The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology & Information => Topic started by: Ghost of V on December 04, 2014, 08:51:50 AM
-
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give#legacy
If you cannot pay wikipedia a donation with a credit card they will gladly take it off your dead relatives' corpse.
Under "Ways to Give" there is an option called "Legacy Gift" which lets one write Wikipedia into their own will to be paid for after death. They are essentially grasping at straws here with the many methods used to steal your money.
"Your gift to the Wikimedia Foundation ensures that Wikipedia is here for the next generation. A Legacy Gift is a charitable donation of any amount, designated through your will or living trust. You can learn more about Legacy Gifts or email benefactors@wikimedia.org"
Wikipedia should just run ads. But their "freedom" is more important, so they'll just beg for your money instead. They're like internet hobos with a taste for blood. They have some adims, some servers, and the rest of the money goes into "research projects". The site is basically maintained for free by random people on the internet. They're monopolizing encyclopedias with dead people money, and it's an outrage.
-
Well, I certainly won't need my money after I'm dead, and they would, so...
-
Well, I certainly won't need my money after I'm dead, and they would, so...
So give your money to Wikipedia instead of your family, good idea Snupes.
-
Vauxhall thought this was a good enough troll gag to start a whole new topic.
-
You have not come up with a good troll gag in quite a while, so someone needed to do it.
-
You have not come up with a good troll gag in quite a while, so someone needed to do it.
It's because my sig reminds everyone not to fall for my shit now.
-
Vauxhall thought this was a good enough troll gag to start a whole new topic.
A non-profit using dead people money to fund their own expansion is not a troll gag. This is really happening. Only a sliver of the money goes to maintaining their servers and paying their employees. The rest funds research projects, and apparently sending their employees to pop concerts to take pictures is considered a research project. This information is suspiciously hard to find online as well. There's something fishy going on here.
It's because my sig reminds everyone not to fall for my shit now.
So that's why you've been ruining all my fun lately.
-
Well, I certainly won't need my money after I'm dead, and they would, so...
So give your money to Wikipedia instead of your family, good idea Snupes.
Well, I'm not having kids, and most of my close family will probably be dead by the time I die (aside from my couple of siblings, who are doing fairly well for themselves all things considered)
-
Well, I'm not having kids, and most of my close family will probably be dead by the time I die (aside from my couple of siblings, who are doing fairly well for themselves all things considered)
Since you seem so supportive of Wikipedia, they also have an option where they deduct a percentage from your paycheck every week/2 weeks depending on how you get paid. Have you ever considered actually giving money to Wikipedia instead of just talking about it? They need your help, Snupes.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give#payroll
-
Personal appeal from Jimmy Wales (https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=L11_1110_as75/en/US)
"Commerce is fine. Advertising is not evil. But it doesn't belong here. Not in Wikipedia."
(http://i.imgur.com/pMhcGHu.png)
Is this not a form of advertising? ::)
-
Well, I'm not having kids, and most of my close family will probably be dead by the time I die (aside from my couple of siblings, who are doing fairly well for themselves all things considered)
Since you seem so supportive of Wikipedia, they also have an option where they deduct a percentage from your paycheck every week/2 weeks depending on how you get paid. Have you ever considered actually giving money to Wikipedia instead of just talking about it? They need your help, Snupes.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give#payroll
Uhh, what on earth makes you think I don't donate to Wikipedia?
-
I will have kids with you, Snupes. Just kidding. lolol
-
Well, I'm not having kids, and most of my close family will probably be dead by the time I die (aside from my couple of siblings, who are doing fairly well for themselves all things considered)
Since you seem so supportive of Wikipedia, they also have an option where they deduct a percentage from your paycheck every week/2 weeks depending on how you get paid. Have you ever considered actually giving money to Wikipedia instead of just talking about it? They need your help, Snupes.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give#payroll
Uhh, what on earth makes you think I don't donate to Wikipedia?
Do you donate to Wikipedia?
-
Personal appeal from Jimmy Wales (https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=L11_1110_as75/en/US)
"Commerce is fine. Advertising is not evil. But it doesn't belong here. Not in Wikipedia."
(http://i.imgur.com/pMhcGHu.png)
Is this not a form of advertising? ::)
No, that's begging. Its like advertising only instead of some faceless corporation that wants to stuff its shit down your throat paying for the service, you are asked to pay. Begging is far worse.
1) You have to stump up.
2) You aren't made to feel bad for ignoring an advert.
I don't know how Jimmy Wales thinks this is better. But he's a millionaire beggar. I work for a living and I haven't got as much money so shows what I know.
-
Wikipedia is non-profit. How else are they going to stay online so you can look up information for your crappy Internet debates?
-
Most, if not all, non profits ask for donations. I don't see the problem.
-
This is an outage.
-
Most, if not all, non profits ask for donations. I don't see the problem.
The problem is that the entire site is maintained by unpaid volunteers. The donations don't benefit the people actually contributing to the site besides keeping the servers running. Jimmy still manages to become a millionaire by begging, yet the only contributing he's done has been editing his own Wikipedia page.
-
I'd do a different model entirely.
I'd say to companies, you can have exclusive control of your own page for 0.1 cents per page view.
that way they can edit it to make themselves look great (they do anyway, big companies bombard the wiki page for positive spin and challenge everything requesting citations and putting anything they don't like into drawn out debates).
Just charge them to maintain their own pages. No bugger really takes something like the IBM page seriously anyway. Then the rest of the service stays as is and is paid for.
-
Yes let's just turn Wikipedia into an advertising platform. Because we need more of those.
-
I'd say to companies, you can have exclusive control of your own page for 0.1 cents per page view.
Are you drunk again?
-
Yes let's just turn Wikipedia into an advertising platform. Because we need more of those.
It's better than begging and looking like a tool.
-
I'd say to companies, you can have exclusive control of your own page for 0.1 cents per page view.
Are you drunk again?
A little bit. I just had the bottom train tracks put in a few hours ago. My fucking face hurts. Guzzled half a bottle of rum and coke to numb the pain. But I think my idea is still better than begging. No one likes a millionaire telling them to buy them a coffee. Fuck off Jimmy. I use Wikipedia because it ranks highest and is the first thing I see. Not because I think the great unwashed who edit it are infallible and unbiased.
-
Oh the irony
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_begging
(http://i.imgur.com/SUrnJND.jpg)
-
(http://i59.tinypic.com/v2wjkh.png)
It is funny because the letter at the top appears when I view the page. Jimmy Wales has no shame.
-
It's ironic that Wikipedia has an article titled "Internet Begging"?
-
It's ironic that Wikipedia has an article titled "Internet Begging"?
No. Try to keep up.
From the article:
"Internet begging differs from street begging in that it can be practiced with relative anonymity, thereby eliminating or reducing the shame and disgrace apparent of begging in public."
Yet on that same page there is a message from Jimmy Wales begging you to donate. No shame.
-
Would it not be more shameful for Wikipedia employees to beg physically, on the streets? I still don't see where the irony is.
-
Would it not be more shameful for Wikipedia employees to beg physically, on the streets? I still don't see where the irony is.
It would be just as shameful. Jimmy Wales has brought shame upon his entire family. The only way he could bring honor back to his family name would be to commit seppuku.
-
Would it not be more shameful for Wikipedia employees to beg physically, on the streets? I still don't see where the irony is.
It would be just as shameful. Jimmy Wales has brought shame upon his entire family. The only way he could bring honor back to his family name would be to commit seppuku.
I would donate £3 for him to do this.
-
Well, I'm not having kids, and most of my close family will probably be dead by the time I die (aside from my couple of siblings, who are doing fairly well for themselves all things considered)
Since you seem so supportive of Wikipedia, they also have an option where they deduct a percentage from your paycheck every week/2 weeks depending on how you get paid. Have you ever considered actually giving money to Wikipedia instead of just talking about it? They need your help, Snupes.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give#payroll
Uhh, what on earth makes you think I don't donate to Wikipedia?
Do you donate to Wikipedia?
Absolutely. I use Wikipedia daily and greatly appreciate it, so I'm more than glad to.
-
Would it not be more shameful for Wikipedia employees to beg physically, on the streets? I still don't see where the irony is.
It would be just as shameful. Jimmy Wales has brought shame upon his entire family. The only way he could bring honor back to his family name would be to commit seppuku.
Street beggars annoy you when you're minding your own business. The nice thing about Wikimedia's method of "begging" is that you're only going to see it if you're already benefiting from the service that needs money.
-
Would it not be more shameful for Wikipedia employees to beg physically, on the streets? I still don't see where the irony is.
It would be just as shameful. Jimmy Wales has brought shame upon his entire family. The only way he could bring honor back to his family name would be to commit seppuku.
Street beggars annoy you when you're minding your own business. The nice thing about Wikimedia's method of "begging" is that you're only going to see it if you're already benefiting from the service that needs money.
And they basically have a monopoly on information on the internet. Of course you're going to be using their services. Everyone who uses the internet is basically forced to. If they weren't getting enough traffic I'm sure they'd be begging on other sites.
-
And they basically have a monopoly on information on the internet.
Lol
-
And they basically have a monopoly on information on the internet.
Lol
Good talk
-
Would it not be more shameful for Wikipedia employees to beg physically, on the streets? I still don't see where the irony is.
It would be just as shameful. Jimmy Wales has brought shame upon his entire family. The only way he could bring honor back to his family name would be to commit seppuku.
Street beggars annoy you when you're minding your own business. The nice thing about Wikimedia's method of "begging" is that you're only going to see it if you're already benefiting from the service that needs money.
A busker could say the same thing.
-
Would it not be more shameful for Wikipedia employees to beg physically, on the streets? I still don't see where the irony is.
It would be just as shameful. Jimmy Wales has brought shame upon his entire family. The only way he could bring honor back to his family name would be to commit seppuku.
Street beggars annoy you when you're minding your own business. The nice thing about Wikimedia's method of "begging" is that you're only going to see it if you're already benefiting from the service that needs money.
A busker could say the same thing.
You probably aren't deliberately seeking out buskers. I've also never seen a busker who is actively begging. They simply leave a cup or hat out while they play Wonderwall.
-
I'd also like to add that Wikipedia is a very common source, and because of that links to it can be found on almost every site across the internet. 1 out of every 1 person using the internet stumbles across a Wikipedia article somehow when browsing.
So they're begging for money all over the internet basically.
-
And they basically have a monopoly on information on the internet.
elol
-
lol, making donations ever
-
lole
-
Yeah... How many people does wikipedia have on staff? They pay out 16 million in salary. Seems like a lot
-
As of 2013, the foundation employs more than 208 people
so probably 70-80 k per year
-
Rich. Bastards.
-
The whole thing is a money laundering scheme.
-
Well, not much money is involved, so if it is, I don't really care.
-
Well, not much money is involved, so if it is, I don't really care.
$20 million annually from donations isn't much money?
-
Well, if you're thinking about a big, evil coorporation with a sinister agenda, 20 mil is a drop in the bucket.
-
Google makes more than 15 billion dollars a year, for example.
-
Google makes more than 15 billion dollars a year, for example.
Irrelevant.
And most of that is ad revenue. At least they're not beggars.
-
What's wrong with begging?
-
What's wrong with begging?
(http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2006/03/335186.jpg)
-
>mfw I learn Wikipedia has a serious drug addiction
-
Jimmy Wales has a networth of about $1 million. That's not a terribly large amount of money, but it's still a good chunk for someone running a non-profit beggar site. There is also no record of how he made this money. He's obviously skimming some money from the donations, which is highly illegal.
-
Jimmy Wales has a networth of about $1 million. That's not a terribly large amount of money, but it's still a good chunk for someone running a non-profit beggar site. There is also no record of how he made this money. He's obviously skimming some money from the donations, which is highly illegal.
Or, you know, maybe that's his salary.
-
Jimmy Wales has a networth of about $1 million. That's not a terribly large amount of money, but it's still a good chunk for someone running a non-profit beggar site. There is also no record of how he made this money. He's obviously skimming some money from the donations, which is highly illegal.
Or, you know, maybe that's his salary.
Yes, non-profit salaries. That's not an oxymoron at all.
Jimmy Wales is obviously a crook.
-
Jimmy Wales has a networth of about $1 million. That's not a terribly large amount of money, but it's still a good chunk for someone running a non-profit beggar site. There is also no record of how he made this money. He's obviously skimming some money from the donations, which is highly illegal.
Or, you know, maybe that's his salary.
Yes, non-profit salaries. That's not an oxymoron at all.
Jimmy Wales is obviously a crook.
uh non-profit organizations have to pay their employees as well
-
Jimmy Wales has a networth of about $1 million. That's not a terribly large amount of money, but it's still a good chunk for someone running a non-profit beggar site. There is also no record of how he made this money. He's obviously skimming some money from the donations, which is highly illegal.
Or, you know, maybe that's his salary.
Yes, non-profit salaries. That's not an oxymoron at all.
Jimmy Wales is obviously a crook.
uh non-profit organizations have to pay their employees as well
With donation money
-
Jimmy Wales has a networth of about $1 million. That's not a terribly large amount of money, but it's still a good chunk for someone running a non-profit beggar site. There is also no record of how he made this money. He's obviously skimming some money from the donations, which is highly illegal.
Or, you know, maybe that's his salary.
Yes, non-profit salaries. That's not an oxymoron at all.
Jimmy Wales is obviously a crook.
uh non-profit organizations have to pay their employees as well
With donation money.
Yes.
-
Jimmy Wales has a networth of about $1 million. That's not a terribly large amount of money, but it's still a good chunk for someone running a non-profit beggar site. There is also no record of how he made this money. He's obviously skimming some money from the donations, which is highly illegal.
Or, you know, maybe that's his salary.
Yes, non-profit salaries. That's not an oxymoron at all.
Jimmy Wales is obviously a crook.
uh non-profit organizations have to pay their employees as well
With donation money.
Yes.
That's called stealing.
-
Jimmy Wales has a networth of about $1 million. That's not a terribly large amount of money, but it's still a good chunk for someone running a non-profit beggar site. There is also no record of how he made this money. He's obviously skimming some money from the donations, which is highly illegal.
Or, you know, maybe that's his salary.
Yes, non-profit salaries. That's not an oxymoron at all.
Jimmy Wales is obviously a crook.
uh non-profit organizations have to pay their employees as well
With donation money.
Yes.
That's called stealing.
No.
-
Jimmy Wales has a networth of about $1 million. That's not a terribly large amount of money, but it's still a good chunk for someone running a non-profit beggar site. There is also no record of how he made this money. He's obviously skimming some money from the donations, which is highly illegal.
Or, you know, maybe that's his salary.
Yes, non-profit salaries. That's not an oxymoron at all.
Jimmy Wales is obviously a crook.
uh non-profit organizations have to pay their employees as well
With donation money.
Yes.
That's called stealing.
No.
Let me get this straight...
Wikipedia asks for donations annually. Gives this money to their employees (Who do... what exactly? Beg for more money), then they get volunteers to actually run their site. That's called stealing. The money should go to keeping the servers running ONLY. The bulk of wikipedia was created by unpaid volunteers.
Jimmy Wales uses the money he makes from begging to line his own pockets. That's called stealing, because he's esentially lying to people when he's asking for money.
Jimbo: "We need money to keep the servers up"
Unassuming nice-guy: "Aw. Alright. Since you guys are non-profit I will donate to keep the servers up for this great site"
Jimbo: *pockets the money for personal use"
Blanko, c'mon now. That's stealing. You know it.
-
ITT: Vauxhall has unearthed the ancient secret that it's possible to intentionally say dumb things to elicit reactions from people, and will abuse this power until the novelty wears off.
-
ITT: Vauxhall has unearthed the ancient secret that it's possible to intentionally say dumb things to elicit reactions from people, and will abuse this power until the novelty wears off.
I discovered that back in 2007 when I first joined this fine community.
But, by no means is that what I'm doing here. I am seriously offended by Jimmy Wales begging for money.
-
ITT: non-profit means employees are volunteers.
-
ITT: non-profit means employees are volunteers.
It should. Salary and employment implies profit.
Jimmy Wales should get a real job and stop being an internet bum.
-
Non profits require people to run them full time, abd in order to survive, people need money.
-
Non profits require people to run them full time, abd in order to survive, people need money.
Wikipedia is run by unpaid volunteers. They just need money to run the servers, not pay a team of employees to do basically nothing. They even have enough money to pay a lobbyist to spread their non-profit benevolence.
Also, if Jimmy Wales died it would have no impact on Wikipedia. This guy does nothing but talk-up his organization, and he's a millionaire because of the contributions of unpaid volunteers. It's thievery.
-
greed
-
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/05/1ae5fdb8b52f446a68e86334fd2c0239.jpg)
-
Anyone who asks for money or donations is a greedy cunt.
-
I have sent wikimedia an email with questions and concerns. My email reads as follows:
"Hello Wikimedia! Big long time fan here!
What do you use the donation money for exactly? Can you break down the expenses that are being paid with these donations in exact dollar amounts? Thanks!"
Now I play the waiting game.
-
You should have included the question "Aren't you in fact just a greedy cunt?".
-
You should have included the question "Aren't you in fact just a greedy cunt?".
I work in customer service and spend a lot of time responding to emails. So I know what happens when people send these type of emails.
I will, however, include it in my follow up email.
-
That question is answered in their FAQ (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en).
Money you donate pays for staff salaries and technology. Even though Wikipedia and its sister projects together reach 431 million people every month, we employ only 239 people; see our staff overview.
Our staff is divided into three program departments: technology (website operations, software development); legal, communications, and community advocacy (public outreach, community programs, legal defense); and learning and grantmaking (supporting chapter programs and growing Wikimedia worldwide). The remainder of our staff work in management, finance, and administration. Your support also pays for servers, bandwidth, and Internet hosting that allow us to keep Wikimedia's projects running and growing.
Above all, the Wikimedia Foundation exists to support and grow the vast network of volunteers who write and edit Wikipedia and its sister projects – more than 80,000 people around the world.
-
That question is answered in their FAQ (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en).
Money you donate pays for staff salaries and technology. Even though Wikipedia and its sister projects together reach 431 million people every month, we employ only 239 people; see our staff overview.
Our staff is divided into three program departments: technology (website operations, software development); legal, communications, and community advocacy (public outreach, community programs, legal defense); and learning and grantmaking (supporting chapter programs and growing Wikimedia worldwide). The remainder of our staff work in management, finance, and administration. Your support also pays for servers, bandwidth, and Internet hosting that allow us to keep Wikimedia's projects running and growing.
Above all, the Wikimedia Foundation exists to support and grow the vast network of volunteers who write and edit Wikipedia and its sister projects – more than 80,000 people around the world.
It's not answered in exact dollar amounts.
And what is "technology". See, this is why I need to know exact dollar amounts and exactly what they're spending it on. That excerpt from the FAQs answers nothing.
-
It's not answered in exact dollar amounts.
That information is also publicly available. You can find it by expending the tiniest amount of effort. (hint: follow the link I just posted)
-
It's not answered in exact dollar amounts.
That information is also publicly available. You can find it by expending the tiniest amount of effort. (hint: follow the link I just posted)
Do you honestly expect me to sit down and read a 49 page .pdf document to find this information?
There is another pdf with a graph, but that graph does not give me the information I want.
Product and engineering $15,668,008
Programs and grantmaking $4,571,662
Grants $2,791,378
General and administrative $8,158,421
Fundraising $3,807,160
Management and governance $708,167
Total $35,704,796
I don't even understand what half of this means. What products? What Programs? What does General mean? Why do they need 3mil to fund begging ("fundraising")? What does governance mean?
I could make a graph with a bunch of vague categories too, but it doesn't answer exactly what they need it for. These programs could be anything. Especially "General", that is very vague and seems like a loophole placeholder for "we're not going to tell you where this money is going". "General" costs them the second most out of all the categories too. Ridiculous.
-
greed
-
ITT: Vauxhall has unearthed the ancient secret that it's possible to intentionally say dumb things to elicit reactions from people, and will abuse this power until the novelty wears off.
More like, considering Vaux's history, he is just genuinely this dumb. If he was doing this intentionally he would follow the ancient secret of what you said in my sig.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y
-
ITT: Vauxhall has unearthed the ancient secret that it's possible to intentionally say dumb things to elicit reactions from people, and will abuse this power until the novelty wears off.
More like, considering Vaux's history, he is just genuinely this dumb. If he was doing this intentionally he would follow the ancient secret of what you said in my sig.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y
Yes, he is dumb, but I feel like he's really been stepping it up lately in a deliberate way. The retart/donut/walnut method is not the only trolling method in the books. My theory is that Vauxy has an enormous crush on me and became envious of all the attention I was giving you when you were being stupid about things, so he's being even stupider about even more things.
-
Please give my stupid SC thread moar attention. SC has already implemented multiplayer private matches, meaning it is currently a more complete game than ED.
-
I'm actually becoming a little worried about E:D, so I'd rather avoid that contest right now.
-
ITT: Vauxhall has unearthed the ancient secret that it's possible to intentionally say dumb things to elicit reactions from people, and will abuse this power until the novelty wears off.
More like, considering Vaux's history, he is just genuinely this dumb. If he was doing this intentionally he would follow the ancient secret of what you said in my sig.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y
Yes, he is dumb, but I feel like he's really been stepping it up lately in a deliberate way. The retart/donut/walnut method is not the only trolling method in the books. My theory is that Vauxy has an enormous crush on me and became envious of all the attention I was giving you when you were being stupid about things, so he's being even stupider about even more things.
This is surprisingly accurate.
-
Wikimedia has not answered my email. I guess that means they have no interest in my money. Too bad for them, I guess.
-
The retart/donut/walnut method
-
Do you honestly expect me to sit down and read a 49 page .pdf document to find this information?
Yes, but I'm not counting on it.
I don't even understand what half of this means. What products? What Programs? What does General mean? Why do they need 3mil to fund begging ("fundraising")? What does governance mean?
That's why you should read all 49 pages.
-
Do you honestly expect me to sit down and read a 49 page .pdf document to find this information?
Yes.
I don't even understand what half of this means. What products? What Programs? What does General mean? Why do they need 3mil to fund begging ("fundraising")? What does governance mean?
That's why you should read all 49 pages.
How about you read it then type up a condensed version for me? This way I can focus on more important things while you do something relatively menial and ultimately pointless because I will probably not read it. Wikimedia is obligated to answer my questions via email, of which I have now sent 2. The second one is asking what "general" means in their cost breakdown. But, surprise surprise, they have still not responded to my inquires.
-
Do you honestly expect me to sit down and read a 49 page .pdf document to find this information?
Yes.
I don't even understand what half of this means. What products? What Programs? What does General mean? Why do they need 3mil to fund begging ("fundraising")? What does governance mean?
That's why you should read all 49 pages.
How about you read it then type up a condensed version for me? This way I can focus on more important things while you do something relatively menial and ultimately pointless because I will probably not read it. Wikimedia is obligated to answer my questions via email, of which I have now sent 2. The second one is asking what "general" means in their cost breakdown. But, surprise surprise, they have still not responded to my inquires.
Did you give them a week to respond?
-
Do you honestly expect me to sit down and read a 49 page .pdf document to find this information?
Yes.
I don't even understand what half of this means. What products? What Programs? What does General mean? Why do they need 3mil to fund begging ("fundraising")? What does governance mean?
That's why you should read all 49 pages.
How about you read it then type up a condensed version for me? This way I can focus on more important things while you do something relatively menial and ultimately pointless because I will probably not read it. Wikimedia is obligated to answer my questions via email, of which I have now sent 2. The second one is asking what "general" means in their cost breakdown. But, surprise surprise, they have still not responded to my inquires.
Did you give them a week to respond?
No. I sent the email a few days ago. If it takes them a week to respond to a simple question, then maybe I should demand a refund of my $10 that I donated a few years ago.
Is that something that I can do? Get a refund on a donation? Or is that frowned upon?
-
Do you honestly expect me to sit down and read a 49 page .pdf document to find this information?
Yes.
I don't even understand what half of this means. What products? What Programs? What does General mean? Why do they need 3mil to fund begging ("fundraising")? What does governance mean?
That's why you should read all 49 pages.
How about you read it then type up a condensed version for me? This way I can focus on more important things while you do something relatively menial and ultimately pointless because I will probably not read it. Wikimedia is obligated to answer my questions via email, of which I have now sent 2. The second one is asking what "general" means in their cost breakdown. But, surprise surprise, they have still not responded to my inquires.
Did you give them a week to respond?
No. I sent the email a few days ago. If it takes them a week to respond to a simple question, then maybe I should demand a refund of my $10 that I donated a few years ago.
Is that something that I can do? Get a refund on a donation? Or is that frowned upon?
Considering how many e-mails they likely get and how many volunteers work for them, I'd say a week is not unreasonable.
-
Fine. You make a convincing argument, Dave. I'll wait a week.
-
How about you read it then type up a condensed version for me? This way I can focus on more important things while you do something relatively menial and ultimately pointless because I will probably not read it.
I'm not the one pissing and moaning about not understanding something that I'm unwilling to read. Do you want someone from Wikimedia to burp you and put you down for a nap after they spoon feed you?
-
How about you read it then type up a condensed version for me? This way I can focus on more important things while you do something relatively menial and ultimately pointless because I will probably not read it.
I'm not the one pissing and moaning about not understanding something that I'm unwilling to read. Do you want someone from Wikimedia to burp you and put you down for a nap after they spoon feed you?
The only thing I'm being spoon fed is lies.
-
The only thing I'd feed you is expired cheese.
-
The only thing I'd feed you is expired cheese.
All cheese is expired, that is why it is cheese.
-
Le fromage never goes bad monsieurs it only gets better hon hon hon hon hon
-
The only thing I'd feed you is expired cheese.
I don't like cheese. I thought we were cool, spoon. I guess I was wrong. From where I'm standing it looks like you're in on this whole nefarious operation, aren't you? How much of my own money are they paying you to spread deceit across the web?
-
Wikipedia has finally answered my email inquiry with a stock template response.
"Thank you for your email.
The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that exists to support and grow the enormous network of volunteers who write and edit Wikipedia and its sister projects -- more than 100,000 people around the world. The Wikimedia Foundation does not allow advertising on Wikipedia or our other sites. Instead, we cover the costs of operating the sites through donations that directly support some of the most popular collaboratively edited reference projects in the world, including Wikipedia, one of the world's top ten most popular websites and the largest encyclopedia ever compiled in human history.
Even though Wikipedia and its sister projects are in the top 10 visited websites in the world, we employ around 200 people and some temporary staff. Roughly half work on technology and software development, a small team supports our public outreach and volunteer cultivation activities, and the remaining staff work on finance, fundraising, and administration. In addition, your support helps to pay for the technology infrastructure (servers and bandwidth) that keep Wikipedia running and growing."
Reps name omitted for obvious reasons.
This is unacceptable. It says the same thing the donation page says and answers none of my questions.
-
Probably because you sound like a whacko that elicited a copypasta answer.