Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
If a large amount of money begins flowing through Wikipedia, thousands of Wikipedia contributors might get distracted from editing and instead argue about where the money should go. This might become more of a problem if Wikipedia generates far more revenue than it needs for its own operation, and begins supporting outside charities.
Thank you!" Personally I thought that message was a good idea. There is a trade-off between begging for money (or advertising) and the level of service we can provide. For the most part, it is community consensus which determines where we sit on that spectrum, rather than being dictated from on high.
And then you learn that the firemen even go to some of the city's poorest quarters, begging for money, making people fear they may have to do without a fire service if they don't give money today – even though the service has already surpassed its own revenue year goals by nearly $50 million.
On Wikipedia, we resolve disagreements through discussion and consensus, not by throwing money at the problem or scoring other means of gaining power. If you still disagree with consensus, it's more productive to move on and accept the decision, rather than trying to buy out the website. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
A note on the separate status of the Wikimedia Endowment. The Wikimedia Endowment, held from 2016 to 2023 by the Tides Foundation and now a standalone 501(c)(3) nonprofit, is not and has never been included in Wikimedia Foundation assets, even though Wikimedia Foundation fundraising staff solicit donations to the Endowment and the Wikimedia Foundation itself made donations to the Endowment.
People get that Wikipedia is different - they don't mind that we raise money and in fact I find that many people I talk to are reassured that we are raising money from donations rather than selling data, cutting corporate deals for content placements, or all the horrible things that we could be doing.--
The majority of funding for the Wikimedia Foundation comes from individual donors all around the world. These donations allow us to provide the world-class technology infrastructure that supports 20 billion monthly views to Wikipedia and its sister projects, protect free knowledge globally through legal and advocacy efforts, and support the incredible volunteer editors that have built 61 ...
Why though does thousands of dollars of money need to be wasted on paying clearly incompetent marketeers to do it. Any one of the community here could come up with something here by consensus free of charge. I find it ridiculous that the wikipedia foundation would waste money like this, they don't even pay people to edit articles.