior years sent to Tides go to? Ads imply they’re running low on funds which is an outright fabrication: they have enough to pay for Wikipedia for a century in reserves and their “endowment” slush fund if they only funded Wikipedia. There are plenty of examples of misleading ads and you’ll find many people — including this blog post — which believe, wrongly, their donations fund the content which is entirely false.
The Hobbes/Locke example is amazing - erudite, plausible, well written - and complete crap. As in Towering Inferno “it’s out of control and headed our way”