> Only 2.4 of the 112.4 million spent was actually on maintaining the servers themselves. ... why?
You seem to be arguing that anything other than strictly server maintenance is wrong, immoral or unnecessary. I'm not sure why that would be the case.
I think people may be focusing on these high-level figures a bit too much. The Wikimedia website has other information about what it is they are actually doing.
> Wikipedia's donation drives make it look like "Donate to us to keep the servers running"
Fair enough, I can imagine how that could be an issue. As one opposed to such manipulations in general, a critique of the sort of messaging being used is something that I would welcome.
> Side note: Gish-gallop-style questions are note a conducive way of inviting conversations around a topic.
Thanks, I didn't know that term before. I used a string of blunt questions formatted in that way to be as clear as possible, and because it mirrored the form of the OP's comment.
> You seem to be arguing that anything other than strictly server maintenance is wrong, immoral or unnecessary. I'm not sure why that would be the case.
This is answered by
> Wikipedia's donation drives make it look like "Donate to us to keep the servers running"
Meanwhile I've only ever considered the banners to be annoying and beg-y, but not any sort of claim that they are running out of money. Do the people "scammed" by "help us reach our fundraising goal" also get scammed by those emails about "donald trump's defense fund" and similar? Why didn't they just look up whether wikipedia is running out of money?
I don't understand how a disruptive banner that makes no claims can be considered nefarious.
Anything other than server maintenance or tangibly improving Wikipedia and directly supporting technical projects is unnecessary. Frankly nobody cares about the rest aside from the people getting money as a result and maybe their family and friends.
It’s like Mozilla and all of their non-Firefox/Thunderbird bullshit. Bloat for the sake of bloat.
> > Side note: Gish-gallop-style questions are note a conducive way of inviting conversations around a topic.
> Thanks, I didn't know that term before. I used a string of blunt questions formatted in that way to be as clear as possible, and because it mirrored the form of the OP's comment.
It's also a mis-use of the term. It's for live debates when you just dump a series of questions on the opponent without giving them time to respond, trying to make them look stupid to observers. Doesn't really apply to text like here, when you can take as long as you need to type of the reply.
> You seem to be arguing that anything other than strictly server maintenance is wrong, immoral or unnecessary.
I suspect the OP would be perfectly fine with Wikimedia hiring translators to translate more of the 6.5 million English articles into other languages which are often considerably less developed. Or funding more development of their textbooks, dictionaries and other content. They clearly have ample funds that seem to be going to more dubious ends.
> I suspect the OP would be perfectly fine with Wikimedia hiring translators to translate more of the 6.5 million English articles into other languages which are often considerably less developed. Or funding more development of their textbooks, dictionaries and other content. They clearly have ample funds that seem to be going to more dubious ends.
...I would rather that the translation efforts be done by the community & translation services than by the foundation itself. Pushing the effort of translation onto the foundation gives them authority over the translated material, & consequently authority on the original material itself.
In principle, I would like the scope of work for any foundation to be as minimal as possible, & to be directly related to the direct operations & maintenance of the service being provided. Any additional efforts beyond that invites scope creep & will inevitably bloat any organization with non-related work.
You seem to be arguing that anything other than strictly server maintenance is wrong, immoral or unnecessary. I'm not sure why that would be the case.
I think people may be focusing on these high-level figures a bit too much. The Wikimedia website has other information about what it is they are actually doing.
> Wikipedia's donation drives make it look like "Donate to us to keep the servers running"
Fair enough, I can imagine how that could be an issue. As one opposed to such manipulations in general, a critique of the sort of messaging being used is something that I would welcome.
> Side note: Gish-gallop-style questions are note a conducive way of inviting conversations around a topic.
Thanks, I didn't know that term before. I used a string of blunt questions formatted in that way to be as clear as possible, and because it mirrored the form of the OP's comment.