Wikipedia Donations Exposed. The Truth.
150,027
Published 2024-04-26
Have Companies Pay You:
www.silomarkets.com/
Free Weekly Newsletter With Insiders:
logicallyanswered.substack.com/
Socials:
www.instagram.com/hariharan.jayakumar/
Discord Community:
discord.gg/SJUNWNt
Timestamps:
0:00 - Wikipedia Donations
2:04 - A Fundamental Flaw
6:08 - A Rich Charity
10:41 - The Wikipedia Controversy
Resources:
pastebin.com/XQGR7dnB
Disclaimer:
This video is not a solicitation or personal financial advice. All investing involves risk. Please do your own research.
www.silomarkets.com/disclosures
All Comments (21)
-
My Face 👉 😑 after donating ₹2000 to Wikipedia and watching this video 6 months later
-
I was an editor on Wikipedia for seven years and I never donated. I supported them by contributing to them instead of donating. I grew up on Wikipedia and I still read it a lot but I am not an editor anymore.
-
It would be horrible if someone like Google or amazon bought this company, I am glad it runs the way it does
-
I used to donate like $10-$20 annually then they got really in your face about the donations so I quit
-
Literally no amount of corruption or complaining or lack of need could make the current situation worse than wikipedia being a for-profit business. The organization that controls essentially all information in the modern age being non-profit and open is important and a good thing.
-
You have to also remember that Wikimedia also makes Mediawiki, the software that runs Wikipedia. This software is used all across the internet to host many wikis. (e.g. Minecraft wiki, fandom, etc) I'm sure they are making more than what the cost to develop Mediawiki is, but its just another thing to take into account as Mediawiki is the backbone to many wikis across the web.
-
I donate to them annually since it’s one of the few sites left with no sponsors and no ads and no stupid monetization strategies. The side projects actually seem cool. Idk. I’m relieved to hear that Wikipedia has enough money to not be starving in a country (US) that constantly tries to get rid of PBS/public media.
-
I genuinely forgot that I donate $20 yearly to wikipedia until this video came up
-
I knew it was a little suspicious that such a big and "successful" company needed funds so desperately
-
43% of what I donate goes directly to support opensource websites? And 32% goes to supporting communities? That's amazing good use of the money I donate. I'm glad the are not in desperate need and will be safely alive for a long time. I'm relieved that the "exposure" was such a small issue. I donated this year and will definitely donate again next year.
-
TLDR: Nonprofits can be just as greedy and shady as a standard corporation.
-
That argument works for any social media really, the users bring it value but don’t get paid
-
6:45 - While the screenshot states these details outright, I think it's lowkey disingenuous to omit the fact that it'd be ~22 GB only while compressed, and without any of the site's media assets (i.e. images, video, sound bites), leaving just the articles' text. While the text itself is the most valuable part of any given Wikipedia article, the media assets are crucial in the context of some articles (articles on countries, historical figures, or election results for example).
-
Anyone who donated to Wikipedia in the last couple of years has donated to Katherine Maher's $400,000 salary.
-
When I first saw the begging for donation I remember an article about Jimmy Wales from about 20 years ago. Wales almost boasted and said that he had made enough money in Wall Street to never need to work again. It has always been an easy decision not to donate to them.
-
i stopped donating to wikipedia when they started locking certain articles and only allowing certain editors to edit them. this has lead to alot of propaganda on wikipedia, with no ability for the average non biased editor to change it.
-
8:10 does that $35K per month cost figure include wikimedia commons? because I imagine the media requires a lot more storage than just the wikipedia articles themselves.
-
A lot of people don't realize that many of the same people behind Wikipedia also run the commercial wiki site Fandom, which is plastered in adverts. They complain about "conflict of interest" editing on Wikipedia but then do this.
-
My senior at uni was a regular editor on wikipedia. He was freelancer and did editing and writing articles for many. He said that it is a good way to practice your skill and also he was also a believer in free education and knowledge for all. The problem is not that they have money rather telling us that they are “ nonprofit “ and then asking us money cuz they don’t have it which they do. Great video 👍
-
Wikipedia is good if you want to know how many people died on Mount Everest in 2008, or what Shaq’s free throw average was. But the minute you search for anything remotely controversial that you know a thing or two about, you realize that they’re more slanted and misleading than the worst corporate news networks. The editing process is known to be hoarded over by a surprisingly small number of people, and they aren’t experts.
