- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Tbf, if it is true, it is kinda ridiculous they spend 29℅ of their budget on DEI nonsense. They should use their donations for keeping up the infrastructure and maybe rewarding high-quality editors. Kinda tells me they are doing very well financially and I’m better off supporting other projects.
Musk can still go fuck himself.
This is why billionaires shouldn’t exist.
If only someone would make them not exist.
Elon’s a pretty public guy, right?
I’ll donate, once they start blocking corporate and government contributors.
FYI, Elon, you can’t sue for libel/slander if what people are saying is actually true.
You can. You can sue for any reason that you can dream up. True, a lot of those suits would get thrown out on a motion for summary judgement, but a libel suit would likely pass the test of a prima facie valid case, and the case would proceed. Now, if the facts don’t support it, then you’d lose, but if you have a lot more money than the defendant, you can use procedure to bury them financially.
It’s one of the major flaws in the U.S. legal system, and anti-SLAPP laws are far too weak, since they usually rely on the defendant to try to enforce them.
Look at what happened with ABC News, recently.
That’s why I like Australia’s system of having to pay the defendants fees if you lose.
You can if you change the definition of libel (or terrorism) to be ‘anything that negatively affects an ultra rich person’. Which is what is happening before our very eyes.
Donated as well. Fuck Musk.
Mmm,
Mmhmm
Oh
Musk’s actions and expressed views have made him a polarizing figure. He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including COVID-19 misinformation; affirming antisemitic and transphobic comments, and promoting conspiracy theories. His ownership of Twitter has been controversial because of the layoffs of a large number of employees, an increase in posts containing hate speech, misinformation and disinformation on the website, and changes to website features, including verification.
Ah, that’s probably why. People are allowed to expose him without being censored on wiki.
Donated $50. First time.
Thanks for donating! I give annually too. But we’re going to have to step up our contributions, both financially and in terms of information, if we want to keep Wikipedia a resource for free information and not free propaganda. Megacorps like EM’s and their lobbyists are always fucking up articles, trying to outpace the volunteers who vet the information.
Just look at the Consumer Brands Association or the National Restraint Association (the lobbying groups who are responsible for suppressing ultra-processed food regulation and fair wage legislation). Among their claims on the Wikipedia pages are that Michelle Obama “asked for their help” for her healthy eating campaign and that they exist to encourage responsible food selection by consumers— referring to sources that are actually about MO issuing a warning to them to improve food labels or else.
Another example is the Scientology page which has been locked due to the relentless efforts of Scientologists constantly trying to edit it with misinformation. Maintaining the integrity of the platform is really a tireless service that volunteers of Wikipedia Foundation provide.
For those who may not be able to donate or want to take additional steps to protect the freedom of shared information, consider contributing to an article you’re passionate about. Platforms like Udemy and Coursera offer free courses on how to research and verify information effectively. While I’ve always been a strong advocate for public libraries, it’s clear that Wikipedia is the essential resource when it comes to current and accessible knowledge.
Thanks, I appreciate your perspective. There was a Wikipedia Lemmy server that popped up for a little while anyway? Does it still exist? What are they up to over there?
I’ve chatted with some editors before, and listen to editors chatting before, and they basically speak a different language.
I actually wasn’t going to donate to Wikipedia this year because I’m pretty strapped but fuck it. I’m donating more than I did last year I can put more stuff on a credit card this season instead.
Fuck Elon Musk. And fuck anyone who buys his stupid fucking cars.
Right on. Consider also contributing to an article. Volunteers work tirelessly to filter the misinformation pushed by stakeholders like Elon Musk and the army he can afford to employ to fuck up articles full-time.
i don’t get what problem you would have about “bias” over wikipedia if you care about the truth and facts.
just kind of exposes what it’s really about for musk.
So I just donated to Wikipedia.
I donated to Wikipedia for the first time because fuck that guy.
Same
Now they’re openly admiting that they’re against everything that makes the live better for everyone? Has the brainwashing succeesed?
A better life is a “woke” idea.
Now they’re openly admiting that they’re against everything that makes the live better for everyone?
always have been
Was going to donate to wikipedia a while ago but didn’t because they didn’t have any fees. Hosting doesn’t cost that much for them and their current fund will have them set for a long time. Because of this, I might have to donate.
I donated to Wikipedia once before, but never again. Their endowment has grown to a level where they should be completely self-sustained. However, spending is out of control.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
Edit: I’m glad Wikipedia exists, but to say they are hurting for more cash is completely false. Even according to their own financial disclosures, web hosting expenses have stabilized under $4-million a year (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation). As contributions continue to grow, it is spent on higher salaries for executives. The CEO made $789k in 2021, all while content is created by volunteers.
Edit, edit: a relevant chart straight from the Wikimedia Foundation Wiki page is below. Internet hosting is one of the smallest expense buckets and has been relatively flat year-over-year. Alternatively, salaries and wages are on an unsustainable upward trajectory. This chart is even a few years old and salaries have almost doubled in the last three years to over $101-million in 2023, all while hosting expenses have remained flat.
Did you not read the part where this is the seventh most visited site on the internet… in the world? Literally any other website would be paying their CEO millions upon millions. This guy is basically taking a gigantic pay cut working for Wikimedia.
And do you have any idea how much it costs to have the bandwidth and server space to host the enormity of Wikipedia? It is quite literally one of the physically largest web sites on the internet. And it is continually and constantly being added to. The only other voluntary free information site that really beats it is the wayback machine. Which is another favorite target of conservative douchebags.
It’s almost as if rich media moguls don’t like people having free access to information they don’t control.
And quite frankly I’m of the opinion that you are likely either working for one of them or one of Elon’s army of sycophants (I had to retype that several times because it kept auto correcting to “sicko fans”, and honestly I don’t think that’s all that inaccurate either) who are out to help him control the narrative.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to have the bandwith and server space to host the enormity of Wikipedia?
Yes $2,335,918 in 2019 per their disclosures. They spend more on travel expenses.
Wikipedia is a non-profit. The goal shouldn’t be to rake in tons of cash.
Legal fees and legal staff take up much of their expenses as well. When you have a platform that aims to make truth public, you are getting threatened with lawsuits 24 hours a day.
Legal fees were $493,315 for the fiscal year ending in 2023. Web hosting expenses were $3,120,819. They spent more on travel and conferences than both these combined ($4,180,219). Also, they pay their CEO more than all legal expenses.I would really like to see Wikipedia become fully self-sufficient, so it can’t be threatened by a hostile takeover. They could do that through investment income without ever touching their principal, especially if they started reasonably managing expenses years ago.
Edit for accuracy: so, earlier I totally misread the only paragraph with “legal” mentioned in last financial disclosure (here). There’s no other mention of legal directly, so it must be lumped in with one of the other expense buckets. Maybe part of “professional service expenses” at $15,464,635?
That’s legal fees meaning court filing and other fees (seems low). You also have professional legal services, which includes specialized lawyers, in-house attorneys, and the General Council, which consists of board-level executives with legal credentials.
Why should non-profits not want to “rake in tons of cash” if it helps advance the mission of the non-profit?
Because in this case, all the increases in contributions go straight to the executives. I think I’ve been very on-point with this. On most days, I would expect Lemmizens to be overwhelmingly anti-CEO. I guess this isn’t one of those days.
789k was pay + severance for Katherine Maher who left in 2021. Now that does seem excessive, I don’t know how that number came about or why severance was 600k but the year before Katherine’s comp was 406k. The compensation for the current CEO is 534k for 2023 per https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200049703
Of course that seems like a lot of money, and it is, but to put it in perspective, I am just another software engineer and I make more than that. In HCOL areas, at “big tech” it’s common for entry level SDEs with a BS to make 160-180k.
So as I stated in a different comment, your criticism seems misplaced. What you have a problem with is really the financial situation our society is dealing with, and that’s perfectly reasonable. I would 100% agree that current wealth/pay distribution needs to be addressed.
I’m not going to disagree with your comments in regards to the compensation for the singular CEO. However, I think this is a more widespread issue within the foundation. (I did say “executives” in my last comment.) The chart below is straight from the Wikimedia Foundation wiki page and one expense category is increasing a lot quicker than the others. This chart is a little outdated now, but salary expenses have continued to increase. According to the last disclosure, salaries and benefits are now over $101-million. That’s almost double where the chart left off, all while other expense categories have barely moved. Internet hosting in 2023 was only $3.12-million.
Wikimedia has a lot of cash on hand. Even with the exorbitant spending over the years, the foundation and endowment combined have accumulated over $400-million. Through interest alone, I don’t see why the core functions of Wikipedia should ever be in financial jeopardy. This is especially the case if you consider that, even without persistent requests for donations, donations won’t just stop completely.
I’m pretty sure we want content created, vetted, and edited by volunteers. It prevents bias, in theory.
Sure, I’m not against that and I never said otherwise. It also helps keep costs down. I definitely don’t want to see an Elon-enshitified version of Wikipedia with ads and paid content creators. I mostly like Wikipedia just as it is. The one exception would be that I don’t like how they try guilt tripping everyone for donations.
With $400-million between Wikipedia and their endowment, they should easily be able to cover the $3-million in web hosting expenses, without ever touching the principal of their investments. Wikipedia should be already setup to run in perpetuity, if not merely decades.
deleted by creator
Is that you musk?
My post has nothing to do with wokeness or whatever Musk is ranting about. The guy who wrote the essay I linked, originally posted it in 2016/2017? and has been keeping it updated. This abuse of spending is not a new topic. But sure, keep donating so the executives can take home more pay.
The “essay” (for me) read more like a rant about the author’s opinions regarding hypothetical situations and how, in many people’s views, a successful non-profit spends money. Sure, maybe WMF could spend less but the table looked reasonable. I’ve donated before and I’m sure I will again because I use Wikipedia all the time. I am going to spend more time learning about the organization and its spending, but as of reading the linked material, I’m unmoved.
Also, I get that 789k is a lot of money. Really more than anyone needs but it’s hardly an absurd amount given the norms for CEO pay. Yes, CEO pay is ridiculous but so is the entire economy, speaking as a US citizen. I would have guessed higher and many non-profit CEOs make much more than 789k. Plenty of people, with less responsibility and impact, make more than that so that pay is not really a WMF specific point.
deleted by creator
