Wikipedia runs one of the busiest websites in the world with a staff much smaller than any of those other sites. Like any company -- there's going to be priorities different than mine and waste.
But I'm ok being asked to chip in for what I get.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_visited_websites
The whole thing just feels skeezy. They may have a noble mission, and they may need a $300m endowment when previously $100m was the target[2], but they should make that case. Acting like the site is in trouble and desperately needs every penny all the time is just dishonest. It’s like a televangelist is running the place. Now matter how much you give they desperately and urgently need more more more.
0. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...
1. https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goe...
2. https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/22/wikimedia-fo...
I think almost every charity, or business, ever created spends some proportion of it's income on advertising / outreach, to increase future income. If they cut that 12%, and it decreased their income to half, or a third, of it's current value, would that make you happy?
Also, please point me to "The implication is that donations are urgently needed to keep the website running.". I've not seen anything like that in any banner I've seen this year. I'd be interested to know if you get different banners to me? Or, are you just assuming the banner says that?
Most of the arguments, including yours, are 100% qualitative. "They're a good site, so give them money." Or "other charities also spend money on advertising."
We should instead be quantitative : "Yes, you are a worthy cause, but you have plenty now. Other charities are more deserving."
We can argue about that extra 30%, but it’s not what people are expecting to pay for.
On your point 1, it is incredible normal for non-profit organizations to spend quite a bit of money on fundraising. They do this because spending less brings in less, and bringing in less means they cease to exist. As weird as it is to spend a million throwing a party to bring in five million, it works, and it brings in money from different people than letters in the mail or banners on a website do. 12% is half of what Charity Watch still deems "highly efficient" and earns them an A-[0].
On your points 0 and 2, I'm puzzled about what you suggest as an alternative. Should they fire all but a skeleton staff and only operate the website as-is on as little as possible with no expansion into other languages or areas of interest? Maybe that's your implied suggestion, but they clearly disagree.
If the once-a-week banners bother you that much, it suggests that you are using the site very, very frequently. You can either support their mission or not, as you wish, and all of the banners are easily dismissed or ignored. I don't think they're nearly as dishonest as you do, but then, I've worked for non-profits in the past and can read a Charity Watch page.
And I’m afraid you’ve bought into the “Wikimedia is on the verge of extinction” nonsense. There is no need for a skeleton staff and bare bones operations. They have a $300m endowment! They said, as recently as two years ago, that they only need a $100m endowment to meet their mission indefinitely.
What changed that merits a 3x increase? Do they really need to raise $120m per year, as they do now, to avoid the skeleton staff of doom that you propose?
I’ve posted supporting links elsewhere in this thread. I like Wikimedia. They do good work. Their management has run amok and is trapped in a spiral of raising ever-more money to justify more expensive management.
no.
the banners never bothered me when I used the website daily, multiple times a day. They bother me immensely now that I use wikipedia once / twice a month. Now, every time I open it there is the banner asking me to donate (every time more invasive).
If you give money to, I don’t know, a charity for hungry kids in <insert poor country>, they will send you MORE begging mails, not less.