It seems a bit silly to base this entire analysis on Wikipedia page views without exploring what else the WMF does.

And in any event, I have a really hard time getting worked up about the relatively small amount of money they deal with - and use to do a lot of good for the world - while corruption and greedy corporations are as rampant and filthy rich as they are.

▲

tosti 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Corruption is fought best by not allowing it anywhere at all.

▲

squigz 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Putting aside that I don't believe WMF is 'wrong' here at all, it's simply not reasonable or healthy to get upset about every wrong thing. One needs to pick their battles.

	▲	tosti 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		True that. Getting upset about pretty much anything is rarely useful. IDK who first theorized this, but usually people get upset when they don't fully understand the situation. They who truly grasp the entire situation can't get upset. The real battle is in oneself.

▲

tdeck 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Personally I'm not worked up over it either, but I find the argument that this puts Wikipedia at risk persuasive. If it some point WMF racks up debts they can't pay and puts itself up for sale, these days probably Elon Musk or Larry Ellison would buy it.

▲

squigz 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Is the WMF in debt?

▲

inigyou 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The WMF is clearly unable to reduce expenses. If donations ever decrease, it will be bankrupt within two years.

	▲	squigz 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The WMF is clearly unable to reduce expenses. Nothing about this is clear. What makes you think that, if the donations were to significantly fall off, they would be unable to reduce expenses?