The hard-working volunteers do it because they want to be right.
And if someone comes along trying to prove me wrong then they'll only prove I'm right.
If you’ve noticed that Wikipedia has been much less annoying this Christmas – you can thank El Reg. Jimmy Wales had promised that the alarmist banner ads that adorned each page during the Wikimedia Foundation’s ‘December Sprint’ fundraiser would no longer be needed once the target of $25m had been met. The Sprint achieved that …
I used to be fairly active on the site in the 2000's, writing content for Wikipedia and actually bothering to track down citations and references and link them diligently. That was when Wikipedia was Free. I'll never submit another sentence to the muppets, now. Their begging campaigns are far too obnoxious, far too greedy and completely unwarranted and I don't even get the option to permanently dismiss them in way of thanks for the content that I wrote - content that they're making their salaries from! Additionally, there is NO reason whatsoever that a begging-box needs to take a third of my vertical screen size and return daily or whenever I don't have the right cookie. That's taking the piss.
If my "FREE" website contained nothing which is illegal or considered immoral by the vast majority of human population, I would personally ask for phone number of every person who complains about what I decide to publish in it. So I could personally reverse charge ( does that still exist? ) call them to inform them that they have my approval to incessantly fuck themselves until the 31st of December 2117.
You donated me money so that Wikipedia can continue to provide content and I spend that to fund a religious group / leader instead? I deceived you, I deserve it.
I reached my donation target but then I decide to keep a banner asking visitors if they would consider donating a bit more - but no worries if you don't, you can still use all the content of the website without limitations? Don't forget to include your international dialling code.
Have ( some ) people really got to the point of expecting to dictate what free stuff must look like? Or am I missing something?
I think the point here is that when you put out your little beggar's cup and ask people to hand over their hard earned cash, then other content providers (be it news websites or some drunk blogger) are free to pose the question "just what exactly are you going to spend all that cash on?".
There is nothing wrong with asking for donations to fuel your booze and hookers addiction, but there is something wrong when you are hiding away massive expenses that donors might not be so enthusiastic about. If your donors are not informed, then it is fraud, pure and simple.
To be honest I still consider them better than the Reg at all attempting to smear banner ads all over my browser and creating paid advertorial stories.
BUT, concern is the slippery slope effect. Like charities who start of with enthusiastic amateurism but end up with high paid marketing bods looking for customers to sign up to monthly direct debits.
Your comment made me read the article again and then I noticed that there is a brief mention of lobbying, so thanks for that ;-)
It seems to me the focus is more on the promise being broken than a non properly disclosed use of the funds, but not an excuse to completely miss it as I did
This was the last year of my annual Wikimedia Foundation donation. Having given my usual Christmas Bitcoins of appreciation, I was inundated with emails pleading for more. When I replied that I already gave as usual, I was told that their email deluge was my own fault for using a different email address than my only one for this year's gift. Right. If I want harassment, I'll find it elsewhere, thanks. Now to go review some new projects to support financially in 2017...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019