Slashdot Mirror
A Mismatch Between Wikimedia's Pledge Drive and Its Cash On Hand?
Andreas Kolbe writes The latest financial statements for the Wikimedia Foundation, the charity behind Wikipedia, show it has assets of $60 million, including $27 million in cash and cash equivalents, and $23 million in investments. Yet its aggressive banner ads suggest disaster may be imminent if people don't donate and imply that Wikipedia may be forced to run commercial advertising to survive. Jimmy Wales counters complaints by saying the Foundation are merely prudent in ensuring they always have a reserve equal to one year's spending, but the fact is that Wikimedia spending has increased by 1,000 percent in the course of a few years. And by a process of circular logic, as spending increases, so the reserve has to increase, meaning that donors are asked to donate millions more each year. Unlike the suggestion made by the fundraising banners, most of these budget increases have nothing to do with keeping Wikipedia online and ad-free, and nothing to do with generating and curating Wikipedia content, a task that is handled entirely by the unpaid volunteer base. The skyrocketing budget increases are instead the result of a massive expansion of paid software engineering staff at the Foundation – whose work in recent years has been heavily criticised by the unpaid volunteer base. The aggressive fundraising banners too are controversial within the Wikimedia community itself.
They still show those scary WIkipedia-is-doomed-without-your-help banners? LOL. I use Wikiwand now, so I don't see those anymore. What I disliked most about those banners is that once you donate, they don't go away. They keep hounding you for money! As part of my reward for donating, I shouldn't have to have your pledge drive shoved down my throat anymore.
If the submitter knew what circular logic meant, we'd have to ask ourselves why we allow submissions from people who knowingly spread untruths.
It is also in no way established that more donations is the reason spending has been increased. You can claim it's obvious all you want, but luckily reality doesn't conform to what seems obvious to its inhabitants. If it did, we'd be living on a flat disk with the burning chariot of a sun god running around it.
In California, you'll find a lot of people making over $100,000. It is just a high cost of living, coupled with what a "good" job pays. I'm a Solutions Architect in IT in CA., and I get just over $200,000. I'm not executive director or anything so high-falutin'. These are pretty normal salaries in good / very good jobs. (I'm not saying Walmart workers get $100,000 in CA.)
You illiterate moron.
The Foundation "is", not are. It is one entity. You're not referring to all the people within the Foundation, you're referring to the Foundation itself. You even use the word "it", not them, to refer to the Wikimedia Foundation.
You use is when referring to a singular entity.
You use are when referring to more than one entity or a group, such as they.
From my observations, this is one of those points where UK and US English disagree.
Organizations are referred to as plural in UK English and singular in US English.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
In my experience, technical info is much more accurate than pop culture info.