So Wikipedia are begging for donations again

Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
At first it doesn't sound unreasonable to give a couple quid to keep the site running.

Unfortunately for them, I felt compelled to first check whether they actually needed the money or not.

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/

Turns out they have more money than they can spend.

And, like many large charities, they've done the usual trick of expanding their paid staff, creating a pyramid of management earning up to $400k each. Whilst, as such charities are wont to do, relying on unpaid volunteers to do the actual good work of the charity.

And this is why I hate large charities. How many of your donations are just going to pay someone's $400k salary. Why are the only paid staff the management and the fundraising team?

Another thing typical of large charities is that Wiki now engages in political lobbying.

So yeah, they aren't getting my £2 now or, well, ever. They don't need it to maintain the site, and their managers aren't going to starve. Plus they're now begging in regions like India and places that genuinely have sod all in the first place. Shameful.
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
Doesn't surprise me, I had donated a little quite some time ago, but I subsequently thought "how much money can it possibly take to run an encyclopaedia website who's content is given to them for free?" so stopped.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,824
I donated in the early days but the manner of approach increasingly seemed manipulative to me so I stopped. Maybe I'm misjudging but I've rarely if ever found a genuine charity which resorts to being that manipulative with their solicitation of donations but plenty of scammers who employ such methods.

On the flip side to run something like this, and many other charities, well does require people at the top who don't come cheap.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 May 2012
Posts
8,526
Location
Wetherspoons
At first it doesn't sound unreasonable to give a couple quid to keep the site running.

Unfortunately for them, I felt compelled to first check whether they actually needed the money or not.

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/

Turns out they have more money than they can spend.

And, like many large charities, they've done the usual trick of expanding their paid staff, creating a pyramid of management earning up to $400k each. Whilst, as such charities are wont to do, relying on unpaid volunteers to do the actual good work of the charity.

And this is why I hate large charities. How many of your donations are just going to pay someone's $400k salary. Why are the only paid staff the management and the fundraising team?

Another thing typical of large charities is that Wiki now engages in political lobbying.

So yeah, they aren't getting my £2 now or, well, ever. They don't need it to maintain the site, and their managers aren't going to starve. Plus they're now begging in regions like India and places that genuinely have sod all in the first place. Shameful.

I'm very sinical about giving to larger charities for this exact reason.

The are basically just business, except the profit must be used for their charity purpose etc

But that doesn't mean the bosses of these charities don't see it fit not to drive around in £100k cars and draw huge salaries.

There are also a lot of tax fiddles that involve charities, it's gets complicated and I don't understand how it all works, but I see the "clever accounting" being used all the time in what I do for a living.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,824
I'm very sinical about giving to larger charities for this exact reason.

The are basically just business, except the profit must be used for their charity purpose etc

But that doesn't mean the bosses of these charities don't see it fit not to drive around in £100k cars and draw huge salaries.

There are also a lot of tax fiddles that involve charities, it's gets complicated and I don't understand how it all works, but I see the "clever accounting" being used all the time in what I do for a living.

In a previous job charities made up quite a few of our clients - and from what I saw I would not donate to a lot of charities but also it showed the value of paying good money for people at the top who are actually experienced and competent (when that is the case).

You will find few people who have the experience and competency to get the best out of a charity's budget and maximise what they can do who with the resources they have and come cheaply or will work for under market rate.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
10,072
Location
West Sussex, England
I don't give to any large charities. It became obvious who the main culprits were when they started sending round the American style marketing teams to knock on people's door and try to hood wink them into direct debit arrangements.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
10,072
Location
West Sussex, England
On a side note, you can now change your Amazon purchases to support any charity you want even small local charities.

Not sure where the setting is but if you substitute 'www' for 'smile' you should see some link top left to be able to set it up.
 

fez

fez

Caporegime
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Posts
25,023
Location
Tunbridge Wells
Its a really hard one to call because its ultimately a sensible business plan.

Its how all private companies work.

Bankers get large bonuses because they make the company large amounts of money.

Is it better to pay someone £150,000 a year to run a charity if they bring in £10m instead of the £2m the previous guy was doing. You only paid him £40,000 a year but he made £8m less for the charity.

That being said, I don't like the idea of a lot of charity donations going to pay peoples salary and marketing. I think many others are the same.

It also somewhat incentivises horrible business practices in the name of profits for the charity.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,273
I'm very sinical about giving to larger charities for this exact reason.

The are basically just business, except the profit must be used for their charity purpose etc

But that doesn't mean the bosses of these charities don't see it fit not to drive around in £100k cars and draw huge salaries.

There are also a lot of tax fiddles that involve charities, it's gets complicated and I don't understand how it all works, but I see the "clever accounting" being used all the time in what I do for a living.
Plenty of money to be made from the suffering of others.

The salvation army were one of the better charities to donate to in the past, no idea if that's changed now too.
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Oct 2012
Posts
25,024
Location
Godalming
I treat all charities with the highest level of cynicism and contempt until proven otherwise, they're all just greedy corporations out for money who happen to occasionally sprinkle some loose change on the people they claim to help.

I help a few local charities to us, like a charity which provides basic life supplies to women who fled Afghanistan. We help quite a bit there and we can see directly where it's all going rather than in some chump's G-Wagen's petrol tank.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
18,302
Location
Birmingham
On a side note, you can now change your Amazon purchases to support any charity you want even small local charities.

Not sure where the setting is but if you substitute 'www' for 'smile' you should see some link top left to be able to set it up.

Yup, been doing this for a couple of years now :)

On the flip side to run something like this, and many other charities, well does require people at the top who don't come cheap.

In a previous job charities made up quite a few of our clients - and from what I saw I would not donate to a lot of charities but also it showed the value of paying good money for people at the top who are actually experienced and competent (when that is the case).

You will find few people who have the experience and competency to get the best out of a charity's budget and maximise what they can do who with the resources they have and come cheaply or will work for under market rate.

Is it better to pay someone £150,000 a year to run a charity if they bring in £10m instead of the £2m the previous guy was doing. You only paid him £40,000 a year but he made £8m less for the charity.

While I'm sure this is true for some charities e.g. with complex logistics and resourcing needing careful management, I don't see how much it applies to Wikipedia. What special level of experience and competence is required to host a website and employ a team of moderators?
 

fez

fez

Caporegime
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Posts
25,023
Location
Tunbridge Wells
While I'm sure this is true for some charities e.g. with complex logistics and resourcing needing careful management, I don't see how much it applies to Wikipedia. What special level of experience and competence is required to host a website and employ a team of moderators?

I think you might be underestimating the complexity of Wikipedia and its associated ventures. Any website of that scale will have serious technical issues and one that is used as such a respected source of information as well.

I remember the early days of Wikipedia where you weren't allowed to quote it for anything because it was considered unreliable.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Dec 2003
Posts
2,535
Explains the barrage of emails i've been getting from them over the last 6 months or so. I donated a small amount a few years back. I can't remember any other charity or organisation to have sent me so many emails asking for donations.
 
Back
Top Bottom