After reading this one-sided article, I checked out the rest of the website. Sadly I did not find evidence to support their statement that they "have no allegiance to any political party or tradition." And this article is a prime example. Ever since the right discovered that Wikimedia makes donations to "social justice" groups, they've been gunning for it. This hit piece is one of many.
The parent is suggesting that Unherd doesn't fulfill their own claim (the quote), and whatever that implies on this topic (hypocrisy, dishonesty, whatever). They don't imply what you suggested.
either way it’s an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack, not even addressing the substance of the article but rather inferring the author’s are on “the right” and therefore it’s a “hit piece” and dismisses it immediately. The grandparent is taking a political stance
Gunning for it? I donated and then click the “I donated stop bothering me” button on mobile and it says “great we won’t bother you for a week”. I’m never donating again as they can’t even respect the donors. They don’t need the money either and now I feel twice the fool. Don’t fool me a third time. Donate the money to a charity that feeds the poor. I hope people continue to hammer them for their poor behavior
I haven’t checked the website or who is behind it, I came to the same conclusion that donations to WMF do not actually benefit the operation of that website a couple years ago and stopped all my donations.
I feel it is dishonest to request donations this aggressively and painting it like the website might shut down otherwise, which is not true.
Finance whatever groups you want with that money, but don’t make it look it it would benefit the website - But please, explain to me, why should I start donating again, maybe there is a factual error in the article or my own research? Or is all you come up with really just “something something the right”?
It's not very surprisingly that it got a real political bias:
>UnHerd was founded in 2017 by the billionaire hedge fund manager Sir Paul Marshall as its owner and publisher and conservative British political activist Tim Montgomerie as its editor
The only "left-leaning" political people they invite are either saying similar statements to what the conservatives says (no to LGBT, no to abortion or no to feminism) or it's the kind of radical and divisive left leaning person that is just a useful idiot to the conservative (such as leftists who claim anyone who doesn't follow their belief is somehow a paid shill).
I often wonder how many of these appeals are purely to ensure 501(c) status is maintained because of evidence there is no single-funding-agency capture.
If you don't ask for, and accept donations, your primary source may be your only source, and it's my belief this risks the 501(c) determination: it's not about the money, it's about being seen to solicit, and accept the money from the wider sources.
Weird site, weird argument. Legit propaganda vibes with just enough truth to make you think what about... they are right to feel legitimate. But arguing that Wikipedia editors are the proletariat who are getting screwed by the people who work to run the site? AI could have written a better argument
>> The NGO world of which the Wikimedia Foundation is now part uncannily follows Marx’s prediction that the middle class would devise an infinite number of ways of enriching themselves, while ensuring the proletariat, the volunteers at the Wiki-face, don’t share the riches.
It's amazing how prescient Marx was to predict Wikipedia in the 19th century.
With a few prominent exceptions, the Wikipedia Foundation has been wise enough to enjoy the perks parasitism and not get in the way. However, their stated fundraising goal is amassing a large enough endowment that they can exist perpetually on it’s interest.
I sometimes worry if they ever achieve their goal they might not be wise enough not to kill the golden goose.
4% of $400M is $16M, more than enough to cover annual Wikipedia infrastructure costs in perpetuity. What would one consider “enough” if this is not it?
I think it’d be fine if they stated their endowment target to achieve perpetuity (as a donor, I want to give to orgs who think in 100 year or perpetual terms, instead of having to waste resources constantly to have to sing for their meal), but find it exceptionally poor taste to beg as if they’re going out of business. I assume this is because if donors knew they already had $400M in the coffers, donation volume would decline. I don’t believe greater transparency is unwarranted, considering both their non profit status and mission.
