And while these types of things can get "fluffy", if this branding change results in just a small percentage of additional people becoming more aware of the broader goals and projects of Wiki(m/p)edia, it was money well spent.
I may have a partial match in goals with Wikipedia. If 20% of the money goes to goals I support and 80% goes to goals I do not support or that are even contrary to my goals, how much should I give?
I decided for me to donate to projects that better serve my goals.
Expenses were $81.4 million in 2018 (up from $69m in 2017). Cash is $73.9m (up from $49.5m). Wages were $38.5m.
Here is their audited 2017-2018 financial report [PDF]:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/60/FY17-...
If they are a net negative in the world, I would withhold donations.
It's not about good or bad, it's about opportunity cost. Most people have a limited budget for donations.
Yeah I'm sure Cuke and Papsi would have no problem with that as their coca-cola soft drink products are instantly recognizable as soon as you drink them.
The price i'm paying with my few donations i made over the years, are donations i don't bother to check what they are doing with it.
Why? I'm not part of it. I'm just here, reading stuff on wikipedia.
I don't know what they wanna try out. I don't know who or why so many people are part of it. I haven't written a single article. I fixed stuff but thats it. Perhaps they need it to build the community around.
They got my trust.
Easier editing for example. Or education about how to edit.
I don't have any lexika in my house. Everyone i know which has some form of it, its old.
I also don't think that a redactional lexicon is much better than the wikipedia. Why should it be? Bias perhaps but gathering facts is hardly a bias thing.
Wikipedia is free, i can freely distribute it, i can clone it, i can edit it. This is the most comprehensive datacollection with public access i know.
I definitely agree that WMF has definitely enough money, and maybe the money is not used in the best way. But others do it at much larger scales while WMF is getting most of the heat.
Would you prefer wikimedia shift into selling user data and putting advertisements? If not, then donate.
I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, but this phrasing sounds like a threat of some sort, blackmail.
Something non-profits successful at fundraising strike me as especially fertile land for.
No further fundraising is required, ever, if properly managed.
On top of that, assuming they will have zero effective cost increases is wrong. There is so much growth left in content and users. How much has Wikipedia grown in the last five years? How well do they cover non English languages? What if they had the same size article base in English as every other language? What if every internet connected user could use Wikipedia?
Saying we could freeze Wikipedia costs in 2019 based on $90M in the bank is shortsighted.
The page on The Wikimedia Endowment is actually quite interesting if you're into finance and investing - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment.
It turns out, the folks who planned out the endowment were very thoughtful. Check out this great read on the motivations, challenges, and plans of the endowment. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay
And when they will _actually_ need more money, they can always ask.
Given how incredibly well-funded Wikimedia is, their yearly extort^Wdonation-drive with 50%+ viewport-sized banners plastered all over Wikipedia, claiming that the encyclopedia you're viewing is in dire need of your money to barely sustain itself for the rest of the year, actually makes me rather angry every time I see it.
Recommended reading for those unaware of how (and what) Wikimedia is actually doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...