- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
FYI, Elon, you can’t sue for libel/slander if what people are saying is actually true.
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.
This is why billionaires shouldn’t exist.
If only someone would make them not exist.
Elon’s a pretty public guy, right?
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
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.
Can’t argue with you there. They also charge Google and other search engines for their republishing of Wikipedia info as part of their search results. We could just the corporate billionaires pay for the platform so that all benefit from it. Like taxes are supposed to do…
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-suffient, 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
If you didn’t buy a bunch of hard drives on Black Friday, ya probably should’ve.
Information is about to get restricted. Authoritarianism is coming down the pipes.
Buckle up, buttercup. Encrypt that shit and hang on.
“Wikipedia is built on the premise that it becomes better when more people of different backgrounds—including political persuasions—source, edit, curate and research content. Our equity goal advances that. The ‘Safety & Inclusion’ goal (now titled ‘Safety & Integrity’ in our 2024-2025 plan) is focused on ensuring that people are able to freely access and safely contribute to knowledge on Wikipedia in a changing legal and policy environment globally.”
Magoo: RAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!! WHITE CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS are the only REAL people!! WE’RE the only people that matter!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
I just read that list. How many conservative sources are listed as “Reliable Sources” I see Reason, but I’m not sure I’d consider them conservative.
Reliable sources means outlets that don’t outright lie or over embellish. I think you’ll find that most conservative media outlets tend to do exactly those two things. And I would 100% count both Reason and The Hill as conservative media outlets that walk the fine line.
Not their fault conservatives lie and generally contradict even themselves.
And liberal sources don’t?
-
The laptop is Russian disinformation.
-
The vaccine will prevent you from getting Covid.
-
The Steele dossier proves that Trump is in bed with the Russians.
That’s just off the top of my head.
Mr. Musk believes that Wikipedia has become a mouthpiece for the left. Based on their list of Reliable Sources, how do you counter his argument?
The laptop is Russian disinformation.
Which laptop?
The vaccine will prevent you from getting Covid.
Please read up on evolution, and herd immunity. A reputable source making this claim was probably using it as shorthand because stating that “The COVID vaccine and boosters are effective at reducing the infection and propagation of specific common strains of covid 19 to the point where you may not feel the effects or shed enough virus to infect other people” isn’t really as catching of a headline.
The Steele dossier proves that Trump is in bed with Russians.
I have yet to see counter evidence to the claims made in the Steele Dossier, and Steele himself still stands behind the report, which can not be said for certain trump agents who falsified Ukrainian corruption claims about Hunter and Joe Biden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory
-
This parasite is doing his best to lead humanity further down the path of annihilation. He needs to go.
