I think it's fair to ask for a donation, but be transparent. I'd rather see "Hey, do you like Wikipedia? Would you mind making a donation to maintain the services?" instead of "We are about to shut down, please donate"
@@Andrewdeank If it’s sold, it could easily be infected with misinformation. Just think is Amazon buys it or something, and deletes all non-Bezos related pages.
@@Andrewdeank That is incredibly short sighted. You know you can change Wikipedia, right? Now imagine someone owning it. They would obviously manipulate the information to serve their own interest, both old articles and new ones. Just look at how Musk manipulates Twitter. He literally threatened to do the same to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia getting excess funding isn't really a problem on its own, its when you see other projects like the Internet Archive struggling as with the recent court case against Hachette getting much less attention because of how much fundraising attention Wikipedia draws
The issue with Internet Archive isn't money but copyright laws. Because they are clearly breaking the current ones. You can't just undo that with a few millions.
@@Alias_Anybody How are they breaking "copyright laws" when all they do is archive the original website?; why don't they sue search engines for listing the sites with illegally spread software? It just seems like politicians are being bribed by corporations to bring it down without any real reason
@@Alias_Anybody They broke copyright law in 2020 with their emergency library initiative. They are not currently breaking copyright law so that money would help. That wouldn't solve all their problems as they'd need to get their library status reinvoked and would need to honor DMCA requests in the interim, but they would be able to survive.
As a software engineer at the Wikimedia Foundation, we actually are pretty hard pressed. With the scale that we run things, we really need world-class engineers, but that also means that we need to compete in salary and benefits with big tech companies, but we don't have any stocks or bonuses to give out. That just isn't happening. I personally passed up $70,000 in the first year alone by joining Wikimedia over Microsoft or Amazon. My team is ridiculously small compared to the amount of work that we govern, and I don't think other teams are faring much better. But everyone is here because we actually care. Everything we do is to benefit the volunteer community. Making a new visual editor, making tools to combat abuse and spam, making better ways to visualize data, etc. Can you imagine how difficult it is to make a program that has to work in 300+ different languages? I remember one time years ago I changed some random piece of code and it broke only arabic wikidata and I still don't know how that happened. I'm going to shut up now before I go on a rant
@@mojewjewjew4420 I mean... As far as I know Wikipedia just pops up the info you look up. You're hardly gonna become a flat earther by looking up stuff on Wikipedia
@@mojewjewjew4420 THEY don't put, they allow it to be there because its community driven, they can't monitor their entire website, dumbshit. Plus they don't do edits, or add content
@@balls450 yeah but still not everyone uses an ad blocker and its just annoying in general to have to do so, i think ads wld take away from what the site is like tbh which an ad blocker cant rlly hide
On the one hand, it is definitely kind of deceptive with how they frame the “need” for independent donations. On the other, I visit Wikipedia so much that I feel like giving $3 to them once is only fair given that I already pay like $10 a month just to stream music.
The problem is that wikipedia is almost entirely run by volunteers. The server costs are negligible to actually host the webpages. Therefore, your not really supporting the people who provide you with the value when you donate.
@@oscarharvey6215That’s fair. I would probably repeatedly donate to them if I knew that the site moderators were actually getting compensated, I just don’t mind giving a small one time donation as a sort of “thank you” to the site’s owners given how much I have gained from using it. I completely get what you’re saying though
Wikipedia is one of the last vestiges of the Internet that has not yet ensh*tiffied while everyone else has. In the old days, Wikipedia actually reached server capacity limits. It is too easy to take them for granted just because it's been there for a long time and nothing seriously has gone wrong.
@@bubbleboy821 I'm sure they will need it one day once the AI bubble bursts and the world enters an energy crisis. On a side note Wikipedia content can be downloaded or forked if you have a large enough disk to store it, so that hopefully at least some version of it survives if something did go wrong.
And yet whilst the servers were running at near catch fire capacity, Jimmy was paying himself six figure sums and rolling around in a Beemer on our dime whilst reading hagiographies of himself published by well-meaning sycophants 😂
I mean, apart from the guilt tripping, i have used Wikipedia on so many assignments, and to gather knowledge, that i feel fair to donate some money, knowing that Wikipedia is not going to shut down any time soon, i can make more informed decisions, but I'd still donate to Wikipedia for not giving ads, and just asking for a money on a banner that i can close.... I feel it's fair to give my share towards keeping such a legendary website alive and thriving
The video does have a point in that Wikipedia's banners are honestly pretty annoying, but a lot of the math behind it seems disingenuous and trying to craft a more clickbait-ey narrative for RUclips. For example, it looks like Wikipedia has $375M in cash/securities, but how is that enough to run it for 100 years...? Even assuming that old burn rate of $10M/year, it would be gone in less than 40 years. I've worked in Silicon Valley for 10+ years including at Big Tech companies like Facebook, and running a huge website or app isn't cheap. At Wikimedia's scale, you need a ton of compute and a ton of world-class software engineers. $375M sounds like a lot of money to the average non-tech person, but trust me, it's really not a lot when you are literally serving billions of page visits per month.
@@alexveber Even then, invested money is earning at most 5% to 10% annually. Assuming a very generous 10% annual return, that's an additional $37.5M per year. That's peanuts when you're operating at Wikipedia's scale - You can easily burn through that in a single quarter. In order to comfortably run something at Wikipedia's scale for literally 100 years, you would need *minimum* $10 billion in the bank.
@@FBWalshyFTWI get that it costs a lot of money to run a huge website like that but is it really THAT much? You can burn 37.5 million in a quarter, really? How do you back those claims? I’m not trying to be confrontational just asking. Yes it’s huge amounts of data and visits but servers are cheap nowadays. You only need to pay the developers to keep the site running, they aren’t really developing any groundbreaking new features to Wikipedia. Many employees aren’t even tech staff like the video said, but marketing and lobbying and similar.
I agree with you. Plus, this video makes those banners out to be a larger problem than they actually are. There are much worse things happening on the internet to do a 12 minute video going after Wikipedia (one of the nicest places on the internet).
@kingace6186 Very well! Then let's make a society where not-profit media don't need to pay to mantain their core goals alive do you have any fucking idea how much keeping up all the wikimedia servers up, and all the related expenses fucking cost? There are definitely not-profit companies which are just ways for corporations to get around laws and stuff, but come on, wikipedia? The only big site left with no ads, no trackers, no fucking scam, and which everyone in the world relies upon as an actual good source of information in a see of bullshit wellsite created only to get clicks, but with no actual value to the user? Really? Jeez, thanks man! Definitely do not be angry with google, microsoft, apple,... who day after day just make the web shittier and shittier only to get two more dollars here and here. Definitely be angry at wikipedia, instead, for asking for money the legitimately need to PAY FOR THEIR FUCKING EXPENSES
A foundation is not meant to spend its entire portfolio in a few years but to invest it so that it can grow faster than its spending requirements. Thus ensuring it can fulfil its mission indefinitely.
I'm an accountant with experience in the non-profit sector and I took a look at their audited financials, and I think this video is misguided and potentially dangerous. Donations made up $165m of the $180m contributions/revenue for 2023, while their expenses were 170mil. Their current assets only totaled $213m, which roughly matches their 16 month claim. However a large part of this video seems to guide the viewer towards the idea that Wikipedia is rich (including the title) and doesn't need your money and would be able to operate for a long time without donations and that their advertising is fearmongering. For example in calculating that Wikipedia would be able to operate their servers for 100 years with their current resources you made a bold assumption that server hosting is the only significant cost to maintain basic functionality of the website, despite only making up around 1-2% of their expenses in FY23. Now this leads into what Wikipedia is spending money on. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the operational requirements of an organization such as Wikipedia, but I'd be wary to assume the only critical costs are server hosting. Perhaps they could be more conservative with their spending, but that's an entirely different argument beyond "Wikipedia doesn't need your donation money to survive".
I think both Wikimedia and Fern made some mistakes in their thought process. Wikimedia it's asking money on it's website Wikipedia for the support of the entire company whilst claiming the money it's directed directly towards the maintenance for Wikipedia(otherwise it would close down) . Fern it's doing the oposite , he's focusing solely on Wikipedia (since that's where the banner came) , and he's taking the large amount (165 million) just for Wikipedia. So in a way Fern is more right than wrong . If i'm seeing a banner on Wikipedia , i would assume they are asking money for just this purpose and not for their other products/companies.
People who probably have never run an organisation do not understand how incredibly complex and expensive things can get. There is also an issue of recording assets at fair value vs recording historical value, which skews the perspective. The video is indeed misguided and sending a wrong message. Wikipedia is certainly one of the best things on the internet and it simply amazing that it is a free service.
Thank you for your perspective, even though we disagree. The main points we are making is that 1) WMF is collecting large amounts of money often in the name of protecting or saving Wikipedia, while 2) the money is actually used for a variety of purposes (which might be agreeable or not, but the donator will seldomly be aware of that) and 3) the writers, who make Wikipedia so amazing and worth supporting really do not appreciate the language on the banners. Assessing WMF's financials at a surface level does not indicate how expensive it is to maintain Wikipedia - as it is just one of many projects of the foundation, as detailed in the video. So in conclusion we believe all 3 points we are making are reasonable - this is probably best supported by the fact that WMF itself has been adjusting their donation banner wordings. Our video does not suggest that one should not donate to Wikipedia - just that one doesn't have to be afraid it will go up in flames if one doesn't.
Did you... not watch the video? The whole point is that their high costs are mostly the result of trying to get even more money, e.g. the salaries of people whose only job is to try to make even more money and expand the "business". It might be more than 1-2% but it's way closer to that than Wikipedia's ask. It's not that they could be "more conservative", it's that they are being the _opposite_ of conservative, there is no conservation there whatsoever.
For those of you looking for the information in the title, skip to 5:30. Before that is a basic summary of what wikipedia is, "Wikipedia is always asking for money" rephrased three times ad break and then a general history of wikipedia unrelated to their funding.
A “foundation” is often designed to have a banked amount of money where only the profits are used to pay expenses. Wikipedia is one of the few resources that still retains the original utility and directness of the internet. If they are profiting from it, hooray! They are maintaining a wonderful (though not perfect) product. Regarding asking for Money from areas like India, my take is that they are simply asking the strata of Indian society that are wealthy (even by western standards). Additionally paying the contributors is a sure way to begin corrupting the process with bots and nefarious actors trying to game the system. These donation banners are simply the closest thing to an ad that ever grace Wikipedia and if that is the trade off… I will willingly endure that
@@desudesudesudesudesudesuweb hosting is not cheap when your website is linked on most Google searches, Wikipedia gets 15 billion visitors monthly. You obviously don't know anything about hosting if you think this is cheap. And they OBVIOUSLY can't pay editors, that creates a conflict of interest which means editors will be biased, and try to focus on quantity instead of quality.
So true, if they just said please consider donating no one would even notice and that may have a worse affect like adding ads to make up for the unrealised income
Ok, so the banners are a bit deceptive (but the foundation is actually quite receptive to criticism), but overall - they are spending this money either for very interesting projects or to create more stable revenue sources. Overall, it seems pretty reasonable.
To all the people thinking Wikipedia is awful for asking for money: software developers are really expensive, servers are REALLY expensive. To host a website that, WITHOUT ANY ADS, hosts billions of pages to users every month, and works in over 300 languages, is insanely expensive. Asking for a few dollars in a pop-up occasionally that you can close is basically nothing for that level of cost. Most websites would just sell your data instead.
This is kind of what I'm also thinking about. My niche little community of 70,000 people once served 260 TB (terabytes) of data in barely a week, and we don't actually even *host* anything in real size. One of the developers said that if we had been an actual hosting site, it'd have rung upwards of $15,000 in server costs. Absolutely insane. All that said, their tone that they use I cannot really defend. But - yes - server and development costs really skyrocket beyond a certain point.
I wish some of the people I’ve read in these comments (as well as the author of this video) had a little better perspective on what the world was like before Wikipedia. Even among the rest of internet phenomena, Wikipedia is truly unique, and utterly invaluable. If the donation banners are working, it’s worth keeping them. I increased my monthly contribution after seeing this video.
For a fun comparison point... look at a list of the top 10 websites. Wikipedia is generally in that list, somewhere around #5. Every other company in that top 10 is a for-profit company that has revenue measured in billions of dollars. (Except for maybe reddit, if it's on the particular list you choose. It's just under a billion.) The hosting of Wikipedia is a lean shoestring affair compared to any of its traffic / cultural-relevance peers.
This is a perfect start to a series that criticizes and examines non-profit organizations, and wiki is nearly the most harmless + most useful. If the biggest criticism is sounding whiny and desperate for donations, that is an incredible accolade. Thank you for actual journalism. The fact that wiki was willing to respond also says good things about their morals. Marketing should not get in the way of their mission.
I have absolutely No problems donating to Wikipedia. I do it almost every time they ask, which is rare. Over 20 years, I've probably donated a few dollars 4-5 times. And I use Wikipedia almost daily and often many times a day. I've also occasionally contributed with corrections to the site. I would have no problems, if the creators even got a fat salary every year, despite being a non-profit organization. In any non-profit company, you are paid a salary, as an employee or employer.
@@GT_177 Yes it does. When in fact, she and her husband were friendly supporters who were both working for his campaign. Their affair began even before the death of Joe's wife. Once Jill's husband found out, he filed for a divorce. Jill wanted everything in the divorce (house, business, et cetera) but got nothing because the judge said that her adulterous actions were treacherous beyond compare.
This is my story almost exactly. They've asked me maybe twice through email and I've donated 2 or 3 times when hitting the wikipedia page and they asked. I usually give about $50 every 2-3 years. Honestly it's really not that intrusive and I like wikipedia. Good on them for getting bank. I'm sure it has problems but to me it's one of the best sites on the internet.
I'm conflicted. One part hates that they are doing this, the other part is thinking, well ya. Servers aren't cheap, more money means longer service for generations. They GENUINELY provide an actual service. Not a service created BECAUSE of another issue, but because they wanted to keep the information alive.
> "Servers aren't cheap" We're in 2024 now, not the 1990's. Server costs are indeed very cheap, relative the the income revenue. (it's about merely 1% ish of the income Wikipedia has, or in other words every year they get enough to run themselves for another hundred years!)
I don't know enough about this topic to argue that this video is misleading but the claim that oh the server cost is only 1% seems way too simplified, like saying that all restaurant owners must be rich because the rent isn't that expensive. Jimmy Wales has a networth of 1mil, honestly I would be totally content with him being a billionaire, running one of the most used resources in our modern world. There are so many variables to take into account, like okay let's cut all the fundraising people, money stops coming in, some investments fail and you miss one single payment for example and you have to sell out minimally, yet even that opens the doors to a world of shit and ruins the integrety.
You are absolutely on point. I'm from India and donated in their last campaign. When I read the banner, it really made me feel that wikipedia was in some sort of crisis. Upon reading and without a second thought, I donated. I have been receiving follow up donation requests ever since, with the same crazy urgent tone.
just remove it from your subscription or i think there is a option for opting out. i never got any tbh but do check it, also dosen't it get removed it you donated to it once, they give you a link that you can paste to reset your cookies to never see that banner on your browser/browsers.
If they only ask for money when they desparately need it then they wouldn't be stable. They have 16 months of reserves while asking for donations for the future so they aren't at risk of shutting down. And branching into other aspects of spreading free information is hardly a bad thing. Using money to lobby lawmakers for better education is a noble cause. With how many people visit the site and for them to have no ads, and they're working on other projects to make it easier to access information, $2 every few months is perfectly fine.
> "They have 16 months of reserves while asking for donations for the future so they aren't at risk of shutting down. " That's a total lie though. They easily have enough money to run the wikipedia website itself for the next century plus if they stripped back to only the core costs of running the website (such as server hosting). It's all the other extravagantly wasteful ways they're spending money which means they've "only got enough for the next 16 months".
That's part of the problem , they are asking money for Wikimedia , on the Wikipedia website , claiming that Wikipedia would close rather than just saying they are spending too much on their other projects.
@@DexteruL The other projects, which includes Wiki Commons, a giant (essentially) data dump that a lot of wikipedia articles reference for recordings, pictures, videos, etc. The only things not hosted on wiki commons are copyrighted images used under fair use (which have to have tons of justification for being displayed to avoid copyright). Everything else, when you click on most images or media on wikipedia, is user submitted. I could argue there are probably 100s of TB of data on wiki commons. And thats just wikicommons, not wikidata, not wikispecies, not wikibooks, not any other sister project.. which all under the banner of wikimedia's mission statement: Free, Accessible information for all
At the end of the day, without an urgent call-to-action, those banners would be pretty ineffective at fundraising. Personally, I've never even once felt bothered by them
I dont appreciate the notion that “it’s ~Especially~ desperate for them to ask for donations in India. 2/3rds of the country is so poor!” India’s population is 1.3 Billion people. 1/3 of 1.3 Billion is 433,333,333 people. That means MORE than the population of the United States is not below the poverty line, and many of which are actually fairly well off, meaning that WikiMedia’s India campaigns are not unfounded or preying on the poor. Most people in the 2/3rds will never go on Wikipedia in their life, and most of them are in rural India, living off the land. My own family in the village of Bihar is okay because they live off the land, poverty is not such a sad thing as it’s made out to be in the west. Poverty in the cities is a different story. Anyway, your statistic was unfair, and you used it in order to add some gravity to wikimedia’s actions, but it unfairly represents the issue. It is still “wrong” I guess? I mean are we surprised human beings want more money? It’s just life. At least they haven’t created a subscription service to use Wikipedia. If people give, that’s their choice
It's rather annoying when people who have probably never been to your country and know next to nothing about it denigrate it. Unfortunately, it seems like most nations have to put up with these kinds of assumptions.
And especially for those 1/3 of population and for most of the people who is 'able' to have internet connection and visit the website, 25 Rs is really not that much (in the sense they are well of, it does not cost a fortune) To top it off, you can just ignore it and still use the site as usual Edit: I am also a fellow Indian
I agree, but I do find it wild the notion of "They want money, that's life, it's fine" You could use that logic to excuse literally anything that specifically is not a good point, but your overall point very well said good comment
its all relative. 10% of India is poor, if you live in India, and earn Indian money. 66% of India is poor if you look at it from the outside, and you're earning euros and dollars, while they earn rupees.
I am an Indian and that 10% is just there because our corrupt politicians has set the minimum income so low that we all look out of poverty. Heck if you earn minimum wage you are in the top 10% richest individuals in India. More than 60% of the wealth is controlled by the top 1%.
yeah that seemed realllly off. most of my family is in india and they do very fine. theyre what we woulld call middle class. but yes, there are some very very poor parts. but its not 2/3rds
well fern has a point tbh, about 2/3rds of india's populace are farmers, most of whom are living in poor conditions, some work as construction workers, who live in slums and earn some of the lowest salaries in the country, others work as housemaids and cooks and they dont earn a lot either so he's not actually wrong
To be completely honest It's not that bad when you think about it, at least we get to enjoy the website for free and barely with any ads or malicious trackers.
You need to see, the wiki could be 8billion dollar company overnight of they decide to run adds on it. But jimmy decides not to, because just like meta their entire focus will change to achieving diffing set of goals. I respect jimmy for that.
I love the Wikimedia Foundation and what it stands for, and I've made a commitment to donate $50 a year, once a year. Why, then, do I get constant junk emails from them asking me to donate and constantly have my Wikipedia taken over with massive banners begging me to donate more. Nobody will donate if it's shoved down their throat like this.
Wiki Editor Wrote: "Angel" is a song by Canadian singer-songwriter Sarah McLachlan. The song first appeared on McLachlan's fourth studio album, Surfacing, in 1997 and was released as the album's fourth and final single in September 1998. The lyrics are about the death of musician Jonathan Melvoin (1961-1996) from a heroin overdose,[1] as McLachlan explained on VH1 Storytellers. It is sometimes mistitled as "In the Arms of an Angel".[2] or "Arms of the Angel".
This video feels like a hit piece. 1. The amount of capital Wikipedia has ($375 million apparently) is peanuts in the tech world. Many large tech companies blow through more than that in a single year. As a business-related video essayist, you should know that better, fern. 2. Wikipedia provides one of the most important services on the Internet. As a researcher for your video topics which I am sure inevitably leads you to Wikipedia quite often, you should know that better, fern. 3. The banners seem stupid, but they work. As a RUclipsr who makes clickbait titles/thumbnails, you should know that better, fern. I agree that Wikipedia has some minor management issues but that's about as far as we can agree. EDIT: I know fern said it was 'peanuts', too. Once. They said "Wikipedia is rich" and similar statements at least half a dozen times that I can count in this video. The two are mutually exclusive, in this context.
"Wikipedia is actually very rich" is such a funny quote, I just had to post it. Also, the $10 million annual operating cost estimation in 2013 is severely outdated. That number has now well over doubled, and actually getting closer to triple that. At the current estimate of $25 million annually, with $225 million in funds that aren't already partitioned, that's just 9 more years of Wikipedia. Even using your lowball, outdated 2013 number of $10 million, and if we put it into the total amount of money Wikipedia has whether they can use it or not ($375 million), then that's 37 and a half years of uptime... which is not 100 years, like you said in the video. Where did you even get that number?!
@@krakenmahboy > That number has now well over doubled, and actually getting closer to triple that. So they still raise like 5 times their operating costs? 30 million vs > 150 million?
@@BrunoNeureiter "It's peanuts in the tech world" and "Wikipedia is rich" are two conflicting statements. Wikipedia is not rich if they have a small amount of money compared to their peers.
4:35 What are you saying dude...2/3rds of India is not in poverty. Maybe it was while the British were looting them🙃. Its more like around 10-15% at max today!
Many people don't seem to understand (this video is included) that they have their own data centers and those cost money to keep online. There is a cost of hardware and refreshing it. In turn, they can keep their data safe from other cloud providers. Not to mention, there is a ton of other projects they have OTHER than Wikipedia.
Wikipedia having money and people contributing to it are great news! If Wikimedia isn't struggling, it means they are competent, and I for sure will support them even more! In contrast, I am disappointed by fern for this disingenuous criticism for the sake of views and profit.
I think most of the critiques are not very problematic. It's mostly that the desperate messaging is a bit deceptive. The goals of the wikimedia are admirable, and those financial numbers don't seem unreasonable for such a big non profit.
I already donate a few dollars monthly to Wikipedia. Even though it's a controversial source of information it's still extremely important for obscure topics.
Thanks a lot for making this video. I have been seeing the ad continuously for the past 2 weeks, and thought the site is at risk of going down. This gives me a broader view. Thanks a lot for the great work!!
I love how their response e-mail about how long there reserves will last, was about the WHOLE operation, not JUST wikipedia. Making it a true answer, but not to our question.
4:38 oye fern Your own source says 5% Where did you get 66% from Quote “ However, in percentage terms, the situation has improved immensely: In the past four decades, the poverty rate in India has fallen from over 60 to around 17 percent (as of December 2021). About five percent of the Indian population is considered extremely poor, so they still have less than two US dollars available for daily life. 415 million people escaped poverty within the last 15 years alone. “
@@epender living on 2 dollars and living on 50 dollars is a lot of difference in india mate. so they clearly defined the 2 dollar population, which is 5%, dont get me wrong, india is full of poor people as 5% of its population is a lot, but 66% is a fing crime.
@epender I think he is saying 5% because fern qualified what he meant by under poverty line as "$2 or less per day" which is what the source is calling extremely poor.
i feel like they should be transparent with their operating costs and then when asking for donations, show how much has been donated against the total amount needed
they literally are.. where the fuck do you think this dude got all the info from? its a none profit so they legally have to disclose all this information...
I've been a Wikipedia volunteer since 2006, with tens of thousands of edits. Your video is well made and accurate. I also share the criticism that the fundraising banners convey too much desperation. However, I strongly disagree that WMF needs to only keep the servers running. Wikipedia's future is indeed under threat from multiple sides: - there are fewer and fewer volunteers. Turns out writing an encyclopedia from scratch is a lot more fun than maintaining it. Many other reasons too. - on the other hand, there are more and more commercial interests that try to manipulate Wikipedia articles. Volunteers have to fend off these attempts, which takes a lot of time and isn't very fun - AI/LLM is a huge disruption in several ways. It means fewer people visit Wikipedia itself (less potential to recruit volunteers or to raise funds). And that LLMs can be used to generate Wikipedia articles that look legit but are BS. As a volunteer I was heavily relying on the fact that BS articles also look very bad (not fitting the Wikipedia style guides, general outline, etc.). This is no longer a reliable measure. Filtering through the AI-generated junk is an incredibly difficult task. Volunteers are very good at what they do, but the community is very conservative and unwilling to adapt to these challenges. A strong WMF is necessary to tackle them.
when you explained what they do with the money in terms of other projects, it made me want to donate more. Maybe that should be the angle they use in their campaigns because I find the begging really annoying
Wow, thanks Fern team. This was well researched and eye opening. I'm an Indian, and I have donated without giving a second thought or research (which I usually do), looking at their banner campaigns. But this is now a shocker. I hope they change the language. Thanks much!❤
Idk why you keep harping on about the India part. India has plenty of people who are middle class by western standards and they are the ones who mainly use Wikipedia. The message is obviously aiming at those people not the people earning $2 a day
The Wikimedia foundation did get into some hot water recently with some of the groups it disbursed donated funds to, both internal and external to the foundation. The problem being Wikipedia itself goes to great lengths to be politically neutral, it's really essential when you're the largest encyclopedia in the world not to appear to have a shred of bias. The problem was some of these groups were anything but politically neutral, and that made some donors on the politically opposite side of these groups angry.
4:36 Sorry I have to fact check you on this but 2/3rd of India is not in poverty the official poverty rate of India is approx 12% in 2021 and estimated to fall around 5% in next few years.
Are you serious? A simple Google search will result in more than a dozen different "FACTS" 1) According to research by the State Bank of India, released in February 2024, the poverty rate in the country fell to 4.5-5 percent in 2022-23. 2) According to Moni Basu, of CNN, about 60% of India's nearly 1.3 billion people live on less than $3.10 a day, the World Bank's median poverty line. And 21%, or more than 250 million people, survive on less than $2 a day. 3) According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India#2020s it's significantly more. The FACT IS... NO-ONE KNOWS for sure. So why should we pay attention to what you're saying. What makes you the authoritative voice that we MUST LISTEN TO YOU? If you are going to FACTCHECK someone... the proper thing to do is CITE YOUR SOURCE 🤦
I am *so old* that when I was in school, Teachers scoffed at the idea of citing Wikipedia as legit on nearly any level. Then, somehow, That changed. Money is the only thing that matters - get with it or get out. I'm not giving a penny to a supposed educational company that bizarrely acknowledges *Gearboxes* by their "new" genders.
I'm an active author on both the German and English Wikipedia. The irony is that the Wikimedia Foundation is doing a good job by limiting itself to hosting Wikipedia and not interfering with article content or creation. That’s the fundamental basis of an open and independent encyclopedia: they don’t decide what goes into the articles; they only make them accessible (mainly handling the technical and legal side). But this is also why the fundraising feels misleading to me. Most people don’t realize they’re donating to the host, not to the authors, photographers, and developers who actually created the article they were about to read.
_That’s the fundamental basis of an open and independent encyclopedia: they don’t decide what goes into the articles;_ I attempted to edit the absurd lies about how Jill/Joe Biden met, both before and then after her ex-husband's book was released, to no avail.
Which isn't a good strategy. Gate-keeping is done by volunteers who don't need any expertise in the subject, and my dealings with Wikipedia have not been good. It's not an empirical source using primary sources. There are too many shortcoming for it to be as reliable as it presents itself.
@@TheRabbitsnest Fun fact, there are methods to have discussions on expertise-required subjects. They are called discussions, and they occur daily on tons of articles. If you have a sour taste in your mouth about how a highly-specialized topic is written, feel free to expand the article or fix issues with.. that's the points of the open encyclopedia. Your complaints for primary sourcing are easily answered by "Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources", but the short answer is, secondary sources are used most often as a means to verify information being put into the encyclopedia. But Wikipedia even admits that primary shouldnt be used as a boogeyman term, but instead shouldn't be relied upon because of the potential for false information or bad actors, same reason you can't "self-research" and create an article. You can do research and write the article as you feel, but must have references for the information used/quoted in the article. Wikipedia also mentions that sometimes you have to use a primary source, like for quotes, because it may be the only direct source for that topic, but also cautions that the primary source in use MUST be the original document to avoid false or incorrect information. Doesn't mean the information in the document cant be false or disproven, but the actual information you are referencing MUST be accurate. If the information in primary is false, then that just creates a case for finding a secondary source that disproves that X document was wrong about Y issue while listing other research that is indicative of that
Don't they? I always thought most people knew WIki was written for free by people? Especially those most likely to donate. They don't even imply such a thing anywhere
7:07 Net Assets: $254 million, Total Support/Revenue: $180 million, Total Expenses: $170 million. So yeah, 16 months seems fairly accurate. So, your $3 million number for "server costs" would last longer . . . if that was the only expense. While $100 million in salaries for 700 staff and contractors works out to approximately $143k each, they are in IT and salaries are high. What does that include? Contractors tend to price in equipment costs, right? The $3 million in "server costs" you quote are just the internet hosting costs. They have 2000 servers around the world. They spend twice as much just processing payments.
I think what they were trying to say is that of that $100 million salaries, a good chunk is for marketing people and similar non-core jobs. If they just kept the IT people and other necessary staff, they shouldn't need quite as much -- though of course you'd have to argue which staff is necessary. Does a non-profit like Wikimedia need a 'Committee Support Manager'? Or a full time Human Rights Lead?
@@peperoni_pepino As one of the most influential sources of information on the entire planet, I would say that human rights are a legitimate concern. Especially when it comes to access of that information, such as the censorship of Wikipedia in some places. So yes, a Human Rights Lead is a necessary position when you are dealing with hosting the largest repository of information ever, which contains information that could potentially affect real world policy making.
@bumpjammy But note that Wikimedia foundation employees are not allowed to change or interfere with the content of Wikipedia; the encyclopedia is independent of the non-profit that funds it. So having someone who manages human rights as a Wikipedia admin makes a ton of sense, but what is their role within the foundation?
@bumpjammy "So yes, a Human Rights Lead is a necessary position when you are dealing with hosting the largest repository of information ever" That's the problem with the people who defend Wikimedia's gross mismanagement, they have these grandiose beliefs in themselves which distract them away from caring about the fundamentals. As no, Wikipedia is *not* "the largest repository of information ever", The Internet Archive and Google are bigger, just to name two of many.
Got me thinking about the time I fully redesigned my media wiki to look super cool but was contacted by a guy from staff who was like "we're really really really sorry and your theme is extremely cool but we're going to have to remove all of it because it isn't in line with our overall theme for wikis, I'm SO sorry I have to do this." Immediately after they undid my theme I abandoned the wiki and never edited it again and I hope it keeps that staff guy up at night.
If the 700 ppl number is correct, yes, they compete with large tech companies for skilled staff, you rarely hear about outages or site breaking bugd because they have skilled people
to be fair, not everyone is getting 143k. it’s split up differently depending on their jobs. and honestly, 143k is not really that competitive for a software engineer. if wikipedia wants to keep running as smoothly as it does, they need the best of the best engineers, & that isn’t cheap. why would the best engineers work at wikipedia for 150k when high-end startups can offer even more?
Unfortunately such donation campaigns will hurt Wikimedia foundation if they truly need their readers to come together to protect it. Something about a boy and a wolf, I’m sure there’s an article about it on wiki
Exactly, he is completely wrong. Only 10-15 % of our country is under poverty. Which equals to 3/20 approx. I believe these western people are actually brainwashed into believing that india is poor.
I have donated multiple times now and was about to do again a few days ago. I'm now glad that that payment did not go thru. I tried a second time with a different card, and the same. I was wondering if the folks at Wikipedia were aware the payment network isn't working for some of us or not. I felt sympatetic too. I'm glad I found this video because I keep seeing those popups on every visit to Wikipedia and I kept feeling sympatetic. Here's what makes this murkier, they asked to me to "consider" paying an additional INR 100 (for an INR 2500 donation) to cover to transaction costs. India's UPI is MDR free. They should have gotten those 2500 anyway, but still another 100. This is just scammy now.
6:12 Why is New Zealand ALWAYS excluded from World Maps! Also I think it's good Wikipedia has excess money,That way they can keep giving us new features which cost time and money.
Thanks for that Fern... I've always considered the donation banners a tad pleading for sure and in the back of my mind was one day going to check out what it's all about but your awesomely presented vid has explained it to me... cheers to you Fern I could watch vids from you guys 24/7 🤟✨
Unlike other internet services like Google, which make substantial profits through ads, Wikipedia remains free and ad-free. Even if they manage millions in revenue, it's still far less than what other tech giants earn. Why shouldn't they have the right to grow? As more online services shift towards paid models or become saturated with ads, it seems fair for a platform that avoids both to ask-without forcing-users for voluntary support, doesn't it?
Because people think they donate to Wikipedia, which has already been funded till the heat death of the universe. What actually happens is that 90% of whatever comes in is wasted on all the side projects, that people don't even know they are donating to, and would NEVER have donated to.
4:36 You said 2/3 of indians live in poverty. Can you provide your sources? That is simple not true. 66% of the country lives with less than 2 USD a day? India poverty rate is acutally 2-5%
Anyone can open a for-profit company. They probably set it up where Wikimedia Foundation or its employees are the Enterprise owner/board. As long as they pay for-profit taxes on the for-profit income, the for-profit is free to hand all its profit to the non-profit.
In this case it's a morally good thing their for-profit company is only used by other companies so they are only taking money from corporations and not people
I think the critical focus is too much on India / developing countries. But it seems like the moderator is forgetting that the people using the service are not the ones working on the fields. And also in developing countries you can have a very nice income because you are taking advantage of the inequality.
I donate small amounts occasionally, because they really are something the internet can’t live without, I still get emails asking for me to donate every few months
3 месяца назад+12
I have been at a presentation of Wikipedia’s fundraising team maybe 10 years ago. They are in a very unique situation: They might have the all time + everywhere best opportunity for fundraising. There likely is no Organisation in history (so far) with better fundraising opportunities. Wikipedia is both obviously a good cause. And they are one of the highest traffic websites. 10 or so years ago they were able to test fundraising ideas multiple times a day. Meaning: „should the button be green, blue, yellow or red to generate more donations?“ By now they most likely know exactly which shade of color gets most donations. Imagine Amazon trying to figure out ways so you buy more or Facebook so you share more. You can get really good if you can test your stuff with millions of people. So I imagine they just got extremely good with fundraising and never stopped. Imagine how thrilling it must be to test different background images of donation campaigns and see your average donation increase by 3% just because of a better image. Leading to maybe 30k more donations within a week.
Probably. If you have a team focussed on fundraising, they just want to keep going and fundraising just becomes a goal in and of itself, instead of a method to keep Wikipedia afloat
@@computerfan1079…or they have transparent policies, goals, and endeavors that reinforce and support their core mission, and use additional resources to further expand and establish those capabilities. That anyone finds any of this exceptional is wildly naive, and willfully ignorant considering they operate fully in the open for anyone to engage with.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
I think it's fair to ask for a donation, but be transparent. I'd rather see "Hey, do you like Wikipedia? Would you mind making a donation to maintain the services?" instead of "We are about to shut down, please donate"
My thing is, even if Wikipedia get sold, we will still have the information out there anyways…
@@Andrewdeankyes, but they might add ads
@@babo213True. The fact that Wikipedia is still ad free is kinda incredible.
@@Andrewdeank If it’s sold, it could easily be infected with misinformation. Just think is Amazon buys it or something, and deletes all non-Bezos related pages.
@@Andrewdeank That is incredibly short sighted. You know you can change Wikipedia, right? Now imagine someone owning it. They would obviously manipulate the information to serve their own interest, both old articles and new ones. Just look at how Musk manipulates Twitter. He literally threatened to do the same to Wikipedia.
I once donated to Wikipedia but ended up regretting it because after that, I kept getting (spam) emails asking me to donate more.
Lmao that must feel awful
Same
Me too, I was just thinking about the "hey it's me Jimmy from Wikipedia, we need your help" emails throughout the video
always use a burner email and burner address when donating!
you should be able to optionally unsubscribe, its usually at the bottom of most emails.
Wikipedia getting excess funding isn't really a problem on its own, its when you see other projects like the Internet Archive struggling as with the recent court case against Hachette getting much less attention because of how much fundraising attention Wikipedia draws
Internet Archive needs more love. Wikipedia depends on IA a lot for its sources. Lots of websites are turning into dust at an alarming rate.
The issue with Internet Archive isn't money but copyright laws. Because they are clearly breaking the current ones. You can't just undo that with a few millions.
@@Alias_Anybody How are they breaking "copyright laws" when all they do is archive the original website?; why don't they sue search engines for listing the sites with illegally spread software? It just seems like politicians are being bribed by corporations to bring it down without any real reason
@@Alias_Anybodyif you spend money lobbying for specific people to get into power, you can change the law to what you want, if they get in
@@Alias_Anybody They broke copyright law in 2020 with their emergency library initiative. They are not currently breaking copyright law so that money would help. That wouldn't solve all their problems as they'd need to get their library status reinvoked and would need to honor DMCA requests in the interim, but they would be able to survive.
As a software engineer at the Wikimedia Foundation, we actually are pretty hard pressed. With the scale that we run things, we really need world-class engineers, but that also means that we need to compete in salary and benefits with big tech companies, but we don't have any stocks or bonuses to give out. That just isn't happening. I personally passed up $70,000 in the first year alone by joining Wikimedia over Microsoft or Amazon. My team is ridiculously small compared to the amount of work that we govern, and I don't think other teams are faring much better. But everyone is here because we actually care. Everything we do is to benefit the volunteer community. Making a new visual editor, making tools to combat abuse and spam, making better ways to visualize data, etc. Can you imagine how difficult it is to make a program that has to work in 300+ different languages? I remember one time years ago I changed some random piece of code and it broke only arabic wikidata and I still don't know how that happened. I'm going to shut up now before I go on a rant
You deserve to go bankrupt for all the propaganda and theories you all put on wiki.
@@mojewjewjew4420
I mean... As far as I know Wikipedia just pops up the info you look up. You're hardly gonna become a flat earther by looking up stuff on Wikipedia
@@mojewjewjew4420 THEY don't put, they allow it to be there because its community driven, they can't monitor their entire website, dumbshit. Plus they don't do edits, or add content
@mojewjewjew4420 really? You're gonna say that while *that* is your username?
Appreciate your work man!
Well, still better than having thousands of ad banners with tracking and targeted ads on a page
true
fandom be like
couldnt you just run an adblocker?
@@balls450 yeah but still not everyone uses an ad blocker and its just annoying in general to have to do so, i think ads wld take away from what the site is like tbh which an ad blocker cant rlly hide
fair!
On the one hand, it is definitely kind of deceptive with how they frame the “need” for independent donations.
On the other, I visit Wikipedia so much that I feel like giving $3 to them once is only fair given that I already pay like $10 a month just to stream music.
True!
You literally support slavery.
The problem is that wikipedia is almost entirely run by volunteers. The server costs are negligible to actually host the webpages. Therefore, your not really supporting the people who provide you with the value when you donate.
@@oscarharvey6215That’s fair. I would probably repeatedly donate to them if I knew that the site moderators were actually getting compensated, I just don’t mind giving a small one time donation as a sort of “thank you” to the site’s owners given how much I have gained from using it. I completely get what you’re saying though
Skill issue, I gave them $5
Wikipedia is one of the last vestiges of the Internet that has not yet ensh*tiffied while everyone else has. In the old days, Wikipedia actually reached server capacity limits. It is too easy to take them for granted just because it's been there for a long time and nothing seriously has gone wrong.
They could save money by decentralizing their servers, let me donate my bandwidth!
@@bubbleboy821 I'm sure they will need it one day once the AI bubble bursts and the world enters an energy crisis. On a side note Wikipedia content can be downloaded or forked if you have a large enough disk to store it, so that hopefully at least some version of it survives if something did go wrong.
And yet whilst the servers were running at near catch fire capacity, Jimmy was paying himself six figure sums and rolling around in a Beemer on our dime whilst reading hagiographies of himself published by well-meaning sycophants 😂
@@sgbuseswhat is the word and what does it mean? The one you censored
@@sgbusescan you elaborate on what your original comment meant? Im not a native speaker
I mean, apart from the guilt tripping, i have used Wikipedia on so many assignments, and to gather knowledge, that i feel fair to donate some money, knowing that Wikipedia is not going to shut down any time soon, i can make more informed decisions, but I'd still donate to Wikipedia for not giving ads, and just asking for a money on a banner that i can close.... I feel it's fair to give my share towards keeping such a legendary website alive and thriving
how much have you donated?
The video does have a point in that Wikipedia's banners are honestly pretty annoying, but a lot of the math behind it seems disingenuous and trying to craft a more clickbait-ey narrative for RUclips.
For example, it looks like Wikipedia has $375M in cash/securities, but how is that enough to run it for 100 years...? Even assuming that old burn rate of $10M/year, it would be gone in less than 40 years.
I've worked in Silicon Valley for 10+ years including at Big Tech companies like Facebook, and running a huge website or app isn't cheap. At Wikimedia's scale, you need a ton of compute and a ton of world-class software engineers. $375M sounds like a lot of money to the average non-tech person, but trust me, it's really not a lot when you are literally serving billions of page visits per month.
No comments?
Their money is invested and earning a profit, it's not just sitting there in a bank account.
@@alexveber Even then, invested money is earning at most 5% to 10% annually. Assuming a very generous 10% annual return, that's an additional $37.5M per year. That's peanuts when you're operating at Wikipedia's scale - You can easily burn through that in a single quarter.
In order to comfortably run something at Wikipedia's scale for literally 100 years, you would need *minimum* $10 billion in the bank.
@@FBWalshyFTWI get that it costs a lot of money to run a huge website like that but is it really THAT much? You can burn 37.5 million in a quarter, really? How do you back those claims? I’m not trying to be confrontational just asking. Yes it’s huge amounts of data and visits but servers are cheap nowadays. You only need to pay the developers to keep the site running, they aren’t really developing any groundbreaking new features to Wikipedia. Many employees aren’t even tech staff like the video said, but marketing and lobbying and similar.
I agree with you. Plus, this video makes those banners out to be a larger problem than they actually are. There are much worse things happening on the internet to do a 12 minute video going after Wikipedia (one of the nicest places on the internet).
Considering how scummy 99% of other online businesses are with their monetization, I don't think Wikipedia is that bad by comparison.
Dumping those hundreds of millions in US bonds at 5% is printing money haha. The founder’s kids and their kid’s kids will be set for life
So Wikipedia is only a little bit worse than the average business?
The difference is that Wikipedia are a nonprofit. Nonprofits should never act like for-profits.
@kingace6186
Very well! Then let's make a society where not-profit media don't need to pay to mantain their core goals alive
do you have any fucking idea how much keeping up all the wikimedia servers up, and all the related expenses fucking cost?
There are definitely not-profit companies which are just ways for corporations to get around laws and stuff, but come on, wikipedia? The only big site left with no ads, no trackers, no fucking scam, and which everyone in the world relies upon as an actual good source of information in a see of bullshit wellsite created only to get clicks, but with no actual value to the user?
Really?
Jeez, thanks man! Definitely do not be angry with google, microsoft, apple,... who day after day just make the web shittier and shittier only to get two more dollars here and here.
Definitely be angry at wikipedia, instead, for asking for money the legitimately need to PAY FOR THEIR FUCKING EXPENSES
@@kingace6186that’s true. Still better than a typical for profit
A foundation is not meant to spend its entire portfolio in a few years but to invest it so that it can grow faster than its spending requirements. Thus ensuring it can fulfil its mission indefinitely.
E
6:15 did you watch the video?
The Internet archive is what deserves attention and donations at this point in time.
I'm an accountant with experience in the non-profit sector and I took a look at their audited financials, and I think this video is misguided and potentially dangerous. Donations made up $165m of the $180m contributions/revenue for 2023, while their expenses were 170mil. Their current assets only totaled $213m, which roughly matches their 16 month claim. However a large part of this video seems to guide the viewer towards the idea that Wikipedia is rich (including the title) and doesn't need your money and would be able to operate for a long time without donations and that their advertising is fearmongering. For example in calculating that Wikipedia would be able to operate their servers for 100 years with their current resources you made a bold assumption that server hosting is the only significant cost to maintain basic functionality of the website, despite only making up around 1-2% of their expenses in FY23.
Now this leads into what Wikipedia is spending money on. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the operational requirements of an organization such as Wikipedia, but I'd be wary to assume the only critical costs are server hosting. Perhaps they could be more conservative with their spending, but that's an entirely different argument beyond "Wikipedia doesn't need your donation money to survive".
I think both Wikimedia and Fern made some mistakes in their thought process. Wikimedia it's asking money on it's website Wikipedia for the support of the entire company whilst claiming the money it's directed directly towards the maintenance for Wikipedia(otherwise it would close down) . Fern it's doing the oposite , he's focusing solely on Wikipedia (since that's where the banner came) , and he's taking the large amount (165 million) just for Wikipedia. So in a way Fern is more right than wrong . If i'm seeing a banner on Wikipedia , i would assume they are asking money for just this purpose and not for their other products/companies.
People who probably have never run an organisation do not understand how incredibly complex and expensive things can get. There is also an issue of recording assets at fair value vs recording historical value, which skews the perspective. The video is indeed misguided and sending a wrong message. Wikipedia is certainly one of the best things on the internet and it simply amazing that it is a free service.
Thank you for your perspective, even though we disagree. The main points we are making is that 1) WMF is collecting large amounts of money often in the name of protecting or saving Wikipedia, while 2) the money is actually used for a variety of purposes (which might be agreeable or not, but the donator will seldomly be aware of that) and 3) the writers, who make Wikipedia so amazing and worth supporting really do not appreciate the language on the banners. Assessing WMF's financials at a surface level does not indicate how expensive it is to maintain Wikipedia - as it is just one of many projects of the foundation, as detailed in the video. So in conclusion we believe all 3 points we are making are reasonable - this is probably best supported by the fact that WMF itself has been adjusting their donation banner wordings. Our video does not suggest that one should not donate to Wikipedia - just that one doesn't have to be afraid it will go up in flames if one doesn't.
Did you... not watch the video? The whole point is that their high costs are mostly the result of trying to get even more money, e.g. the salaries of people whose only job is to try to make even more money and expand the "business". It might be more than 1-2% but it's way closer to that than Wikipedia's ask. It's not that they could be "more conservative", it's that they are being the _opposite_ of conservative, there is no conservation there whatsoever.
@@fern-tv I feel like the title of the video "How Wikipedia got so rich" is kind of misleading
For those of you looking for the information in the title, skip to 5:30. Before that is a basic summary of what wikipedia is, "Wikipedia is always asking for money" rephrased three times ad break and then a general history of wikipedia unrelated to their funding.
Thanks bro, realized these days I just fast forward vids at least two minutes
Thanks.
Thanks 🙏
you guys will not die if you guys learn a little extra history & information
@@rni4069 shut up
A “foundation” is often designed to have a banked amount of money where only the profits are used to pay expenses. Wikipedia is one of the few resources that still retains the original utility and directness of the internet. If they are profiting from it, hooray! They are maintaining a wonderful (though not perfect) product. Regarding asking for Money from areas like India, my take is that they are simply asking the strata of Indian society that are wealthy (even by western standards). Additionally paying the contributors is a sure way to begin corrupting the process with bots and nefarious actors trying to game the system. These donation banners are simply the closest thing to an ad that ever grace Wikipedia and if that is the trade off… I will willingly endure that
Web hosting is cheap; and the users that make Wikipedia what it is aren't rewarded
Couldn't agree more.
@@desudesudesudesudesudesuCompared to all their other spending it's a drop in the bucket
@@desudesudesudesudesudesuweb hosting is not cheap when your website is linked on most Google searches, Wikipedia gets 15 billion visitors monthly. You obviously don't know anything about hosting if you think this is cheap.
And they OBVIOUSLY can't pay editors, that creates a conflict of interest which means editors will be biased, and try to focus on quantity instead of quality.
i dont understand why some call turkey devloping its already devloped into top 10 economies
To be fair, everyone would have turned a blind eye if they never sounded desperate for donations.
E
So true, if they just said please consider donating no one would even notice and that may have a worse affect like adding ads to make up for the unrealised income
@@EEEEEEEEtruely an E moment
Ok, so the banners are a bit deceptive (but the foundation is actually quite receptive to criticism), but overall - they are spending this money either for very interesting projects or to create more stable revenue sources. Overall, it seems pretty reasonable.
60% goes to DEI and little goes to infrastructure
To all the people thinking Wikipedia is awful for asking for money: software developers are really expensive, servers are REALLY expensive. To host a website that, WITHOUT ANY ADS, hosts billions of pages to users every month, and works in over 300 languages, is insanely expensive. Asking for a few dollars in a pop-up occasionally that you can close is basically nothing for that level of cost. Most websites would just sell your data instead.
This is kind of what I'm also thinking about. My niche little community of 70,000 people once served 260 TB (terabytes) of data in barely a week, and we don't actually even *host* anything in real size. One of the developers said that if we had been an actual hosting site, it'd have rung upwards of $15,000 in server costs. Absolutely insane.
All that said, their tone that they use I cannot really defend. But - yes - server and development costs really skyrocket beyond a certain point.
I wish some of the people I’ve read in these comments (as well as the author of this video) had a little better perspective on what the world was like before Wikipedia. Even among the rest of internet phenomena, Wikipedia is truly unique, and utterly invaluable. If the donation banners are working, it’s worth keeping them. I increased my monthly contribution after seeing this video.
I’ve honestly never heard anyone complain about Wikipedia asking for donations. This video kinda sucks tbh
It's not that they're asking for money, it's that they're manipulating people for their money that they need more than wikipedia does
For a fun comparison point... look at a list of the top 10 websites. Wikipedia is generally in that list, somewhere around #5. Every other company in that top 10 is a for-profit company that has revenue measured in billions of dollars. (Except for maybe reddit, if it's on the particular list you choose. It's just under a billion.)
The hosting of Wikipedia is a lean shoestring affair compared to any of its traffic / cultural-relevance peers.
This is a perfect start to a series that criticizes and examines non-profit organizations, and wiki is nearly the most harmless + most useful. If the biggest criticism is sounding whiny and desperate for donations, that is an incredible accolade.
Thank you for actual journalism. The fact that wiki was willing to respond also says good things about their morals. Marketing should not get in the way of their mission.
Wow, they responded? Where can you find their response?
I have absolutely No problems donating to Wikipedia. I do it almost every time they ask, which is rare. Over 20 years, I've probably donated a few dollars 4-5 times. And I use Wikipedia almost daily and often many times a day. I've also occasionally contributed with corrections to the site.
I would have no problems, if the creators even got a fat salary every year, despite being a non-profit organization. In any non-profit company, you are paid a salary, as an employee or employer.
You should attempt to edit the absurd lies about how Jill/Joe Biden met and see what happens.
Those lies are sacred.
@@John.Flower.Productionsit says they met on a blind date?..
@@John.Flower.Productions oh no the way they met, this is sure to alter the fabric of reality
@@GT_177 Yes it does.
When in fact, she and her husband were friendly supporters who were both working for his campaign. Their affair began even before the death of Joe's wife.
Once Jill's husband found out, he filed for a divorce. Jill wanted everything in the divorce (house, business, et cetera) but got nothing because the judge said that her adulterous actions were treacherous beyond compare.
This is my story almost exactly. They've asked me maybe twice through email and I've donated 2 or 3 times when hitting the wikipedia page and they asked. I usually give about $50 every 2-3 years. Honestly it's really not that intrusive and I like wikipedia. Good on them for getting bank. I'm sure it has problems but to me it's one of the best sites on the internet.
I'm conflicted. One part hates that they are doing this, the other part is thinking, well ya.
Servers aren't cheap, more money means longer service for generations.
They GENUINELY provide an actual service. Not a service created BECAUSE of another issue, but because they wanted to keep the information alive.
> "Servers aren't cheap"
We're in 2024 now, not the 1990's. Server costs are indeed very cheap, relative the the income revenue. (it's about merely 1% ish of the income Wikipedia has, or in other words every year they get enough to run themselves for another hundred years!)
I don't know enough about this topic to argue that this video is misleading but the claim that oh the server cost is only 1% seems way too simplified, like saying that all restaurant owners must be rich because the rent isn't that expensive. Jimmy Wales has a networth of 1mil, honestly I would be totally content with him being a billionaire, running one of the most used resources in our modern world.
There are so many variables to take into account, like okay let's cut all the fundraising people, money stops coming in, some investments fail and you miss one single payment for example and you have to sell out minimally, yet even that opens the doors to a world of shit and ruins the integrety.
@@davidcmpeterson I am here to learn and understand people's points so please give a source or something
You are absolutely on point. I'm from India and donated in their last campaign. When I read the banner, it really made me feel that wikipedia was in some sort of crisis. Upon reading and without a second thought, I donated.
I have been receiving follow up donation requests ever since, with the same crazy urgent tone.
Just click the button saying you've already donated?
just remove it from your subscription or i think there is a option for opting out. i never got any tbh but do check it, also dosen't it get removed it you donated to it once, they give you a link that you can paste to reset your cookies to never see that banner on your browser/browsers.
10:43 This chart is inaccurate. Google's net worth bar is ~102x larger than Wikipedia's, but it should be 423x larger
😂
If they only ask for money when they desparately need it then they wouldn't be stable. They have 16 months of reserves while asking for donations for the future so they aren't at risk of shutting down. And branching into other aspects of spreading free information is hardly a bad thing. Using money to lobby lawmakers for better education is a noble cause. With how many people visit the site and for them to have no ads, and they're working on other projects to make it easier to access information, $2 every few months is perfectly fine.
E
> "They have 16 months of reserves while asking for donations for the future so they aren't at risk of shutting down. "
That's a total lie though. They easily have enough money to run the wikipedia website itself for the next century plus if they stripped back to only the core costs of running the website (such as server hosting).
It's all the other extravagantly wasteful ways they're spending money which means they've "only got enough for the next 16 months".
I was definitely misled by those banners. However, I do agree that it's still an overall positive thing to donate to Wikipedia (well, Wikimedia)
That's part of the problem , they are asking money for Wikimedia , on the Wikipedia website , claiming that Wikipedia would close rather than just saying they are spending too much on their other projects.
@@DexteruL The other projects, which includes Wiki Commons, a giant (essentially) data dump that a lot of wikipedia articles reference for recordings, pictures, videos, etc. The only things not hosted on wiki commons are copyrighted images used under fair use (which have to have tons of justification for being displayed to avoid copyright). Everything else, when you click on most images or media on wikipedia, is user submitted. I could argue there are probably 100s of TB of data on wiki commons.
And thats just wikicommons, not wikidata, not wikispecies, not wikibooks, not any other sister project.. which all under the banner of wikimedia's mission statement: Free, Accessible information for all
Wikipedia asked me to pay so I clicked “I already paid”. I haven’t.
At the end of the day, without an urgent call-to-action, those banners would be pretty ineffective at fundraising. Personally, I've never even once felt bothered by them
everyone gangsta until jimmy goes on a villain arc and shuts down wikipedia for real
E
A powerful cry that cannot be implemented because the Wikipedia founder no longer has control over it.
the website of misinformation where the editor keep being banned from telling the truth, that we have to use web archives to see what they edited
Even if no one donated a penny, Wikipedia would still survive. Lack of editors is a bigger threat to Wikipedia than lack of money.
I dont appreciate the notion that “it’s ~Especially~ desperate for them to ask for donations in India. 2/3rds of the country is so poor!” India’s population is 1.3 Billion people. 1/3 of 1.3 Billion is 433,333,333 people. That means MORE than the population of the United States is not below the poverty line, and many of which are actually fairly well off, meaning that WikiMedia’s India campaigns are not unfounded or preying on the poor. Most people in the 2/3rds will never go on Wikipedia in their life, and most of them are in rural India, living off the land. My own family in the village of Bihar is okay because they live off the land, poverty is not such a sad thing as it’s made out to be in the west. Poverty in the cities is a different story. Anyway, your statistic was unfair, and you used it in order to add some gravity to wikimedia’s actions, but it unfairly represents the issue. It is still “wrong” I guess? I mean are we surprised human beings want more money? It’s just life. At least they haven’t created a subscription service to use Wikipedia. If people give, that’s their choice
Oh right THAT'S what we should be worried about. Thanks for letting us know, we really couldn't live without that information.
@@_Lodiirealistically what did your reply contribute
It's rather annoying when people who have probably never been to your country and know next to nothing about it denigrate it. Unfortunately, it seems like most nations have to put up with these kinds of assumptions.
And especially for those 1/3 of population and for most of the people who is 'able' to have internet connection and visit the website, 25 Rs is really not that much (in the sense they are well of, it does not cost a fortune)
To top it off, you can just ignore it and still use the site as usual
Edit: I am also a fellow Indian
I agree, but I do find it wild the notion of
"They want money, that's life, it's fine"
You could use that logic to excuse literally anything that specifically is not a good point, but your overall point very well said good comment
In 4:40, you said 2/3rd of India is poverty struck...but when I searched it out, I got results showing 10%, and that too, in 2020...
its all relative. 10% of India is poor, if you live in India, and earn Indian money.
66% of India is poor if you look at it from the outside, and you're earning euros and dollars, while they earn rupees.
I am an Indian and that 10% is just there because our corrupt politicians has set the minimum income so low that we all look out of poverty. Heck if you earn minimum wage you are in the top 10% richest individuals in India. More than 60% of the wealth is controlled by the top 1%.
yeah that seemed realllly off. most of my family is in india and they do very fine. theyre what we woulld call middle class. but yes, there are some very very poor parts. but its not 2/3rds
they literally sh1t in the streets, imagine saying only 10% are poor XD
well fern has a point tbh, about 2/3rds of india's populace are farmers, most of whom are living in poor conditions, some work as construction workers, who live in slums and earn some of the lowest salaries in the country, others work as housemaids and cooks and they dont earn a lot either so he's not actually wrong
To be completely honest It's not that bad when you think about it, at least we get to enjoy the website for free and barely with any ads or malicious trackers.
I love fern videos, they always feel so high quality
You need to see, the wiki could be 8billion dollar company overnight of they decide to run adds on it. But jimmy decides not to, because just like meta their entire focus will change to achieving diffing set of goals. I respect jimmy for that.
I love the Wikimedia Foundation and what it stands for, and I've made a commitment to donate $50 a year, once a year. Why, then, do I get constant junk emails from them asking me to donate and constantly have my Wikipedia taken over with massive banners begging me to donate more. Nobody will donate if it's shoved down their throat like this.
I'm surprised they don't start blasting "In the aaaaaaarms of an aaaaaaangel" out of my speakers every time they ask for money
Give them time🙄
Wiki Editor Wrote: "Angel" is a song by Canadian singer-songwriter Sarah McLachlan. The song first appeared on McLachlan's fourth studio album, Surfacing, in 1997 and was released as the album's fourth and final single in September 1998. The lyrics are about the death of musician Jonathan Melvoin (1961-1996) from a heroin overdose,[1] as McLachlan explained on VH1 Storytellers. It is sometimes mistitled as "In the Arms of an Angel".[2] or "Arms of the Angel".
no lie, I liked that song the first time I heard it.
This was no longer true somewhere around the 20th time I'd seen that commercial.
Oh you mean tears of an angel. By hinder
@@Acesmcnugget that's a little heavy handed, Acesmcnugget😉
This video feels like a hit piece.
1. The amount of capital Wikipedia has ($375 million apparently) is peanuts in the tech world. Many large tech companies blow through more than that in a single year. As a business-related video essayist, you should know that better, fern.
2. Wikipedia provides one of the most important services on the Internet. As a researcher for your video topics which I am sure inevitably leads you to Wikipedia quite often, you should know that better, fern.
3. The banners seem stupid, but they work. As a RUclipsr who makes clickbait titles/thumbnails, you should know that better, fern.
I agree that Wikipedia has some minor management issues but that's about as far as we can agree.
EDIT: I know fern said it was 'peanuts', too. Once. They said "Wikipedia is rich" and similar statements at least half a dozen times that I can count in this video. The two are mutually exclusive, in this context.
"Wikipedia is actually very rich" is such a funny quote, I just had to post it.
Also, the $10 million annual operating cost estimation in 2013 is severely outdated. That number has now well over doubled, and actually getting closer to triple that. At the current estimate of $25 million annually, with $225 million in funds that aren't already partitioned, that's just 9 more years of Wikipedia.
Even using your lowball, outdated 2013 number of $10 million, and if we put it into the total amount of money Wikipedia has whether they can use it or not ($375 million), then that's 37 and a half years of uptime... which is not 100 years, like you said in the video. Where did you even get that number?!
10:33
> is peanuts in the tech world
They show that in the video
@@krakenmahboy > That number has now well over doubled, and actually getting closer to triple that.
So they still raise like 5 times their operating costs? 30 million vs > 150 million?
@@BrunoNeureiter "It's peanuts in the tech world" and "Wikipedia is rich" are two conflicting statements. Wikipedia is not rich if they have a small amount of money compared to their peers.
" We are about to shut down, *_100 years is peanuts on a cosmological time scale_* "
Wikipedia: We're broke
Also Wikipedia: We absolutely won't run ads like every other website on earth.
4:35 What are you saying dude...2/3rds of India is not in poverty. Maybe it was while the British were looting them🙃. Its more like around 10-15% at max today!
Fern page in wikipedia will be termed as 'was' from tomorrow
/J
I think I'm the reason Wikipedia introduced a dark mode
no
Why
Many people don't seem to understand (this video is included) that they have their own data centers and those cost money to keep online. There is a cost of hardware and refreshing it. In turn, they can keep their data safe from other cloud providers. Not to mention, there is a ton of other projects they have OTHER than Wikipedia.
Wikipedia having money and people contributing to it are great news!
If Wikimedia isn't struggling, it means they are competent, and I for sure will support them even more!
In contrast, I am disappointed by fern for this disingenuous criticism for the sake of views and profit.
I think most of the critiques are not very problematic. It's mostly that the desperate messaging is a bit deceptive. The goals of the wikimedia are admirable, and those financial numbers don't seem unreasonable for such a big non profit.
I already donate a few dollars monthly to Wikipedia. Even though it's a controversial source of information it's still extremely important for obscure topics.
Controversial or not , it makes up for the fact that it's all in one place and it's relatevely fact checked (to some degree) .
i rather have a controversial source of information than no source of information.
@@tjeulinknot always. If it were disinformation it can be worse than nothing. That said Wikipedia is informative.
Thanks a lot for making this video. I have been seeing the ad continuously for the past 2 weeks, and thought the site is at risk of going down. This gives me a broader view. Thanks a lot for the great work!!
I love how their response e-mail about how long there reserves will last, was about the WHOLE operation, not JUST wikipedia. Making it a true answer, but not to our question.
I once donated $100 to wikipedia, so I could feel absolved from donating for the rest of my life
4:38 oye fern
Your own source says 5%
Where did you get 66% from
Quote “ However, in percentage terms, the situation has improved immensely: In the past four decades, the poverty rate in India has fallen from over 60 to around 17 percent (as of December 2021). About five percent of the Indian population is considered extremely poor, so they still have less than two US dollars available for daily life. 415 million people escaped poverty within the last 15 years alone. “
Good point, but doesn't that particular source say 17% then? Being "extremely poor" is different to simply being in poverty.
@@epender living on 2 dollars and living on 50 dollars is a lot of difference in india mate.
so they clearly defined the 2 dollar population, which is 5%, dont get me wrong, india is full of poor people as 5% of its population is a lot, but 66% is a fing crime.
@epender I think he is saying 5% because fern qualified what he meant by under poverty line as "$2 or less per day" which is what the source is calling extremely poor.
Sh1t in the streets = poor
i feel like they should be transparent with their operating costs and then when asking for donations, show how much has been donated against the total amount needed
they literally are.. where the fuck do you think this dude got all the info from? its a none profit so they legally have to disclose all this information...
@@jacoL8 ok I was kinda stupid putting that but they should probably show the total donated out of how much they need when asking for them
8:02 what lobbying efforts, specifically?
If wikipedia put just one ad on. every page, they'd be swimming in money.
Phew that's quite a relief. I was having trouble sleeping at night, thinking that somehow we would lose all accumlated Wiki knowledge into the void.
I've been a Wikipedia volunteer since 2006, with tens of thousands of edits. Your video is well made and accurate. I also share the criticism that the fundraising banners convey too much desperation. However, I strongly disagree that WMF needs to only keep the servers running. Wikipedia's future is indeed under threat from multiple sides:
- there are fewer and fewer volunteers. Turns out writing an encyclopedia from scratch is a lot more fun than maintaining it. Many other reasons too.
- on the other hand, there are more and more commercial interests that try to manipulate Wikipedia articles. Volunteers have to fend off these attempts, which takes a lot of time and isn't very fun
- AI/LLM is a huge disruption in several ways. It means fewer people visit Wikipedia itself (less potential to recruit volunteers or to raise funds). And that LLMs can be used to generate Wikipedia articles that look legit but are BS. As a volunteer I was heavily relying on the fact that BS articles also look very bad (not fitting the Wikipedia style guides, general outline, etc.). This is no longer a reliable measure. Filtering through the AI-generated junk is an incredibly difficult task.
Volunteers are very good at what they do, but the community is very conservative and unwilling to adapt to these challenges. A strong WMF is necessary to tackle them.
12min video on wikipedia just to say : please make your donation requests less aggressive.
simplicisimus and fern are running out of ideas i feel
when you explained what they do with the money in terms of other projects, it made me want to donate more. Maybe that should be the angle they use in their campaigns because I find the begging really annoying
that ad transition was smooooooth
Wow, thanks Fern team. This was well researched and eye opening. I'm an Indian, and I have donated without giving a second thought or research (which I usually do), looking at their banner campaigns. But this is now a shocker. I hope they change the language. Thanks much!❤
Idk why you keep harping on about the India part. India has plenty of people who are middle class by western standards and they are the ones who mainly use Wikipedia. The message is obviously aiming at those people not the people earning $2 a day
It’s aimed at everyone who uses Wikipedia, irregardless of their income.
The Wikimedia foundation did get into some hot water recently with some of the groups it disbursed donated funds to, both internal and external to the foundation. The problem being Wikipedia itself goes to great lengths to be politically neutral, it's really essential when you're the largest encyclopedia in the world not to appear to have a shred of bias. The problem was some of these groups were anything but politically neutral, and that made some donors on the politically opposite side of these groups angry.
You don't even have to leave the site to see the bias. Just try reading the first section of Trump's wikipedia page.
4:36 Sorry I have to fact check you on this but 2/3rd of India is not in poverty the official poverty rate of India is approx 12% in 2021 and estimated to fall around 5% in next few years.
Are you serious?
A simple Google search will result in more than a dozen different "FACTS"
1) According to research by the State Bank of India, released in February 2024, the poverty rate in the country fell to 4.5-5 percent in 2022-23.
2) According to Moni Basu, of CNN, about 60% of India's nearly 1.3 billion people live on less than $3.10 a day, the World Bank's median poverty line. And 21%, or more than 250 million people, survive on less than $2 a day.
3) According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India#2020s it's significantly more.
The FACT IS... NO-ONE KNOWS for sure.
So why should we pay attention to what you're saying. What makes you the authoritative voice that we MUST LISTEN TO YOU?
If you are going to FACTCHECK someone... the proper thing to do is CITE YOUR SOURCE 🤦
I am *so old* that when I was in school, Teachers scoffed at the idea of citing Wikipedia as legit on nearly any level. Then, somehow, That changed. Money is the only thing that matters - get with it or get out. I'm not giving a penny to a supposed educational company that bizarrely acknowledges *Gearboxes* by their "new" genders.
Idk why, but I absolutely love the way you pronounce “Wikipedia”
I'm an active author on both the German and English Wikipedia. The irony is that the Wikimedia Foundation is doing a good job by limiting itself to hosting Wikipedia and not interfering with article content or creation. That’s the fundamental basis of an open and independent encyclopedia: they don’t decide what goes into the articles; they only make them accessible (mainly handling the technical and legal side). But this is also why the fundraising feels misleading to me. Most people don’t realize they’re donating to the host, not to the authors, photographers, and developers who actually created the article they were about to read.
_That’s the fundamental basis of an open and independent encyclopedia: they don’t decide what goes into the articles;_
I attempted to edit the absurd lies about how Jill/Joe Biden met, both before and then after her ex-husband's book was released, to no avail.
Which isn't a good strategy. Gate-keeping is done by volunteers who don't need any expertise in the subject, and my dealings with Wikipedia have not been good. It's not an empirical source using primary sources. There are too many shortcoming for it to be as reliable as it presents itself.
"Most people don’t realize they’re donating to the host"
How do you know that?
@@TheRabbitsnest Fun fact, there are methods to have discussions on expertise-required subjects. They are called discussions, and they occur daily on tons of articles. If you have a sour taste in your mouth about how a highly-specialized topic is written, feel free to expand the article or fix issues with.. that's the points of the open encyclopedia.
Your complaints for primary sourcing are easily answered by "Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources", but the short answer is, secondary sources are used most often as a means to verify information being put into the encyclopedia. But Wikipedia even admits that primary shouldnt be used as a boogeyman term, but instead shouldn't be relied upon because of the potential for false information or bad actors, same reason you can't "self-research" and create an article. You can do research and write the article as you feel, but must have references for the information used/quoted in the article.
Wikipedia also mentions that sometimes you have to use a primary source, like for quotes, because it may be the only direct source for that topic, but also cautions that the primary source in use MUST be the original document to avoid false or incorrect information. Doesn't mean the information in the document cant be false or disproven, but the actual information you are referencing MUST be accurate. If the information in primary is false, then that just creates a case for finding a secondary source that disproves that X document was wrong about Y issue while listing other research that is indicative of that
Don't they? I always thought most people knew WIki was written for free by people? Especially those most likely to donate. They don't even imply such a thing anywhere
7:07 Net Assets: $254 million, Total Support/Revenue: $180 million, Total Expenses: $170 million. So yeah, 16 months seems fairly accurate. So, your $3 million number for "server costs" would last longer . . . if that was the only expense. While $100 million in salaries for 700 staff and contractors works out to approximately $143k each, they are in IT and salaries are high. What does that include? Contractors tend to price in equipment costs, right? The $3 million in "server costs" you quote are just the internet hosting costs. They have 2000 servers around the world. They spend twice as much just processing payments.
I think what they were trying to say is that of that $100 million salaries, a good chunk is for marketing people and similar non-core jobs. If they just kept the IT people and other necessary staff, they shouldn't need quite as much -- though of course you'd have to argue which staff is necessary. Does a non-profit like Wikimedia need a 'Committee Support Manager'? Or a full time Human Rights Lead?
@@peperoni_pepino As one of the most influential sources of information on the entire planet, I would say that human rights are a legitimate concern. Especially when it comes to access of that information, such as the censorship of Wikipedia in some places. So yes, a Human Rights Lead is a necessary position when you are dealing with hosting the largest repository of information ever, which contains information that could potentially affect real world policy making.
@bumpjammy But note that Wikimedia foundation employees are not allowed to change or interfere with the content of Wikipedia; the encyclopedia is independent of the non-profit that funds it. So having someone who manages human rights as a Wikipedia admin makes a ton of sense, but what is their role within the foundation?
@@peperoni_pepinoto make sure human rights aren’t being violated by their employees.
@bumpjammy "So yes, a Human Rights Lead is a necessary position when you are dealing with hosting the largest repository of information ever"
That's the problem with the people who defend Wikimedia's gross mismanagement, they have these grandiose beliefs in themselves which distract them away from caring about the fundamentals.
As no, Wikipedia is *not* "the largest repository of information ever", The Internet Archive and Google are bigger, just to name two of many.
Those "wikipedia is not for sale" banners always read like a chain email.
E
@@EEEEEEEE E
Got me thinking about the time I fully redesigned my media wiki to look super cool but was contacted by a guy from staff who was like "we're really really really sorry and your theme is extremely cool but we're going to have to remove all of it because it isn't in line with our overall theme for wikis, I'm SO sorry I have to do this."
Immediately after they undid my theme I abandoned the wiki and never edited it again and I hope it keeps that staff guy up at night.
Either you died young or you live long enough to become the villain- Wikimedia
So 100'000'000 million in salaries / 700 = 143'000 average yearly wage for Wikipedia’s employees?
If the 700 ppl number is correct, yes, they compete with large tech companies for skilled staff, you rarely hear about outages or site breaking bugd because they have skilled people
to be fair, not everyone is getting 143k. it’s split up differently depending on their jobs. and honestly, 143k is not really that competitive for a software engineer. if wikipedia wants to keep running as smoothly as it does, they need the best of the best engineers, & that isn’t cheap. why would the best engineers work at wikipedia for 150k when high-end startups can offer even more?
Unfortunately such donation campaigns will hurt Wikimedia foundation if they truly need their readers to come together to protect it. Something about a boy and a wolf, I’m sure there’s an article about it on wiki
As a programmer the only problem I've ever had with the wikimedia foundation is that mediawiki (the software) is written in php 😂
Second this. PHP sucks. 😂
And it's open source ✨ and it works like a charm. PHP still works. Get over it
php haters unite 😹
@@muydale yes but oh god why did they choose an arrow for the class member syntax
fern never fails to make a BANGER 🔥🔥🔥🔥
I wish bro gets to have his own netflix documentary.
5:04 "2/3rds of the countrg lives in poverty"
What source did you fetch this figure from?
Exactly, he is completely wrong. Only 10-15 % of our country is under poverty. Which equals to 3/20 approx.
I believe these western people are actually brainwashed into believing that india is poor.
Indians can't stand criticism of their country ever, huh? XD
I have donated multiple times now and was about to do again a few days ago.
I'm now glad that that payment did not go thru. I tried a second time with a different card, and the same. I was wondering if the folks at Wikipedia were aware the payment network isn't working for some of us or not. I felt sympatetic too.
I'm glad I found this video because I keep seeing those popups on every visit to Wikipedia and I kept feeling sympatetic.
Here's what makes this murkier, they asked to me to "consider" paying an additional INR 100 (for an INR 2500 donation) to cover to transaction costs. India's UPI is MDR free. They should have gotten those 2500 anyway, but still another 100. This is just scammy now.
6:12 Why is New Zealand ALWAYS excluded from World Maps! Also I think it's good Wikipedia has excess money,That way they can keep giving us new features which cost time and money.
I mean, panama, the carribeans, a ton of islands etc are all missing
@furinick yeah,the map needs to be fixed so everyone's on it.
Damn I was not thinking that your english is so good! I really enjoy your videos. Both on fern and Simplicissimus! Keep up the work! ;)
Thanks for that Fern... I've always considered the donation banners a tad pleading for sure and in the back of my mind was one day going to check out what it's all about but your awesomely presented vid has explained it to me... cheers to you Fern I could watch vids from you guys 24/7 🤟✨
bottom line: professional begging is profitable.
0:59 spoiler blocker
?
Then why do they keep asking for money!?!
Cause they still need it
Imagine youtube start saying it's about to go bankrupt and all videos will be deleted
For this super smooth and slippery transition to the add, you get a slipped press on the like button.
Unlike other internet services like Google, which make substantial profits through ads, Wikipedia remains free and ad-free. Even if they manage millions in revenue, it's still far less than what other tech giants earn. Why shouldn't they have the right to grow? As more online services shift towards paid models or become saturated with ads, it seems fair for a platform that avoids both to ask-without forcing-users for voluntary support, doesn't it?
It is! This fucking content creator is just grasping with his AI made video for clout
Because people think they donate to Wikipedia, which has already been funded till the heat death of the universe. What actually happens is that 90% of whatever comes in is wasted on all the side projects, that people don't even know they are donating to, and would NEVER have donated to.
Everyone has dirt on their hands. Wikipedia has positive karma in my eyes.
this must have been one of the best response mails from a company. Even i didnt really answer much.
great video!
I used to donate, but stopped last year. Then came across this video today. Pretty outraged, thank you for surfacing this.
4:36 You said 2/3 of indians live in poverty. Can you provide your sources? That is simple not true. 66% of the country lives with less than 2 USD a day? India poverty rate is acutally 2-5%
Google
What’s the source for the 2-5%
According to research by the State Bank of India (SBI), India's poverty rate in 2022-2023 was 4.5-5%:
Rural poverty: 7.2%
Urban poverty: 4.6%
@@pedroaugusto656 not true
@@pedroaugusto656 In India 800000000 people are given free food every month so that they can survive. That just proves that he's correct.
6:13 they wiped out the uk
also Iceland and New Zealand
@@neypomukI came here specifically to stick up for NZ ;)
8:50 how the hell can a nonprofit organization open a for-profit company?
Wikipedia and a lot of hospitals do it.... Bleh
Tons of organizations do that, OpenAI (maker of chatgpt) included. That's how they're able to accept billions of dollars from Microsoft
Anyone can open a for-profit company. They probably set it up where Wikimedia Foundation or its employees are the Enterprise owner/board. As long as they pay for-profit taxes on the for-profit income, the for-profit is free to hand all its profit to the non-profit.
@@MartyFox Hmmm surely there are no issues with this
In this case it's a morally good thing their for-profit company is only used by other companies so they are only taking money from corporations and not people
I think the critical focus is too much on India / developing countries. But it seems like the moderator is forgetting that the people using the service are not the ones working on the fields. And also in developing countries you can have a very nice income because you are taking advantage of the inequality.
Wow. The idea of the ad is genius
8:53 so Wikipedia… IS for sale… lol
0:28 "the adder way"
"Vikipedia"
Yeah man now you say it in german go ahead
I see fern, I click.
I see click, I fern.
Excellent eye opener. I have donated many times prompted by those desperate banners. Thanks for the info.
I donate small amounts occasionally, because they really are something the internet can’t live without, I still get emails asking for me to donate every few months
I have been at a presentation of Wikipedia’s fundraising team maybe 10 years ago.
They are in a very unique situation: They might have the all time + everywhere best opportunity for fundraising.
There likely is no Organisation in history (so far) with better fundraising opportunities.
Wikipedia is both obviously a good cause. And they are one of the highest traffic websites.
10 or so years ago they were able to test fundraising ideas multiple times a day.
Meaning: „should the button be green, blue, yellow or red to generate more donations?“
By now they most likely know exactly which shade of color gets most donations.
Imagine Amazon trying to figure out ways so you buy more or Facebook so you share more.
You can get really good if you can test your stuff with millions of people.
So I imagine they just got extremely good with fundraising and never stopped.
Imagine how thrilling it must be to test different background images of donation campaigns and see your average donation increase by 3% just because of a better image. Leading to maybe 30k more donations within a week.
Probably. If you have a team focussed on fundraising, they just want to keep going and fundraising just becomes a goal in and of itself, instead of a method to keep Wikipedia afloat
@@computerfan1079…or they have transparent policies, goals, and endeavors that reinforce and support their core mission, and use additional resources to further expand and establish those capabilities. That anyone finds any of this exceptional is wildly naive, and willfully ignorant considering they operate fully in the open for anyone to engage with.