I have donated in the past, but then there were wild accusations, people saying it’s not needed, it’s to fund other things, and so on and so forth.
Yesterday I got the popup begging for a couple of euros, so what’s the status? Should I donate or is it a waste of time and money?
Cheers
Edit: Thanks for all the insightful posts! I’m jobless at the moment so just ten bucks this time:
Remember that there is a lot of anti-Wikipedia propaganda going around these days. Most “outrage” against Wikipedia is created and pushed artificially.
It’s just that one dude here
Ia it the.dude that’s downvoting everything here?
In the current day and age of misinformation I think donating is more important than ever. It doesn’t need to be much.
Wikipedia is being actively attacked by fascists who dont want it to exist or be well maintained. More important than ever. Criticism can be safely ignored.
Reddit users and now lemmy users seem to have a riotous distaste for non-profits generally.
Wikipedia is one of the last, good parts of the internet, and it’s under increasing threat.
If Elon doesn’t like it then you know Wikipedia is good.
I’ve increased the amount I donate since the campaign to discredit them has been in effect.
Maybe they aren’t perfect, but I don’t like the idea of a world without such a wonderful resource being freely available to everyone no matter their background or financial status.
I used it a lot as a student but couldn’t afford to donate then. I don’t use it directly a lot these days, but I’m sure indirectly it contributes to articles I read, & I can afford to donate now, so I try to pay it back & some.
Information is power, & those in/with power seem to currently be trying their best to bring everyone else down. Any small thing I can do to help prevent that is a win in my book.
deleted by creator
Wikipedia, being a free source of information, is an incredibly important resource and a net good for humanity. But since Wikipedia is free for all they rely on donations to keep the lights on.
There are groups who would prefer it if that free access to information did not exist, or could be more easily be controlled and/or manipulated. It is in their interest to convince people not to donate to Wikipedia
I’m convinced that this “don’t donate to Wikipedia” messaging that has cropped up in recent years is a psyop, set up by these groups with the goal to starve Wikipedia of income.
Don’t fall for it. Support one of the last truly good places on the internet.
I never donated. Until the fascists told me not to donate. Now I donate regularly.
DONATE!
Wikipedia made a conscious choice to remain free, ad free and neutral.
They get my money! Even if they don’t need it.
I simultaneously believe that Wikipedia is valuable and that it’s not clear that WMF needed $185 million dollars.
As far as I can tell the situation has not significantly changed since “the last time(s)” this was discussed. Wikipedia remains a valuable resource, and WMF continues to aggressively increase both spending and fundraising revenue. Whether you think that means you should donate or not is probably the same answer as it was several years ago for most individuals based on personal preferences.
edit: typo
I think the answer has changed a bit since they got a much better CEO who’s doing a lot more communication and engagement with the community, which dictates what Wikipedia looks like
Before posting I read the recent annual reports which she advertises having a hand in as part a push for greater transparency, but was still left very unsatisfied personally (half the budget – over $90 mil – just hand-waved away as “infrastructure” spending? Really?). So despite being an improvement, I didn’t feel that the CEO change has had much effect on the scales of “donate vs not”. Perhaps for others it might, but my comment still reflects my best judgement.
Also, make sure to get a copy from Kiwix:
Also donate to Kiwix
Ideally one pre-LLM. They have a snapshot from 2022.
I noticed an initial bump in LLM-generated text when ChatGPT first came out, but I think Wikipedia is starting to get a better handle on counteracting it. Better than a lot of other places on the internet, that’s for sure
This question got asked a couple years ago and I said what I found in their reported finances. Unless something changed over the last couple years, they likely still need the money.
Your analysis only addresses the income vs. expenditure being relatively balanced. It doesn’t address the criticisms OP was hearing about. The primary criticism is that the foundation only needs a fraction of their current expenditure if all they did was run Wikipedia.
Always fund Wikipedia if you have the ability to
It may not need a donation at any given time, but given how volatile things are in the USA right now, there’s every chance they might find themselves needing to suddenly spend a lot on lawyers
It’s arguably one of the most important resources we have as humanity. It’s imperative we protect it.
If the only non-profit you care about is the Wikimedia Foundation, then yeah donate.
But otherwise, go donate to other non-profits as Wikimedia is the least needy of the foundations (they are one of the most “well off” of the non-profits in the world afterallInternet Archive definitely needs money
I give through my employer which matches donations. You should look into whether that’s available since it’ll double the amount.
Decentralized truth is essential to human freedom. It’s not enough to just run wikipedia as a bare bones site, they need to be able to adapt to the times and maybe even fund new projects with the same goals. For people who actually care about the future, it’s hard to think of a better use of the money.
Do you use it?
Donate. I donate $5/mo. Gonna bump it up to $10/month soon.
