The point is when you go to Wikipedia and they are on a funding drive with their very prominent ads for donation requests, they dont mention any of this. They make it sound like wikipedia is very much at risk of dying due to lack of funds when in reality they are looking for more funding for programmes like this, which is where a lot of the mistrust and 'deceptive advertising' opinions come from.

▲

inigyou a day ago | parent | next [-]

They could tell us which programs.

▲

alt227 a day ago | parent [-]

They could, but if their donation ads said for example 'please help us to take more photos of live events' instead of 'we need your help to keep wikipedia alive' then they would not get half the donations they do currently, which is the point.

	▲	inigyou a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I agree, that you can lie to people to make more money. That's called fraud.
	▲	Sabinus 17 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I wonder how well they would go if you could target your donation. Humble bundle did this and I appreciated it.

▲

joshspankit a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Honestly, I’ve never donated bc “keeping Wikipedia up” could be a solved problem by now. Not just cheaper processing and bandwidth costs, but p2p hosting, etc. Every time I see that ad, I say to myself “it should not be that expensive”.

Now, if they had said “We need 200k to send CC photographers to the Olympics”, count me in. That sounds bigger and way more interesting!

▲

Gander5739 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Hosting isn't the expensive part, maintaining mediawiki is. For example, unifying the parser for the markup language: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsoid/Parser_Unification/en

	▲	account42 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Maintaining a shitty PHP website isn't that expensive either.

▲

ReactiveJelly a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't even use Wikipedia anymore, I use the free online P2P encyclopedia. It's called