Wikipedia Funding Criticism
The cluster revolves around debates criticizing Wikipedia's donation campaigns, arguing that the Wikimedia Foundation has ample reserves, misleadingly portrays financial needs, and spends on non-core projects rather than site maintenance.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Why don't you just donate to to something else then? Wikipedia obviously has more than enough money to keep the website running.
Recommending to donate is rather misleading.Most of the work on Wikipedia is done by unpaid editors.On the other hand, Wikimedia Foundation (the one that collects donations and manages the project) is accumulating donations and increasing spendings at ever-increasing rates, way above its maintenance and development needs. Just google a bit. Something like this: <a href="https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9qqds7Z3Ykd9Kdeay/should-you-donate-to-the-wikimedia-f
Recent and related:Wikipedia is not short on cash - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33174533 - Oct 2022 (482 comments)The Wikimedia Foundation spends Wikipedia donations on political activism - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33170710 - Oct 2022 (43 comments)<
It’s less that Wikipedia is overfunded, but rather they’re spending quite a bit on non Wikipedia projects. If you believe in their wider mission then donate, but giving them more money isn’t going to support the website if they aren’t going to use your donations for that end.
you mean making huge profits from donations?https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12...
Actually wikipedia has too much money. If anything we should stop giving it money for some time.
If it stops Wikipedia asking for donations I’m all in
Doesn't Wikipedia run on donations? Or are you saying you think that works for the majority of sites?
Wikipedia still needs money to keep the lights on.
Even Wikipedia begs for more money they don't really need.