Yep. Just like for-profit companies, having a diverse range of revenue streams is necessary for securing the financial health of the organization. While Wikipedia receives significant donations from companies like Google and Microsoft, it is essential to also solicit contributions from individuals to ensure that their income is not overly reliant on a single source. Just like in for-profits, Wikimedia likely determines the percentages of income from various sources needed to maintain this diversity. This concept seems particularly important for Wikipedia given its mission to provide unbiased information.

On another note, I’ve seen your same “100 years” notion mentioned a few times on this post. I can’t imagine that everyone who’s saying it independently had the idea to analyze their financial statements and calculate projections over 100 years. Is this an article you’re quoting? Just curious.

I thoroughly enjoyed this article. It was full of cited information and even the sources led to interesting reads.

That’s a great one 😇. I picture her wreath a little differently now.

Apparently that particular round of slander was not as successful as this one.

If you’re asking that question because you’re genuinely conflicted about donating and you’re not just here spreading divisive nonsense on behalf of Elon Musk, you could do a deeper delve into the entire foundation or look up the Wikipedia page on Income Statements.

You seem to be hung up on the operating expenses. That’s just a finance term for certain operational costs like the electricity bill and insurance. It does not mean the total of what it costs to run the organization and that everything else is in excess. Similarly, salary expenses includes everyone from the HR department to the custodians, not just the rich CEOs.

The entire 485 word intro to his Wikipedia page is unsourced:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

The politically elite are so used to puppeteering public sentiment with ease, and so confident in their efforts to suppress education in America that they have stopped trying to be sneaky. All American ‘news’ is propaganda and the this is a blatant attempt to divide the public on one of the last free resources for factual information**. Free as in non-criminalized. These types of posts by EM are to incite division in order to amp-up for the criminalization of information. And it’s not very difficult to see.

**factual when readers uphold its integrity through critical consumption and editing.

Love that everyone on this thread is a financial analyst and a 501c consultant.

For-profit companies have the margins they do because they’ve successfully detached humanity from their spending obligations. Wikipedia does not need to do quarterly global lay-offs or labor off-shoring when their technology doesn’t meet release deadlines. They are a nonprofit. They exist to bring factual, accessible information to the world. If you support for this cause, donate. If you don’t, don’t donate or don’t use. If you care for the cause but want the CEO to take a paycut, well, find them one who will stick around for more than a few years on less than the average mega CEO salary. Because most of them have not.

Pathos is a simple marketing mode that is one of three used by every company and I don’t really see a problem with it. It’s intentionally contrary to the one for-profit companies use to gain revenue—fear.

Right. Criminal sophistication is the tracking portal on your device, analyzing all of your information and the information of your contacts and turning into a robust identity infrastructure, from which B2B data buyers can can select a complete data profile which will allow them to make decisions about your banking costs, your employment eligibility, your healthcare options, and the quality of information you are able to access via the web. All while appearing as a cute step-counting app that gives lights up with a smiley face haptic when you reach your goal.

That’s legal fees meaning court filing and other fees (seems low). You also have professional legal services, which includes specialized lawyers, in-house attorneys, and the General Council, which consists of board-level executives with legal credentials.

deleted by creator

This is the answer I was looking for! Thank you!

Legal fees and legal staff take up much of their expenses as well. When you have a platform that aims to make truth public, you are getting threatened with lawsuits 24 hours a day.

I’m pretty sure we want content created, vetted, and edited by volunteers. It prevents bias, in theory.

You can if you change the definition of libel (or terrorism) to be ‘anything that negatively affects an ultra rich person’. Which is what is happening before our very eyes.

The problem I have with this is that it still links to my primary number through data profiling. Seems like a good option if I just want to keep my personal number separate from my work clients. But for data privacy, idk.

Right on. Consider also contributing to an article. Volunteers work tirelessly to filter the misinformation pushed by stakeholders like Elon Musk and the army he can afford to employ to fuck up articles full-time.

Thanks for donating! I give annually too. But we’re going to have to step up our contributions, both financially and in terms of information, if we want to keep Wikipedia a resource for free information and not free propaganda. Megacorps like EM’s and their lobbyists are always fucking up articles, trying to outpace the volunteers who vet the information.

Just look at the Consumer Brands Association or the National Restaurant Association (the lobbying groups who are responsible for suppressing ultra-processed food regulation and fair wage legislation). Among their claims on the Wikipedia pages are that Michelle Obama “asked for their help” for her healthy eating campaign and that they exist to encourage responsible food selection by consumers— referring to sources that are actually about MO issuing a warning to them to improve food labels or else.

Another example is the Scientology page which has been locked due to the relentless efforts of Scientologists constantly trying to edit it with misinformation. Maintaining the integrity of the platform is really a tireless service that volunteers of Wikipedia Foundation provide.

For those who may not be able to donate or want to take additional steps to protect the freedom of shared information, consider contributing to an article you’re passionate about. Platforms like Udemy and Coursera offer free courses on how to research and verify information effectively. While I’ve always been a strong advocate for public libraries, it’s clear that Wikipedia is the essential resource when it comes to current and accessible knowledge.

Thank you for donating!