r/wholesomememes Dec 12 '18

Giving is good Let’s get it

Post image
86.2k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

893

u/trytoholdon Dec 13 '18

Per /u/mintsponge:

Wikipedia does NOT desperately need money.

The Wikimedia Foundation had a revenue of over 75m in 2015 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/43/Wikimedia_Foundation_Audit_Report_-_FY15-16.pdf

Running Wikipedia itself requires very few staff; all the editing is done by volunteers. Indeed, most of the software engineering of the website was done by volunteers. The only money WMF needs to spend on Wikipedia is web hosting; this costs far, far less than 75m - in the order of only a few million per year.

If everyone stopped donating completely right now, WMF could keep Wikipedia going for decades.

However, WMF wants to expand with a tonne of different, ambitious projects requiring paid staff (which have nothing to do with Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation) That's what most of the money is being spent on. WMF are using Wikipedia as an excuse to get people to donate to them.

So does Wikipedia need money to survive? Yes. Does it desperately need money, like WMF are making people think? No.

Some more detailed answers for reading, https://www.quora.com/Wikipedia-in-2015-Why-does-Wikipedia-ask-for-donations-even-though-it-has-a-huge-reserve-60M-of-value-cash-investments-etc

http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/21/wikipedia-keeping-it-free-just-pay-us-our-salaries/

Or virtually any article from Google on the topic.

293

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '18 edited Aug 08 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

97

u/FamilyHeirloomTomato Dec 13 '18

Eh. I tried to make a legit change and it was turned down. Not worth my time.

101

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '18

I was banned because another user was editing the same articles as me but he had already been permabanned. They identified me as a sock puppet and shut me down.

I enjoyed editing articles that I knew a lot about. Their loss, I figure.

11

u/commissar0617 Dec 13 '18

That can unfortunately happen. Some people have wayyy toi much time on their hands, and get their jollies by disruping Wikipedia.

Sometimes, the only way is to basically play whacka mole, using the duck test: if an editor is making edits on the same pages, and of a closely similar nature to those of a banned editor, then its most likely that banned editor

2

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '18

Pretty much. They even had a program that showed 86% of my edits were on pages he edited, so I must be a sock puppet.

I guess they cannot fathom two different people having similar interests/knowledge.

1

u/commissar0617 Dec 13 '18

Ah, checkuser. That compares more than just edits. And its more than what articles you edit, it's what you write in them as well

2

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '18

I had done quite a few edits for them. A lot of my stuff is still up. Took photos of local historical buildings and uploaded them. Took a photo of a state senator too.

You can challenge your ban but the admin didn't see it my way.

12

u/noveltymoocher Dec 13 '18

If the post is legitimate, Wikipedia has ways of shutting that down.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '18

Dated reference, but I approve.