Should you donate to the Wikimedia Foundation? (2015)(forum.effectivealtruism.org)
forum.effectivealtruism.org
Should you donate to the Wikimedia Foundation? (2015)
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9qqds7Z3Ykd9Kdeay/should-you-donate-to-the-wikimedia-foundation#3__Conclusion
14 comments
I wonder if some people that undervalue wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation turned 18 after 2000 (under 40 or so).
I remember when my family got an encyclopedia set (you'd buy them for a thousand dollar or so, in pre-90s USD, if you were lucky enough to be able to afford them). You'd get yearly updates (physical books, also) for a fee for changes to entries. Didn't have the cross references, the non-text media, the cross referencing, the convenience of external links to online sources....
It's been a huge boon for global knowledge. They are one of the most valuable human endeavors of my lifetime.
edit: support childhood cancer, too. There has been real progress. Family support (lodging, traveling) sometimes get second billing to research or medical care. They're all good. So help us, need in one place doesn't negate the need in another. I like St. Jude, there are a bunch of others that do profound good for the world.
I remember when my family got an encyclopedia set (you'd buy them for a thousand dollar or so, in pre-90s USD, if you were lucky enough to be able to afford them). You'd get yearly updates (physical books, also) for a fee for changes to entries. Didn't have the cross references, the non-text media, the cross referencing, the convenience of external links to online sources....
It's been a huge boon for global knowledge. They are one of the most valuable human endeavors of my lifetime.
edit: support childhood cancer, too. There has been real progress. Family support (lodging, traveling) sometimes get second billing to research or medical care. They're all good. So help us, need in one place doesn't negate the need in another. I like St. Jude, there are a bunch of others that do profound good for the world.
Almost none of that money goes towards improving Wikipedia. A sizeable chunk will go towards unpopular software projects like Flow[1] and costly rebranding efforts against the community's wishes.[2] The article mentions an alternative, the Wikipedia Reward Board,[3] where the money (or other reward) would actually go to the person (or people) doing the editing work. Not every Wikimedia project has a reward board, but for the ones that do, you can make your monetary contributions go a lot further by using that instead of donating to the WMF.
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collaboration/Flow_sati...
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_ren...
3. Wikipedia Reward Board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward_board
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collaboration/Flow_sati...
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_ren...
3. Wikipedia Reward Board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward_board
I would love for good contributors to be rewarded, but I'm not sure how you do that without people gaming the system and creating worse editor politics than there are now.
However, I am sure what happens if you don't pay the electricity and networking for the servers, or have a team of lawyers protecting the overall effort. Despite it's flaws, the current system is working well by my standards.
However, I am sure what happens if you don't pay the electricity and networking for the servers, or have a team of lawyers protecting the overall effort. Despite it's flaws, the current system is working well by my standards.
Not much of their budget is going toward hosting though -- in FY 18-19 it was ~$2.3M of their ~$91.4M expenses [1].
If we look back to 2005, Wikipedia was already one of the most popular websites on the internet, but their expenses were only $716k [2]. They were frugal back then!
I agree with the parent that the extra expenses are mostly superfluous. They have a ton of staff [3] and quite a few of their roles seem to be about promoting their brand or maximizing donations.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim... [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikim... [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/
If we look back to 2005, Wikipedia was already one of the most popular websites on the internet, but their expenses were only $716k [2]. They were frugal back then!
I agree with the parent that the extra expenses are mostly superfluous. They have a ton of staff [3] and quite a few of their roles seem to be about promoting their brand or maximizing donations.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim... [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikim... [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/
Did you read the part where it says that the people writing the content don't receive any of the donations?
And that the foundation's software initiatives have been largely innefective at getting more/better content? [0]
(I've also donated to Wikimedia in the past and contributed to Wikipedia itself)
[0] https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9qqds7Z3Ykd9Kdeay/...
And that the foundation's software initiatives have been largely innefective at getting more/better content? [0]
(I've also donated to Wikimedia in the past and contributed to Wikipedia itself)
[0] https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9qqds7Z3Ykd9Kdeay/...
I'm surprised people are surprised by this, speaking as an annual donator. The "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." implies it to me.
That's almost entirely what makes Wikipedia what it is, the idea that it's community maintained by volunteer contributors. If it's compensated, it completely changes the contribution culture and the identity of the site at the core. It still needs a legal team, professional staff, payroll, etc, too. I know they have other projects and that's fine by me, even if they don't succeed.
That's almost entirely what makes Wikipedia what it is, the idea that it's community maintained by volunteer contributors. If it's compensated, it completely changes the contribution culture and the identity of the site at the core. It still needs a legal team, professional staff, payroll, etc, too. I know they have other projects and that's fine by me, even if they don't succeed.
> Did you read the part where it says that the people writing the content don't receive any of the donations?
I did, but I think there's value in just sustaining the platform. I'm worried about perverse incentives and gaming metrics if you reward the contributors. I'm sure you can imagine that going poorly. And, even without rewards, there sure are a lot of good contributions.
I did, but I think there's value in just sustaining the platform. I'm worried about perverse incentives and gaming metrics if you reward the contributors. I'm sure you can imagine that going poorly. And, even without rewards, there sure are a lot of good contributions.
> If there’s a better charity, I’d like to know about it...
Not saying it’s necessarily better or worse, but is worth considering– the Internet archive (ie they run the Wayback machine, among other services). I have donated to both. I feel strongly about archiving/storing all types of information- digital and non-digital.
There is a great amount of information that is lost or unable to be easily located due to 404 errors or servers going off-line (and the source of this issue is only getting worse)
Not saying it’s necessarily better or worse, but is worth considering– the Internet archive (ie they run the Wayback machine, among other services). I have donated to both. I feel strongly about archiving/storing all types of information- digital and non-digital.
There is a great amount of information that is lost or unable to be easily located due to 404 errors or servers going off-line (and the source of this issue is only getting worse)
[deleted]
It should be noted that WMF had a significant management shake up since then. The lila era management is basically all gone.
However im glad that this is the article posted, and not the rediculous "cancer" article that compares amount spent on servers when the site was smaller, slow and constantly going down to the modern day site when its fast, stable and a bigger site.
[Disclaimer: used to work for wmf. Do not anymore. My opinions are solely my own]
Edit: i initially just read the intro to the article. The article is long and says a lot more things as well other than just lila/knowledge engine.
However im glad that this is the article posted, and not the rediculous "cancer" article that compares amount spent on servers when the site was smaller, slow and constantly going down to the modern day site when its fast, stable and a bigger site.
[Disclaimer: used to work for wmf. Do not anymore. My opinions are solely my own]
Edit: i initially just read the intro to the article. The article is long and says a lot more things as well other than just lila/knowledge engine.
It's more than a bit ironic that people complain about the knowledge engine initiative, when Wikidata is now one of the more successful Wikimedia projects and pretty much the same thing.
Wikidata already existed during the knowledge engine fiasco, so if it was the same thing im not sure what they were doing.
I suspect a lot of KE's failure related to inconsistent messaging and project scope. I'm pretty sure even now, nobody knows what KE was planned to be or what its value proposition would be, or "what" it actually is beyond buzzwords
I suspect a lot of KE's failure related to inconsistent messaging and project scope. I'm pretty sure even now, nobody knows what KE was planned to be or what its value proposition would be, or "what" it actually is beyond buzzwords
The first phase of Wikidata (the MVP so to speak) was purely as a common repository for interwiki links, not a general knowledge engine/knowledge graph. The latter is a lot more recent.
General statements were added in 2013 which is still before KE.
The query service (the SPARQL endpoint) is probably the most KE like part, and that was later, in 2015. Still before KE but much closer. I think (hard to say because nobody gave a straight answer) that KE was more going to be about federation and searching non wikimedia (Free) resources.
The query service (the SPARQL endpoint) is probably the most KE like part, and that was later, in 2015. Still before KE but much closer. I think (hard to say because nobody gave a straight answer) that KE was more going to be about federation and searching non wikimedia (Free) resources.
What were the problems with the "lila era management" in your opinion? The article made it sound like there were just some well intentioned decisions received poorly, that led to that person being sacked. But there's often a festering hoard of management issues beneath what's apparent to outsiders like us, and I'm wondering if that was the case here.
Ultimately there was a lack of confidence in Lila's leadership. The how & why doesn't matter if you can't effectively lead people. See also https://www.mollywhite.net/wikimedia-timeline/
> The how & why doesn't matter if you can't effectively lead people.
On the contrary, how could any CEO lead an organisation that is dysfunctionally structured in the first place?
I'm not commenting on Lila, of whom I know nothing. Rather, I'm looking at the structure of WMF and the Wikipedia product and seeing disconnects and ambiguities.
Wikipedia's value comes from its content, which is provided by contributors who are not paid.
Wikipedia's budget goes to WMF staff, and capex approved by... I don't know whom. But who directs the effort of staff? This is where the org's structure appears to have resulted in years of frustration and dysfunction for all concerned.
How is WMF's strategic direction determined?
What is the role of the founder and public face, Jimmy Wales?
What is the role of the WMF CEO?
What is the role of the Funds Dissemination Committee?
What is the role and influence of large doners?
How are conflicts resolved between these levels of stakeholders?
Those are the key questions that I would want to understand before considering whether I would donate to WMF.
I've just started by reading the below articles. If anyone can add to this list, including with personal observations by insiders, I'd be grateful.
Wikipedia Foundation exec: Yes, we've been wasting your money
https://www.theregister.com/2013/10/08/wikipedia_foundation_...
Wikimedia timeline of events, 2014–2016
https://www.mollywhite.net/wikimedia-timeline/
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-02-10/Special report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
On the contrary, how could any CEO lead an organisation that is dysfunctionally structured in the first place?
I'm not commenting on Lila, of whom I know nothing. Rather, I'm looking at the structure of WMF and the Wikipedia product and seeing disconnects and ambiguities.
Wikipedia's value comes from its content, which is provided by contributors who are not paid.
Wikipedia's budget goes to WMF staff, and capex approved by... I don't know whom. But who directs the effort of staff? This is where the org's structure appears to have resulted in years of frustration and dysfunction for all concerned.
How is WMF's strategic direction determined?
What is the role of the founder and public face, Jimmy Wales?
What is the role of the WMF CEO?
What is the role of the Funds Dissemination Committee?
What is the role and influence of large doners?
How are conflicts resolved between these levels of stakeholders?
Those are the key questions that I would want to understand before considering whether I would donate to WMF.
I've just started by reading the below articles. If anyone can add to this list, including with personal observations by insiders, I'd be grateful.
Wikipedia Foundation exec: Yes, we've been wasting your money
https://www.theregister.com/2013/10/08/wikipedia_foundation_...
Wikimedia timeline of events, 2014–2016
https://www.mollywhite.net/wikimedia-timeline/
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-02-10/Special report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
These questions have the same answer as basically any other company. Most internet companies do not pay their content creators or if they do (e.g. youtube) they pay them a relatively small pot of the pie that is really only significant for the super popular people (whether that's ethical is totally different question).
Anyways, some of the info you seek is probably at meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Disseminati... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy
Jimbo is largely a public figure-head. He has limited influence on WMF priorities beyond what any other board member would have. He has significant moral influence in the english wikipedia volunteer community.
[To be clear, im just answering questions. I dont care whether you donate. Do with your money what you think is best, its none of my business]
Anyways, some of the info you seek is probably at meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Disseminati... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy
Jimbo is largely a public figure-head. He has limited influence on WMF priorities beyond what any other board member would have. He has significant moral influence in the english wikipedia volunteer community.
[To be clear, im just answering questions. I dont care whether you donate. Do with your money what you think is best, its none of my business]
Thanks bawolff.
I read this wikipedia article about KE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine_(Wikimedia_Fo...
I infer from the article that KE was, in part, a defensive initiative to stop google leaching traffic away from wikipedia.
It sounds like JW was a key strategist, and that wikipedians were left out of the loop, which lead to management turmoil within the ranks.
It sounds like a difficult situation, to fight an external threat using internal broadcast democracy, when you know the information is going to go public right away.
Can you imagine Gates, Bezos, Jobs or Google consulting 50,000 employees every time a competitor looked like gaining traction?
I can imagine the internal transparency and consultation practiced at WMF could be beneficial for many aspects of the operations. But at a strategic level, particularly when threatened, that model could have liabilities for an organisation - particularly one which commands such a significant place in what is a lucrative commercial domain.
To complicate matters, the funding for KE was coming from an external grant source, which may have had its own agenda.
Difficult.
I read this wikipedia article about KE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine_(Wikimedia_Fo...
I infer from the article that KE was, in part, a defensive initiative to stop google leaching traffic away from wikipedia.
It sounds like JW was a key strategist, and that wikipedians were left out of the loop, which lead to management turmoil within the ranks.
It sounds like a difficult situation, to fight an external threat using internal broadcast democracy, when you know the information is going to go public right away.
Can you imagine Gates, Bezos, Jobs or Google consulting 50,000 employees every time a competitor looked like gaining traction?
I can imagine the internal transparency and consultation practiced at WMF could be beneficial for many aspects of the operations. But at a strategic level, particularly when threatened, that model could have liabilities for an organisation - particularly one which commands such a significant place in what is a lucrative commercial domain.
To complicate matters, the funding for KE was coming from an external grant source, which may have had its own agenda.
Difficult.
People should donate to where they think it will do the most good. No NGO is perfect.
[ Same disclaimer :-) ]
[ Same disclaimer :-) ]
Did someone think that the higher server bill meant you guys were embezzling money?
The article claimed that they were wasting money on high paid executives and software that nobody used, meanwhile the pages are maintained by unpaid volunteers. I don't know if it's true or not, but I've also never donated money to them, so I don't really have a dog in the fight.
What was the work culture like inside of wmf?
Gender balanced?
Cooperative?
I'm curious because my experience of editing, and that of other people I heard from at an editor meet up, was that the culture is heavily male dominated, and unnecessarily adversarial in a bullying way. That said, the CEO at the time (2007 - 2014), Sue Gardner, seemed enlightened, progressive, smart and highly capable.
Gender balanced?
Cooperative?
I'm curious because my experience of editing, and that of other people I heard from at an editor meet up, was that the culture is heavily male dominated, and unnecessarily adversarial in a bullying way. That said, the CEO at the time (2007 - 2014), Sue Gardner, seemed enlightened, progressive, smart and highly capable.
> Gender balanced?
Fwiw, when i was there, engineering teams generally had more men than woman. No tech teams and management tended to have more equal representation. However i would say the gender demographics of eng teams were fairly on-par for the industry at large. I never saw any sexism, but as a man, if it was present it probably would not be directed at me, so i may just not have noticed.
Fwiw, when i was there, engineering teams generally had more men than woman. No tech teams and management tended to have more equal representation. However i would say the gender demographics of eng teams were fairly on-par for the industry at large. I never saw any sexism, but as a man, if it was present it probably would not be directed at me, so i may just not have noticed.
<This sentence removed and more context in a reply below because it was not accurate enough to stand on its own>. Is the non profit to gate people from editing if arbitrary diversity requirements aren't met?
The best part about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, anyone can run it, and nobody can lock up its content (for whatever reason). Look no further to Mozilla to see what happens when a non profit fails to meet it's mandate and is stuck with "peacocks" (folks who prioritize status or signaling > substance) instead of practitioners.
The best part about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, anyone can run it, and nobody can lock up its content (for whatever reason). Look no further to Mozilla to see what happens when a non profit fails to meet it's mandate and is stuck with "peacocks" (folks who prioritize status or signaling > substance) instead of practitioners.
> The best part about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, anyone can run it, and nobody can lock up its content (for whatever reason).
This is true in the same sense that anyone can track down and fix bugs in the Linux kernel.
Now, I have certainly done so, but I've done it as an employee for a big and profitable company who had plenty of time to spend on it. Wikipedia is similar - it is superficially open to everyone, and sure, you can probably add some detail to an article about William of Normandy's first cousin once removed just fine, but if you're trying to document, say, whether or not there was a death camp in Warsaw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...), you're up against people who have more time and resources than you do.
This is true in the same sense that anyone can track down and fix bugs in the Linux kernel.
Now, I have certainly done so, but I've done it as an employee for a big and profitable company who had plenty of time to spend on it. Wikipedia is similar - it is superficially open to everyone, and sure, you can probably add some detail to an article about William of Normandy's first cousin once removed just fine, but if you're trying to document, say, whether or not there was a death camp in Warsaw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...), you're up against people who have more time and resources than you do.
I think OPs point is if you don't like the rules on wikipedia, you can download a dump of articles run a mediawiki instance, and make your own wikipedia.
Which in practise also requires skill and effort. Even importing the xml dump file into a mysql database in reasonable time requires special skill when we are talking data in the 100 gb range before decompressing.
https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20200920/
Which in practise also requires skill and effort. Even importing the xml dump file into a mysql database in reasonable time requires special skill when we are talking data in the 100 gb range before decompressing.
https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20200920/
Sue was the ceo (executive director) before lila. Lila was the ceo where things went south.
Excuse my sloppy comment. Lila did a terrible job, but Sue was running Wikimedia while there was a slow decline in editors since the mid 00s. Having donated to Wikimedia previously, I no longer do, because senior leadership (across "administrations") is more concerned with issues completely disconnected from their core role ("To unlock the world's knowledge"). Those dollars go to the Internet Archive now (which stores copies of Wikipedia distinct from Wikimedia's control).
Non profit dollars are hard to come by, and the greater issue and frustration is watching orgs like Mozilla and Wikimedia incinerate them on causes that are not their mission (in stark contrast to efficient, nimble orgs like Let's Encrypt and the Free Law Project).
Non profit dollars are hard to come by, and the greater issue and frustration is watching orgs like Mozilla and Wikimedia incinerate them on causes that are not their mission (in stark contrast to efficient, nimble orgs like Let's Encrypt and the Free Law Project).
There is some research to suggest that (en) wikipedia's growth pattern (a peak followed by slow decline as beurocracy becomes ossified) is common in similar projects. So maybe they didn't do anything wrong they just failed to fix it. That said i dont think anyone really knows what to do about the editor decline.
> i dont think anyone really knows what to do about the editor decline.
How was this problem presented and discussed inside of WMF?
As an editor, I had an opportunity to discuss it with Sue Gardner at a meet up with other editors. The feedback from other editors was so strong, I'm baffled that WMF couldn't address it.
Although, I understood from Sue that WMF's role was only as a software company that made tools. She said quite clearly that the editor community ran itself.
But if dwindling editor participation is an existential threat, surely that's a core WMF problem? I'm curious what this looked like from inside WMF.
How was this problem presented and discussed inside of WMF?
As an editor, I had an opportunity to discuss it with Sue Gardner at a meet up with other editors. The feedback from other editors was so strong, I'm baffled that WMF couldn't address it.
Although, I understood from Sue that WMF's role was only as a software company that made tools. She said quite clearly that the editor community ran itself.
But if dwindling editor participation is an existential threat, surely that's a core WMF problem? I'm curious what this looked like from inside WMF.
> That said i dont think anyone really knows what to do about the editor decline.
Pay them? Tens of millions of dollars in donations, what's the excuse not to?
Pay them? Tens of millions of dollars in donations, what's the excuse not to?
So there are roughly 150,000 active editors ( hard to get good numbers cross language/project https://wikistats.wmcloud.org/wikimedias_html.php?s=ausers_d... but if you sum you double count people active in multiple which is common).
WMF had 104 million in revenue in 2018. Even if you could give all of that to contributors, no administrative fees, no money to buy servers, no developers, no bank fees, etc (highly unrealistic), you would only be able to give rmeach person $690. That hardly seems like enough to actually get people to edit wikipedia as a job.
There's also plenty of articles on the internet about how introducing money into volunteer projects can very easily cause the project to collapse and have unexpected side effects.
WMF had 104 million in revenue in 2018. Even if you could give all of that to contributors, no administrative fees, no money to buy servers, no developers, no bank fees, etc (highly unrealistic), you would only be able to give rmeach person $690. That hardly seems like enough to actually get people to edit wikipedia as a job.
There's also plenty of articles on the internet about how introducing money into volunteer projects can very easily cause the project to collapse and have unexpected side effects.
"Gardner was instrumental in raising Wikipedia's warchest and WMF's staffing. In 2011/12 - the last year for which figures are available - the Foundation raised $38.4m, up from $5m in 2007/08"
Wikipedia Foundation exec: Yes, we've been wasting your money Editors should get dosh, bureaucrats get too much, says outgoing fundraising chief
https://www.theregister.com/2013/10/08/wikipedia_foundation_...
Wikipedia Foundation exec: Yes, we've been wasting your money Editors should get dosh, bureaucrats get too much, says outgoing fundraising chief
https://www.theregister.com/2013/10/08/wikipedia_foundation_...
> Is the non profit to gate people from editing if arbitrary diversity requirements aren't met?
Notice how you're the one suggesting `diversity requirements' and then proceed by going on a tirade about it. There are many things to be done about diversity and not all of them requires coercion.
Notice how you're the one suggesting `diversity requirements' and then proceed by going on a tirade about it. There are many things to be done about diversity and not all of them requires coercion.
The comment I replied to mentioned gender about a cohort of participants ("I'm curious because my experience of editing, and that of other people I heard from at an editor meet up, was that the culture is heavily male dominated"), hence where my statement comes from. I want to see quality work regardless of who is doing it, and the folks doing this are uncompensated volunteers.
EDIT: @TheNorthman I cannot reply to your comment as I'm throttled by HN. Put bluntly, the gender of contributors does not matter and shouldn't even be considered. Let contributions stand on their own merit.
EDIT: @TheNorthman I cannot reply to your comment as I'm throttled by HN. Put bluntly, the gender of contributors does not matter and shouldn't even be considered. Let contributions stand on their own merit.
You are right, toomuchtodo, that anyone can edit Wikipedia. If you want to see "quality work regardless of who is doing it" then it would pay to look deeper into the dynamics of gender.
Why?
Male editing culture tends to work differently to female editing culture.
How?
One tends to be hierarchical. The other tends to be cooperative.
It's possible to develop a system that uses both of these modes to sharpen the editorial process, but that doesn't happen through self organisation when the starting point is a large gender imbalance.
Resolving this conflict is one of the biggest challenges faced by Wikipedia.
The difficulty is, however, that WMF isn't directly involved with Wikipedia content, which comes from the community. WMF is just a software company responsible for the tools the community uses for publishing.
Why?
Male editing culture tends to work differently to female editing culture.
How?
One tends to be hierarchical. The other tends to be cooperative.
It's possible to develop a system that uses both of these modes to sharpen the editorial process, but that doesn't happen through self organisation when the starting point is a large gender imbalance.
Resolving this conflict is one of the biggest challenges faced by Wikipedia.
The difficulty is, however, that WMF isn't directly involved with Wikipedia content, which comes from the community. WMF is just a software company responsible for the tools the community uses for publishing.
Sure. I'm not disputing them bringing up gender diversity, I'm simply stating that nobody but you were talking about requirements and keeping people out to meet certain `diversity requirements'. You were, simply put, attacking your own straw-man.
One thing for HN readers to note is that the article is intended for people in the Effective Altruism community i.e. people who are going to donate anyway, and are just trying to decide where to direct their donation.
If you're in the majority of the population that doesn't regularly donate to a significant level, then please don't let this article simply turn your internal "should I donate to Wikipedia" switch off and leave everything else as is. Instead, start treating the Wikipedia donation banners as reminders to donate to some charity that you feel is worth giving to. (The EA forums would likely be a good place to research that, as well.)
If you're in the majority of the population that doesn't regularly donate to a significant level, then please don't let this article simply turn your internal "should I donate to Wikipedia" switch off and leave everything else as is. Instead, start treating the Wikipedia donation banners as reminders to donate to some charity that you feel is worth giving to. (The EA forums would likely be a good place to research that, as well.)
> Wikipedia has helped me so much, it's important to pay back: The WMF has done a reasonable job of stewardship, but I believe that insofar as there inheres a strong moral obligation to pay back, this obligation is to content creators. Donating to the WMF does not reward past content creators.
That's an interesting point, and it got me thinking: what does reward past content creators? As someone who has contributed to and created Wikipedia articles in the past, I tried to imagine what would feel like a reward to me, and the things that come to mind are:
a. People adding to those articles and making them more and more polished, turning them into A-class articles that I'd be proud to have contributed to.
b. Knowing that the article has helped someone in some specific way, changing their life a little bit. Some kind of "thank you" page attached to the articles would be nice, where a school kid could tell you how the article brought the subject to life for her, or a middle aged man could say thanks for informing him about his medical condition. (I can see the practical issues with this, but even a heavily-moderated slowly-updated page would serve the purpose, and would provide positive value.)
That's an interesting point, and it got me thinking: what does reward past content creators? As someone who has contributed to and created Wikipedia articles in the past, I tried to imagine what would feel like a reward to me, and the things that come to mind are:
a. People adding to those articles and making them more and more polished, turning them into A-class articles that I'd be proud to have contributed to.
b. Knowing that the article has helped someone in some specific way, changing their life a little bit. Some kind of "thank you" page attached to the articles would be nice, where a school kid could tell you how the article brought the subject to life for her, or a middle aged man could say thanks for informing him about his medical condition. (I can see the practical issues with this, but even a heavily-moderated slowly-updated page would serve the purpose, and would provide positive value.)
Some of the most heavily-contributing editors to Wikipedia are on the autistic spectrum. (I don’t think this is a very controversial statement for anyone involved in the community.) They are editing because organizing information and making articles as complete as possible assuages an inner itch – essentially the work is its own reward. Paying them for their activity would not change much, and I personally would question whether it is even necessary.
What does some editors being on the spectrum have to do with anything? OP's point was that if you are going to financially reward anyone for providing you with well-written Wikipedia articles ideally it would be the people who created the articles, and donating money to the WMF doesn't reward these people at all.
I think it was another answer to the GP question "what does reward past content creators?"
The editing and organizing work is satisfying to some types of people, including some people on the autism spectrum. And that specific type of satisfying work is rewarding to them. Kind of like how a freshly mown lawn is satisfying to others. There are plenty of people who love mowing their lawn that would hate to do it as a job for others.
The editing and organizing work is satisfying to some types of people, including some people on the autism spectrum. And that specific type of satisfying work is rewarding to them. Kind of like how a freshly mown lawn is satisfying to others. There are plenty of people who love mowing their lawn that would hate to do it as a job for others.
I think GP's point was that for many contributors, simply organizing the information well is its own reward. And therefore being paid for that work is a smaller deal than it might be for other populations.
I was going to complain but my experience with Wikipedia is this is pretty true.
I continue to find it amazing and admirable that it is a trait of humanity (or some people within humanity) to want to record/create/leave behind information about the world and explain it to others. At little to no reward to themselves aside from satisfaction and fulfillment.
I donate to Wikipedia every year because I use the product almost every day, and I consider it paying for a good product, not a donation.
They happen to be set up as a foundation where I can look at their financials, but in my mind I treat them more like a private company.
If they want to waste my money then so be it. I pay what I think is a fair price for the amount of value I get from the product.
They happen to be set up as a foundation where I can look at their financials, but in my mind I treat them more like a private company.
If they want to waste my money then so be it. I pay what I think is a fair price for the amount of value I get from the product.
I think the crux of the argument is that the money is largely not going to improving the product, which is mostly done by volunteer editors and contributors, but it is going to a management class fighting over project funding for new initiatives. This argument may be out of date since they have had a huge management shakeup since it was written, but the criticism that volunteer labour produces the bulk of the value is still worth considering.
Right, the fundamental assumption of a market-based economy is that there is some nexus between paying for a product and the existence of that product. That's the way that the market can reward and therefore optimize for things people want. For your average for-profit company, that's a reasonably safe assumption.
When you decide to donate to a non-profit as if you were paying for a product, that assumption doesn't necessarily hold. In this case, you know fairly clearly it doesn't hold: the money doesn't go towards either the future development of the product, the continued existence of the service, or the motivation of people in the future to set up things like Wikipedia (no future Jimmy-Wales-in-2001 is going to be influenced by the 2015 Wikimedia financials). As a charitable donor, you cannot create such a nexus just by wanting it to exist.
(However, what you can create is a nexus between your charitable donation and the fundraising department of whoever you're giving to - all the more if you appear to donate in response to fundraising campaigns and not in response to the actual work the organization is doing.)
This is also why I'm a skeptic of large companies/conglomerates, which have the revenue to continue their existence basically regardless of any individual product. Very few companies operate internally on a market-based economy; they operate on the human judgment of whether management likes you and what you do. That means that a small new project that makes significant profit as a percentage of its expenses might still be a drop in the bucket of the company as a whole, and a politically-important project that's losing money might still continue to be funded if the company can afford its losses. The company might (entirely rationally) decide that "strategically" it should continue to invest in that product, which is to say that it should take advantage of the fact that it's not subject to the usual market pressures to drive out smaller or even differently-shaped competitors that are.
When you decide to donate to a non-profit as if you were paying for a product, that assumption doesn't necessarily hold. In this case, you know fairly clearly it doesn't hold: the money doesn't go towards either the future development of the product, the continued existence of the service, or the motivation of people in the future to set up things like Wikipedia (no future Jimmy-Wales-in-2001 is going to be influenced by the 2015 Wikimedia financials). As a charitable donor, you cannot create such a nexus just by wanting it to exist.
(However, what you can create is a nexus between your charitable donation and the fundraising department of whoever you're giving to - all the more if you appear to donate in response to fundraising campaigns and not in response to the actual work the organization is doing.)
This is also why I'm a skeptic of large companies/conglomerates, which have the revenue to continue their existence basically regardless of any individual product. Very few companies operate internally on a market-based economy; they operate on the human judgment of whether management likes you and what you do. That means that a small new project that makes significant profit as a percentage of its expenses might still be a drop in the bucket of the company as a whole, and a politically-important project that's losing money might still continue to be funded if the company can afford its losses. The company might (entirely rationally) decide that "strategically" it should continue to invest in that product, which is to say that it should take advantage of the fact that it's not subject to the usual market pressures to drive out smaller or even differently-shaped competitors that are.
> but it is going to a management class fighting over project funding for new initiatives
Why are they fighting to fund new initiatives when Jimmy has to beg for donations just to keep the lights on? I want my money to go towards keeping current Wikipedia's lights on, not funding the next big idea some manager has.
Why are they fighting to fund new initiatives when Jimmy has to beg for donations just to keep the lights on? I want my money to go towards keeping current Wikipedia's lights on, not funding the next big idea some manager has.
They don't have to beg for donations to keep the lights on. That's kind of the problem. They are vastly overfunded for running wikipedia and mostly squander any additional income they receive on non-Wikipedia projects. This is very well documented here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER
They get more and more in donations every year and continue to ramp up their spending, mostly not on Wikipedia (neither operating costs nor "R&D" type costs).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER
They get more and more in donations every year and continue to ramp up their spending, mostly not on Wikipedia (neither operating costs nor "R&D" type costs).
Wow, if that's true their emails are really deceptive...
"About a year ago, you donated $15 to keep Wikipedia online for hundreds of millions of readers. I'm surprised by and deeply grateful for your continued support. You are part of the 2% of readers who donated to support Wikipedia. We need your help again this year ... most people will ignore this message. We have no choice but to turn to you: please renew your gift to ensure that Wikipedia remains independent, ad-free, and thriving another year."
I read that as "please donate or we might have to use ads to keep lights on if you don't"
"About a year ago, you donated $15 to keep Wikipedia online for hundreds of millions of readers. I'm surprised by and deeply grateful for your continued support. You are part of the 2% of readers who donated to support Wikipedia. We need your help again this year ... most people will ignore this message. We have no choice but to turn to you: please renew your gift to ensure that Wikipedia remains independent, ad-free, and thriving another year."
I read that as "please donate or we might have to use ads to keep lights on if you don't"
Yes, I agree their fundraising messaging is deceptive and it's the primary reason I no longer give money to them.
Other than wikidata and sometimes commons, most other wikimedia projects (as in websites being run by wikimedia foundation) get almost none of the money directed at them.
They have enough to keep the server lights on and a crew of maintenance employees, and the fights are over how to expand past that and justify more donations, or which things that have expanded past that are kept and not cut.
But wikipedia is written by unpaid volunteers...
I'm seeing a lot of comments that say things like "so what should I do instead?" The article doesn't specify, but the forum it's posted on (effectivealtruism.org) has a lot to say about this topic. One simple recommendation would be to look at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities instead.
A sketch of the argument: If you think donating is important, it's because on some level, you're hoping to bring about some good in the world. You donate to Wikipedia hoping to encourage Wikipedia to continue existing, and more work to go in to the effort of building Wikipedia.
But I'll bet that you care about other good things in the world as well: saving sick children, preventing climate change, fighting unjust policies. There's a lot of things you could make an impact on donating. How do you decide?
Effective Altruism states that not all donations are equally effective. One charity might take your $1000 and use it to buy a dying child an all-expenses-paid vacation to Disneyland. Another might use it buying bed nets to prevent the spread of malaria, in expectation keeping one more child alive than would have died. And given that your budget is limited and you can't afford both, you must decide which is more valuable to you.
So this article roughly says, "Wikipedia is a great and noble cause. But here's why it doesn't come close to the _very, absolute best_ way to use your money to help others."
A sketch of the argument: If you think donating is important, it's because on some level, you're hoping to bring about some good in the world. You donate to Wikipedia hoping to encourage Wikipedia to continue existing, and more work to go in to the effort of building Wikipedia.
But I'll bet that you care about other good things in the world as well: saving sick children, preventing climate change, fighting unjust policies. There's a lot of things you could make an impact on donating. How do you decide?
Effective Altruism states that not all donations are equally effective. One charity might take your $1000 and use it to buy a dying child an all-expenses-paid vacation to Disneyland. Another might use it buying bed nets to prevent the spread of malaria, in expectation keeping one more child alive than would have died. And given that your budget is limited and you can't afford both, you must decide which is more valuable to you.
So this article roughly says, "Wikipedia is a great and noble cause. But here's why it doesn't come close to the _very, absolute best_ way to use your money to help others."
Honestly I read through the article and wasn’t a fan of the authors points. Eg wiki only has four years of excess reserves - compare that to many other foundations and endowments and that number looks low. And he thinks its okay for them to get more money from larger donors vs their attempt at targetting small individual donations which allow wikipedia to maintain neutrality. Really don’t know why he made that argument...
They have approximately $165 million in assets and the total running costs for wikipedia servers are on the order of $2 million a year. They could keep the lights on for wikipedia for something like 80 years without a single dime of additional revenue.
The vast majority of their spending does not go to keeping wikipedia's lights on, and that is the only reason their excess reserves are as low as "four years."
Here's the graph of revenue and spending over time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/graph/png/User%3AG...
The vast majority of their spending does not go to keeping wikipedia's lights on, and that is the only reason their excess reserves are as low as "four years."
Here's the graph of revenue and spending over time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/graph/png/User%3AG...
Yes but the answer would be somewhere in the middle — you need some level of overhead expenses above the bare minimum otherwise the ship will slowly start creaking and falling apart. I didn’t see that much evidence that they were overpaying staff (in contrast to Mozilla), which I apologise to the Author if I missed it.
I didn't see a top-level comment linking the other relatively well-known, related article, so here it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER (2016, updated through 2020)
You can agree or disagree with the conclusions, and agree or disagree on the value of WMF's non-wikipedia projects, but the facts are not in dispute (annual revenue, expenses, net assets are all from WMF published figures).
Previously:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21699011
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15429067
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14287235
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER (2016, updated through 2020)
You can agree or disagree with the conclusions, and agree or disagree on the value of WMF's non-wikipedia projects, but the facts are not in dispute (annual revenue, expenses, net assets are all from WMF published figures).
Previously:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21699011
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15429067
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14287235
Yeah, this exponential increase in spending is what made me stop donating. I used to donate, but that was when I thought what they were trying to do was amass themselves enough capital so the return on investment would fund them indefinitely.
When I saw the cost inflation that came in lock-step with the increase in donations, I figured all my donation would buy was more bloat, not more security about the future of wikipedia.
If anything, donating seemed to leave the future of wikipedia less secure, because as long as costs were exploding, they would be more fragile to an economic downturn or controversy which reduced donations. It's easier to raise an extra 1 million dollars from alternate sources, then it is to raise an extra 100 million dollars from alternate sources.
Thriftiness is key to longevity, and they do not have it, and I will not contribute until they do. Once I'm convinced they have a culture of thrift, I'll contribute generously.
When I saw the cost inflation that came in lock-step with the increase in donations, I figured all my donation would buy was more bloat, not more security about the future of wikipedia.
If anything, donating seemed to leave the future of wikipedia less secure, because as long as costs were exploding, they would be more fragile to an economic downturn or controversy which reduced donations. It's easier to raise an extra 1 million dollars from alternate sources, then it is to raise an extra 100 million dollars from alternate sources.
Thriftiness is key to longevity, and they do not have it, and I will not contribute until they do. Once I'm convinced they have a culture of thrift, I'll contribute generously.
The article's conclusion doesn't really even seem to have a conclusion, does it? It looks to be a list of counterpoints to a non-exhaustive listing of reasons to donate, but it doesn't conclude whether one should or should not donate.
On one hand, I'm grateful because Wikipedia has been so useful to me.
On the other hand, the Spanish version of Wikipedia is rife with ideologically biased articles if you venture into anything that talks about politics or history. The English version is, for the most part, free of this, probably because there are more people reviewing it.
We shouldn't underestimate the propagandist power of Wikipedia in non-English languages, especially when some people give it more credibility than it deserves.
On the other hand, the Spanish version of Wikipedia is rife with ideologically biased articles if you venture into anything that talks about politics or history. The English version is, for the most part, free of this, probably because there are more people reviewing it.
We shouldn't underestimate the propagandist power of Wikipedia in non-English languages, especially when some people give it more credibility than it deserves.
I donated in the past and would have said yes in 2015.
in 2020 however it appears to me that wikpedia gentrified, accruing a thick fat of bureaucrats and has somewhat been stagnating around his stack.
reducing support is maybe a good opportunity for them to lean down a little and get back at rethinking the future of crowd knowledge self-organization, instead of putting layers of gates and red tapes around each bureaucrat turf.
in 2020 however it appears to me that wikpedia gentrified, accruing a thick fat of bureaucrats and has somewhat been stagnating around his stack.
reducing support is maybe a good opportunity for them to lean down a little and get back at rethinking the future of crowd knowledge self-organization, instead of putting layers of gates and red tapes around each bureaucrat turf.
Article is fair and well reasoned. I used to donate a fair amount to WMF multiple times a year, but over the years they have fallen prey to activist editors that have really tainted the value of a lot of articles. I recognize that it's a difficult problem, but last I looked into it it didn't seem that they were doing enough to combat it, and it has really compromised their value.
The WMF does a lousy job engaging with librarians and scientists, and the stuff they do spend money on has nothing to do with their core mission, that's knowledge systematization and dissemination. So the answer is a loud no.
This is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I'm curious what folks think: I don't like Wikipedia.
I think it's done more harm than good, I think the editing process is biased, skews to the political left or right (depending on the article), Wikipedia also generally skews secular and humanist (because that's the nature of most contributors). References constantly 404, but that's not even the main problem: references are not parsed properly. A lot of times, I'll look at a cited paper and its cited content will be diametrically opposed to what the Wiki page says.
Controversial topics are nightmare, and contributing to them is even more of a nightmare. The voting process, by definition, is flawed -- and Wikipedia is very much a "tyranny by majority." The only articles that are high quality tend to be very technical ones (where you generally have professionals in the field contribute to non-controversial topics). Most rules -- like NOR, NPOV, and BLP, are implemented haphazardly.
Why do I think Wikipedia has done more harm than good? Because there's a new phenomenon where one reads the Wiki page of a complex topic (say, something like Free Will) and 5 minutes later, the reader thinks they're a bonafide expert on a topic that has puzzled humanity for millennia. There's a reason Wikipedia can't be cited in college (heck, even high school) papers: it's low quality and unvetted. I make it a point to never cite Wikipedia in online discussion. I'd rather cite Wolfram Alpha, or a professor's personal webpage, or a specific paper.
Even before Wikipedia, you had knowledge being disseminated via the web: philosophy professors had their own web-pages, theologians had their own web-pages, and particle physicists had their own web-pages -- all filled with morsels of specific (and often times technical) information. I really wish Encyclopaedia Britannica put more efforts into their own knowledge base, but I get it: high-quality vetted content is hard to do. Wikipedia takes shortcuts, and we'd be foolish to ignore its shortcomings.
I think it's done more harm than good, I think the editing process is biased, skews to the political left or right (depending on the article), Wikipedia also generally skews secular and humanist (because that's the nature of most contributors). References constantly 404, but that's not even the main problem: references are not parsed properly. A lot of times, I'll look at a cited paper and its cited content will be diametrically opposed to what the Wiki page says.
Controversial topics are nightmare, and contributing to them is even more of a nightmare. The voting process, by definition, is flawed -- and Wikipedia is very much a "tyranny by majority." The only articles that are high quality tend to be very technical ones (where you generally have professionals in the field contribute to non-controversial topics). Most rules -- like NOR, NPOV, and BLP, are implemented haphazardly.
Why do I think Wikipedia has done more harm than good? Because there's a new phenomenon where one reads the Wiki page of a complex topic (say, something like Free Will) and 5 minutes later, the reader thinks they're a bonafide expert on a topic that has puzzled humanity for millennia. There's a reason Wikipedia can't be cited in college (heck, even high school) papers: it's low quality and unvetted. I make it a point to never cite Wikipedia in online discussion. I'd rather cite Wolfram Alpha, or a professor's personal webpage, or a specific paper.
Even before Wikipedia, you had knowledge being disseminated via the web: philosophy professors had their own web-pages, theologians had their own web-pages, and particle physicists had their own web-pages -- all filled with morsels of specific (and often times technical) information. I really wish Encyclopaedia Britannica put more efforts into their own knowledge base, but I get it: high-quality vetted content is hard to do. Wikipedia takes shortcuts, and we'd be foolish to ignore its shortcomings.
I’ve also thought about this and I’m undecided.
On the one hand, I don’t think Wikipedia has made people like me smarter. Maybe the opposite: for all the diversity of opinion I think there’s way more outright BS on Wikipedia than in, say, Brittanica.
On the other hand, I can imagine lots of people don’t have easy access to more “authoritative” sources. And I’ve certainly learned a little bit about a lot of things there.
In the middle, I guess, Wikipedia is a good place to start learning about something, but a terrible place to finish.
As to financing it, I’ve always held the unpopular position that they should run ads. It would be the perfect place to try privacy-respecting advertising.
On the one hand, I don’t think Wikipedia has made people like me smarter. Maybe the opposite: for all the diversity of opinion I think there’s way more outright BS on Wikipedia than in, say, Brittanica.
On the other hand, I can imagine lots of people don’t have easy access to more “authoritative” sources. And I’ve certainly learned a little bit about a lot of things there.
In the middle, I guess, Wikipedia is a good place to start learning about something, but a terrible place to finish.
As to financing it, I’ve always held the unpopular position that they should run ads. It would be the perfect place to try privacy-respecting advertising.
> The only articles that are high quality tend to be very technical ones
Really? Technical subjects tend to be some of the worst on wikipedia. Articles on say undergrad math topics tend to be very poor introductions to a topic.
> Because there's a new phenomenon where one reads the Wiki page of a complex topic (say, something like Free Will) and 5 minutes later, the reader thinks they're a bonafide expert on a topic that has puzzled humanity for millennia
I don't think this is a new thing. Encyclopedia articles are by nature introductory. Didn't the same thing happen with britanica back in the day. This seems less an argument against wikipedia and more an argument against letting lay people have access to educational resources at all.
> I really wish Encyclopaedia Britannica put more efforts into their own knowledge base, but I get it: high-quality vetted content is hard to do.
But is Britannica actually high quality? When people do comparisons, britannica doesnt usually come out as being significantly better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Compa...
Really? Technical subjects tend to be some of the worst on wikipedia. Articles on say undergrad math topics tend to be very poor introductions to a topic.
> Because there's a new phenomenon where one reads the Wiki page of a complex topic (say, something like Free Will) and 5 minutes later, the reader thinks they're a bonafide expert on a topic that has puzzled humanity for millennia
I don't think this is a new thing. Encyclopedia articles are by nature introductory. Didn't the same thing happen with britanica back in the day. This seems less an argument against wikipedia and more an argument against letting lay people have access to educational resources at all.
> I really wish Encyclopaedia Britannica put more efforts into their own knowledge base, but I get it: high-quality vetted content is hard to do.
But is Britannica actually high quality? When people do comparisons, britannica doesnt usually come out as being significantly better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Compa...
> Really? Technical subjects tend to be some of the worst on wikipedia. Articles on say undergrad math topics tend to be very poor introductions to a topic.
True, that's why I said very technical. The ones on advanced math are pretty good (for example, technical logic/metalogic articles have impressed me). The ones on undergrad math tend to be edited by.. undergrads ;)
True, that's why I said very technical. The ones on advanced math are pretty good (for example, technical logic/metalogic articles have impressed me). The ones on undergrad math tend to be edited by.. undergrads ;)
On the contrary, the problem with undergrad math articles is they are usually written at the wrong level. They are often written at a graduate level, where the function of an introductory article is to introduce someone to the topic. You should be able to understand any encyclopedia article just with a high school education imo (its an encyclopedia, not a scientific paper or a textbook), or at the most you should maybe have to read 1 or 2 other articles for background.
I did a double-check on a few "simple" math topics, and -- yeah -- I think you're right. The Pythagorean theorem[1] article (even though rated as "Good") is all over the place, not to mention way too long. If I want a super simple introduction, Math Planet does a much better job[2]. And if I want a more technical deep-dive, Wolfram Alpha does a better job[3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem
[2] https://www.mathplanet.com/education/pre-algebra/right-trian...
[3] https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PythagoreanTheorem.html
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem
[2] https://www.mathplanet.com/education/pre-algebra/right-trian...
[3] https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PythagoreanTheorem.html
You are not alone. Quoting pterry:
> Wikipedia is wonderful, it provokes wonder.
> ...
> Wikipedia is terrific. It begets terror.
What's more, it is amusing to leaf through the revision history of many pages, and notice patterns of wilful suppression of evidence and deliberate propaganda.
It is delightful to browse contributions of various checkusers, and see clearly which part of the establishment they represent.
> Wikipedia is wonderful, it provokes wonder.
> ...
> Wikipedia is terrific. It begets terror.
What's more, it is amusing to leaf through the revision history of many pages, and notice patterns of wilful suppression of evidence and deliberate propaganda.
It is delightful to browse contributions of various checkusers, and see clearly which part of the establishment they represent.
I know children's cancer and other horrible things pull on more heart strings, but Wikipedia makes such a huge wealth of great information available to such a huge percentage of the world, including many poor people who might otherwise not have access to much education. Saving sick kids is kind, but there are lot of healthy kids who could use a leg up too.
I honestly don't value the other Wikimedia projects very much, and I'm sure there is waste in their policies and beuracracy, but assuming Wikipedia is only getting 10% of my donations, I still think it's great bang for the buck.
If there is a better charity, I'd like to know about it. However, this article reads to me as "Meh, you shouldn't really feel obligated", and I don't think it said much that was useful.