Every so often I give a few bucks(far less than the worth of knowledge I got from it)
I used to do a regular donation ($5 a month or something) but then I found out Jimmy Wales (who was a figurehead of the site at that point) was a weird Ayn Rand libertarian and stopped.
Unless he's personally being enriched (as opposed to making a living), that wouldn't bother me. I have never felt the need to check. I donate because it's useful to me.
I didn't buy a Tesla because that fucker is enriched af and I hate him and I can get other cars that serve me just as well. There's no (real) replacement or substitute for Wikipedia.
So yet another example of an objectivist being ultra productively generous and benefitting society, and again it’s simply rejected by someone whose opinion of objectivism was formed by its opponents.
People always talk about how it’s all about “I got mine” and yet every single one of her protagonists makes enormous self sacrifice for people they love.
Contrary to popular misinformation, objectivism isn’t about “I serve only myself”; it’s about “I decide my own ideals”.
And very frequently, the ideals of her hero characters include giving enormous gifts to others.
Wikipedia is a great example of that same drive manifesting in reality: 100% contrary to the BS greed-only perception of what Rand was trying to point to, Wikipedia is a totally free resource for everybody, sustained entirely by voluntary funding.
The way it’s in line with Rand’s thinking has nothing to do with selfishness and everything to do with the fact that the Wikimedia foundation doesn’t ask for permission it just creates and gives.
It has an abominable political slant, so absolutely not. If there was a way to split the science/math/etc. segment from the rest of it, that one would totally be worth donating to.
Could you elaborate? I've never heard of that. Although I don't donate to Wikipedia now.
That can be a touchy subject because the slant of Wikipedia and the slant of Reddit are very similar, but with Reddit leaning more towards chasing frivolous headlines and Wikipedia leaning more towards, like, rehabilitating Nazis and the like. The short version is that Wikipedia is far to the right of consensus among even neoliberal historians on many subjects and you will see things treated as plain there that are relatively fringe views academically.
Organizationally it’s had leadership with abominable politics. Jimmy Wales is a self-proclaimed libertarian. Katherine Maher was CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, then joined The Atlantic Council, and currently serves on the US Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board. [edit: apostrophe’s]
Giving 10 bucks a year, even though I use it very little. But sometimes it's just easy and quick to look something up or read an interesting article, and I know that there are many people (students, etc.) who rely on it more than I do and have less money to spend
No. I did donate once and then they illegally spammed my email for a year. I had to threaten them with a lawyer to stop. It was senseless.
This happened to me as well. I just didn't go as far as the lawyer bit. I just sent all of their emails to spam for auto deletion.
I donate to them sometimes depending on how money is, but yeah holy hell do they spam you once you donate. Just a non-stop stream of increasingly passive-aggressive emails.
I think Wikipedia is a valuable common good and should be maintained. Because I can afford it, I donate monthly, even if I only use it a few times each month.
No because I already donate to the EFF and Internet Archive and I figure that's enough. And apparently Wikipedia already has enough money according to the comments here
Yes, and I even have it as an automatic scheduled payment so I don't forget. Even with its flaws, it remains one of the shining gems of the Internet, and a resource I use frequently in both my professional life and my personal one. I remember how it was to suddenly want to learn more about a random topic before Wikipedia and I don't want to go back.
I also donate to The Internet Archive.
I did once. Then I don't because Wikipedia is currently in a stable financial situation so I can donate to another entity that needs resources.
What if poor were defined by whether or not you give? What if you could become rich by giving some portion of your tiny amount of money away?
Gee, wouldn't that be nice. To be clear I'm living below the poverty line right now.
I’ve donated while living below the poverty line. And it made me feel pretty good, as a matter of fact. I funded the development of four organic gardens in central america, and I helped support Doctors Without Borders missions all over the globe. Felt damn good to know I could still help others way further below the poverty line than me.
How did you do that and, you know, still afford basic necessities? I already lean on donations from others to survive. Or was that your situation too, you just "re-donated" a bit.
I was not in the extremely unlikely scenario where the basic necessities cost exactly as much as my income.
A person is either ahead or behind. The probability their income and their expenses actually match, down to the last dollar, is vanishingly small.
Whenever you find in your life that you have no options, you can be sure you are hallucinating that state of affairs.
Read Elie Wiesel’s Night for an exploration of just how deep freedom goes.
Well, I'm behind. Book recommendation noted. I wonder if my public library could track down a copy.
Do you want a pat on the back?
Edit: also fuck off. How about you donate to Canada plus while you're at it.
I don’t need a pat on the back because I have other far more valuable forms of satisfaction in my life, which I can provide myself.
Pats on the back are for adult children who think all the good in life comes from others’ recognition.
If you really want to make me feel grand, you could say something like “You know what? I’ll try donating $5 despite being poor, and I’ll let you know how it goes”.
Absolutely. What a ridiculous amount of information for free, if you use it at all, it deserves $2-3 every now and then to keep it free. If someone buys it, they will fuck it up.
I used to use it for free when I was broke. Now I give a little extra per month to hopefully offset that. It's invaluable to me. That and public radio.
I have before, but I was crippled by a conservative pedo ran corporation called The Home Depot. So it's not in the budget currently. Hide yo kids if you go in there.
Do you donate to Wikipedia? Why or why not?
I did and ever since have been rewarded with an endless barrage of "you gave once before so do it aga--a-a--aa-a-a-a-a-a-a-in" banners. Given the ecomonics of fundraising I wouldn't be surprised if donors were badgered more than non-donors.
Same here. I believe it's worth it, I can afford it.
I support not only Wikipedia, but also Signal and my local Mastodon-instance.
I used to give $39 every few months, but like Solomon, it became too bendable by higher powers, something I mean generally and in more ways than one, so I now advocate it just adopt ads or something.
