I wish they would ringfence the money needed to run Wikipedia's service in perpetuity. Some kind of trust fund that throws off enough income from investments to fund just the servers and a couple employees to maintain them. About $200m should be more than enough.
I don't know if they've done that already. But it means they can be around forever, no matter what foolishness they get up to with the remainder of their donations.
Wikipedia IS supremely useful! However, when they are begging for just $2.75 with big banners while receiving that much is a bit frustrating, and while I won't say they can't do what they want, I do feel irritated, and when I'm reminded how much they get, it makes me less likely to donate because of that.
Why is Larry Sanger trying to sabotage Wikipedia?
If Wikipedia can resist the urge to enshittify longer than anyone else, they've earned it.
I wish they would ringfence the money needed to run Wikipedia's service in perpetuity. Some kind of trust fund that throws off enough income from investments to fund just the servers and a couple employees to maintain them. About $200m should be more than enough.
I don't know if they've done that already. But it means they can be around forever, no matter what foolishness they get up to with the remainder of their donations.
Wikipedia is supremely useful. Twitter is a dumpster fire no one needs. I'll continue to throw a few bucks to Wiki next year, thanks.
Wikipedia IS supremely useful! However, when they are begging for just $2.75 with big banners while receiving that much is a bit frustrating, and while I won't say they can't do what they want, I do feel irritated, and when I'm reminded how much they get, it makes me less likely to donate because of that.
Can we have a look at X's finances too and have an opinion on wether people should give them money?