Does Wikipedia really need money?
I guess I am not the only one who feels the same way. I was just going through the Wikipedia Financial today on their page. What I saw there made me look into this matter in much greater detail. Wikimedia spent almost $3500, 000 in recruiting and wages in the financial year 2009-2010. And it grew to almost $6000, 000 in the financial year 2010-2011. I was just wondering isn’t that too much for 50 employees of Wikimedia. I am now confused as in what is actually a non-profit organization. I mean apart from running your websites do you also need money to run the show? Posting a conversation excerpt that I found in a forum.
This is why I have lost faith in humanity, because too many people believe what is told to them and would rather believe in the “make me feel safe, secure, and okay” state of mind rather than face reality. It is a reality that non-profit and profit organizations use fraud to gain extra bucks. This is not conspiracy theories as it is even reported in mainstream media. You would have to be either very naive or not informed of what is going on in the world not to realize this.
Look at the last decade during the many world disasters, the mainstream news media always reported on scams/misuse of funds/missing funds for donations drives for:
- 9/11 Victim families
- Tsunami relief 2004
- Haiti earthquake relief and many others.
Just watch/read the news the next time another major disaster happens and donation drives start up, and you will see it shows up. Now, having said all this, I never said that no one should not donate to Wikipedia. I consider Wikipeidia one of the most important acomplishements of human effort for this decade and maybe even farther back because its primary cause is to spread information, something I believe strongly in.
And that is exactly why I mention that donation drives are not 100% innocent just because they have the “non-profit” tag on them. Those that still refuse to believe this reality attempt to counter with “but they report what they use the money for!” And then further counter by saying you have no evidence in return to go against it.
However evidence does exist in the form of history of scams/fraud in past donation drives for various causes. Also, the excuse of saying they report use is very naive as it *assumes* that those reporting are not involved or prone to fraud or are 100% honest. Even in the face of history proving that people can’t be trusted, which is way laws, courts, and oversight organizations exist (which I will also add are also not immune to being corrupt [as proven by history]).
Beyond failing to observe or forgetting history, I believe most people don’t realize this because they have never been in a “controller” position without oversight, in which human bias and nature is unchecked. This is why in science, double-blind experiments are use to remove bias. However, in the controller position without oversight, this is not removed. If you study literature, this topic (i.e. Lord of the Flies) has been covered many times throughout history as well, even up until now and in films.
Again, I just want to say I support Wikipedia because I so strongly believe in the spreading of information, and by that believe I attempt to spread a little, perhaps unpleasant piece of information as well. Which instead of being pushed under the plate should be swallowed whole, even if it tastes bad and unsettles your bowels. Even still you should make it part of you, move on, and seek out more information.
What are your thoughts on this?
Comments Closed