Re:Humans will never again create a project like Wikipedia
by goodmythical on Monday November 09, 2026 @04:52PM
(#50432769)
I personally don't really mind any of it, but having working in non-profit, I was certain that the messaging was...superlative.
The ASPCA and St Judes don't get money from "we're doing amazing shit with this pile of money you've given us". They get money from "look at these dieing children and pets".
Wikimedia is no different. The mission is worthwhile, and they have been overwhelmingly effective in their pursuit of that goal. The bickering over a few articles getting deleted or volunteers being banned is just par or the course for such a large org with such a large mission.
One could argue that the ASPCA could save more dogs if they didn't spend so much on execs and ads, but we can't know that to be true. What if saving that many dogs really does require million dollar c-suites and multi-million dollar ad-campaigns?
If I were choosing where to put my money, Wikimedia wouldn't be on the list for other reasons. I prefer smaller local orgs where the people managing the money have to interact directly with their neighbors who support their missions as I find the social pressure effective and it doesn't represent a cost to the organization like an accounting or accountability firm would. $1000 to my local library does more for my community than $1000 to wikipedia would ever do.
That's why I prefer federated national non-profits as well. Donating to say my local Habit for Humanity does support the national org to some degree, but most of the donation stays to support local efforts.
wiki-p/m-edia is a great mission, it just isn't my mission.
The ASPCA and St Judes don't get money from "we're doing amazing shit with this pile of money you've given us". They get money from "look at these dieing children and pets".
Wikimedia is no different. The mission is worthwhile, and they have been overwhelmingly effective in their pursuit of that goal. The bickering over a few articles getting deleted or volunteers being banned is just par or the course for such a large org with such a large mission.
One could argue that the ASPCA could save more dogs if they didn't spend so much on execs and ads, but we can't know that to be true. What if saving that many dogs really does require million dollar c-suites and multi-million dollar ad-campaigns?
If I were choosing where to put my money, Wikimedia wouldn't be on the list for other reasons. I prefer smaller local orgs where the people managing the money have to interact directly with their neighbors who support their missions as I find the social pressure effective and it doesn't represent a cost to the organization like an accounting or accountability firm would. $1000 to my local library does more for my community than $1000 to wikipedia would ever do.
That's why I prefer federated national non-profits as well. Donating to say my local Habit for Humanity does support the national org to some degree, but most of the donation stays to support local efforts.
wiki-p/m-edia is a great mission, it just isn't my mission.