Being able to run a site without donations for years without any incoming donations is a great thing, but years isn’t really that long, and what would happen when that money ran out? There would be a last minute funding push for a company with a proven record of financial malpractice, who would want to donate to it then?
You’re right that the editors don’t get money, but they do get a reputable unbiased platform that they can share their knowledge on, and for many people that’s more than enough. (Source: Wikipedia, Reddit, Lemmy)
I find it very dishonest that they design their donation banners in a way to paint themselves as people who are in a dire, needy situation when in reality they could run that high-traffic website for several more decades with their current capital. This article claims it could even be 75 years.
In case the rich managers will actually run down the website, I think another website like it would pop up really quick. The Wikipedia software is open-source and there are many other Wikis already. Creating another “general” instance seems trivial. People who do the work would not lose a permanent paid employment because they don’t have one, they would just switch over to the next instance. Wikipedias data (and many other Wikis) are already being backed up by third parties. The knowledge will not be lost.
Oftentimes, doing a job for the “good will” really doesn’t pay off. Being an admin or moderator can take a huge mental toll. That’s one reason we are not on reddit anymore: They also don’t pay their moderators while the CEO is a rich asshole. Another current example is the reason of the shutting down of the lemm.ee instance (explained in their stickied post). A lot of workers in non-digital jobs get abused in the same way: No or low salary but too much working hours. They, too, are expected that “doing something good” would somehow prevent the excessive mental and physical stress they experience. Examples are hospital and nursing staff and animal welfare and shelter staff.
Being able to run a site without donations for years without any incoming donations is a great thing, but years isn’t really that long, and what would happen when that money ran out? There would be a last minute funding push for a company with a proven record of financial malpractice, who would want to donate to it then?
You’re right that the editors don’t get money, but they do get a reputable unbiased platform that they can share their knowledge on, and for many people that’s more than enough. (Source: Wikipedia, Reddit, Lemmy)
I find it very dishonest that they design their donation banners in a way to paint themselves as people who are in a dire, needy situation when in reality they could run that high-traffic website for several more decades with their current capital. This article claims it could even be 75 years.
In case the rich managers will actually run down the website, I think another website like it would pop up really quick. The Wikipedia software is open-source and there are many other Wikis already. Creating another “general” instance seems trivial. People who do the work would not lose a permanent paid employment because they don’t have one, they would just switch over to the next instance. Wikipedias data (and many other Wikis) are already being backed up by third parties. The knowledge will not be lost.
Oftentimes, doing a job for the “good will” really doesn’t pay off. Being an admin or moderator can take a huge mental toll. That’s one reason we are not on reddit anymore: They also don’t pay their moderators while the CEO is a rich asshole. Another current example is the reason of the shutting down of the lemm.ee instance (explained in their stickied post). A lot of workers in non-digital jobs get abused in the same way: No or low salary but too much working hours. They, too, are expected that “doing something good” would somehow prevent the excessive mental and physical stress they experience. Examples are hospital and nursing staff and animal welfare and shelter staff.