Gyroscopic Investing

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:19 am**

I like wikipedia and use it a lot. I succumed to their recent donations drive. I just felt that I was paying for something that I use and I would rather have a wikipedia that was funded by nobodies making donations than by big corporate donations or by government grants or by advertising.
I was interested to read this piece:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20 ... _chugging/

Donations are funding a huge expansion in professional administrative staff and "research projects". Amazingly, this year for the first time Wikipedia - the web encyclopaedia anyone can edit - has even found the cash to fund a lobbyist.

I was also interested to read this comment to it by a wikipedia employee:

A finely crafted smear piece

I see Andrew still hasn't given up on trolling Wikipedia. Let's look at some of the more ridiculous claims in this article:

Claim: Wikipedia is now a powerful lobbying organization; Truth: Wikipedia temporarily contracted 1 guy in DC to keep tabs on SOPA as it was going through Congress.

Claim: Wikipedia is getting millions of dollars from corporate grants and is thus beholden to corporate interests; Truth: None of the grants he cited are from this year and Wikipedia has continually worked towards accepting fewer and fewer grants, especially any with strings attached. Part of that effort is why Wikipedia asks the public for donations.

Claim: Wikipedia has more money than it knows what to do with; Truth: Wikipedia only collects as much money as they have budgeted for each year. The budget and planning process is completely transparent and widely open to public input (probably more so than any other non-profit on earth).

Claim: Part of why Wikipedia participated in the SOPA blackout was due to influence from Google; Truth: The opposite is closer to the truth, as I'm sure anyone involved in the blackout knows. The decision to participate in the SOPA actions wasn't even decided by the Wikimedia Foundation, it was decided by the Wikipedia community.

I do realize that charities can become captured by careerist employees. I have to hold my nose to keep a direct debit going to Oxfam with its £120k per year CEO.

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/blogs/2013/08/o ... r-salaries

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:21 am**

Thank you for posting this, stone. I've been giving to Wikipedia annually for a few years now. Each donation is a one-time one, usually but not always sent during the drive. They usually mention having a very small staff. Can't remember if they did this time, but I could always log out and see their drive message to check.

I do like the idea of keeping Wikipedia ad-free. Someday, they'll probably have to have ads. Even National Geographic eventually caved.
Come to think of it, it's probably time to make another donation to the adblock guy.

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 1:41 pm**

stone wrote: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/blogs/2013/08/o ... r-salaries

Why continue to support an organization that doesn't put the interests of its mission first? There are plenty of other organizations similar to Oxfam that are surely more deserving of your contribution. Oxfam USA's CEO gets over $500K. You think I support that charity?

Posted: **Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:55 pm**

For the record I am an occasional contributing editor on Wikipedia and I also give. I consider it a very worthy cause.

Gyroscopic Investing

wikipedia donations drive

wikipedia donations drive

Re: wikipedia donations drive

Re: wikipedia donations drive

Re: wikipedia donations drive