Never Donate To Wikipedia. This Is What They Spend It On

[@User-gd5un]

Hold on a minute. Isn’t Wikipedia the one website that keeps begging me for donations?

[@Lord_Khornez]

correct

[@theHardyMonster1984]

Beg away. I'm not giving them shit.

[@frankiebluej6902]

Yup.

[@sarahmcdonald9624]

Never used too. Clearly there has been a change behind the scenes and that’s their grift

[@WhittaII]

Lmao dude this was the first year I actually felt somewhat guilty and tempted to donate Glad I didn't!

[@sarahh2072]

31 MILLION and they have the nerve to harass me for $10 every year to "keep the site running"???

[@kevin11humor]

An that's just equity, i can't believe they spend near 100m half their budget on woke crap.

[@l4rkdono]

You can easily run the whole of Wikipedia for 30 million. At this point they're just for-profit in disguise.

[@oasis042]

$31 for equity and 20.5 for safety and inclusion lol. sooo $51.5m all up on DEI

[@CubicIronPyrite]

But how will they keep the site running if they donate all the money to unrelated agenda causes, and you don't donate $10 to fulfill their actual charter of keeping servers alive?

[@ACOG_batteries]

Yes. This.

[@sihTdaeRtnaCuoY]

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Wikipedia's founder went on Reddit back in 2015/2016 and did an AMA. He was fully on board with all censorship measures. He made it very clear who he was. Still it's good to expose that these activists are simply using their platform as a way to raise money for their activism.

[@varnix1006]

Instead of being unreliable for academia, wikipedia is just unreliable for everyone.

[@ForOne814]

Russian Wikipedia, for example, has administrators from everywhere but Russia. Mostly Israel and Ukraine. Can you guess the quality of any politically-related article? Can you guess of many of seemingly apolitical articles are, in fact, political to those people? English Wikipedia is heavily biased. Russian Wikipedia is straight up Goebbels-level propaganda. You can straight up put two articles in two languages side by side, and see how comically different they are. Funniest thing? That's not even post-2022 thing. It's been this way from the very beginning.

[@LaurentiusTriarius]

Alex Jones wiki

[@H3iMda11_G0d]

Exactly, it's good to know someone else knows what's up. Every time I see that banner begging for money, I just think "f*** off"

[@williamjenkins4913]

And the other co founder has an interview calling it all out as terrible.

[@RippDrive]

People donate money. Volunteers do the work for free. Then they launder the money. That's a hell of a scam

[@davilanetworks382]

they have 700+ employees who are paid.................

[@stanley13579]

@@davilanetworks382 *over-paid

[@SaviorTheBurn]

Which cost like 4 mil a year​@@davilanetworks382

[@YardPrep00]

@@davilanetworks382and most of them are federal intelligence employees

[@edieniswonger]

@@davilanetworks382to do what!?!?

[@TurtleChad1]

'Safety and Inclusion' What, you're a information website.

[@tacotacotington3638]

It’s them pushing propaganda on others.

[@ricardohoang8452]

That's what happened when one information website run by wokey geniuses 😂

[@likeAG6likeAG6]

It's for those special people who delete "Early life" section from every biography and comment it as "Irrelevant".

[@greenwendal5056]

My car insurance is NET ZERO apparently🤡Just buzz words for dummies

[@TheOriginalCameron]

This tells me that working at Wikipedia is not safe or inclusive. What the hell is going on over there?

[@JGMP7887]

14:44 this is a bad take, Wikipedia has extreme biases for anything political, and the activists that add to it believe that "everything is political", meaning history is not safe, characters and individuals who seem "problematic" are not safe etc

[@Ins4n1ty_]

The whole point is that wikipedia is not the only one with this issue. Every source is biased, including your precious history textbooks. History is written by the winner is an old af saying. If you only base your opinions on one source, you're extremely biased, every time.

[@soldat88hun]

@@Ins4n1ty_ People aren't telling you to use fox news instead of wikipedia, they are telling you to read primary sources when possibly.

[@williamjenkins4913]

@@Ins4n1ty_ Every source is biased but not every one is actively revising history. There is a big difference between bias and corruption.

[@Sasoripwns]

Good thing Wikipedia has millions of pages of not political content

[@Johnsmithhjoe]

Bias itself is not the problem. The point of Wikipedia is to provide cited information that the reader can easily verify themselves. The real problem is not adding or allowing cited information due to bias. An example of this is Wikipedia mods removing tons of information about isr*** pal****** history.

[@MurasakiBunny]

Wikipedia asks me for money "to keep their servers up" but then uses that money on ANYTHING else.... This is why I've never given them ANYTHING.

[@derBenIsPlaying]

I mean, the Users are the ones running Wikipedia. The owners only set the website into the internet, pointed at it and said "there, do something with it". Wikipedia is literally a glorified imageboard, with lots of tons of verified factual information, yes, but its run by EVERYONE, everyone but the owners. The owners only threw the basic website down, but users are the ones who make all the content. So they are actively using all the people who post there without getting revenue, and generate money from that. Let that sink in, again: they make money (through donations) from content that is not theirs. They provide the platform, but not the expertise. In every other field this equals to a 50/50% split or a 70/30% split between platform and users. So every user should get a share of the donations. Without users posting for FREE and working for FREE, there would be no wikipedia, it would be like a dead Discord server with no active members. And getting money for that, even if its through donations, is very very shady. This needs to be examined by whatever government wants to, but you cant nag to Users that they need to donate money, and at the same time, said Users are the ones that make your system work. In my opinion and as far as i know, forcing or enticing or otherwise exploitatively utilising free workforces to execute free labor is illegal if you make a profit of any kind from it, be it monetary or physical side or main products, is it not? Wikipedia literally promotes itself by stating that YOU can contribute, but for FREE, and without any claims of compensation, be it monetary or through recognition in the public, none of your articles will be subject for greater or lesser recognition, and no funds generated from it that serve you as the author in any way - yet they utilize the entirety of the platform to ask for "donations". They use EVERYONE, all of you users, to generate donations.

[@ErgoProdigy]

Is that why? Crazy bro, you just learned about this and that's the soul reason you've never given them anything.

[@gtxez]

@@derBenIsPlaying stop rambling

[@danielmaster8776]

Thankfully I've only ever given them 5-15 bucks before I wised up.

[@1977-x2s]

Another thing they spend it on is labe||ing certain topics as ant|-sem|t|c.

[@Anonymous4045]

And they've been begging every visitor for money each time you visit a page.

[@Sams911]

Right?

[@GiantTalkingTree]

No joke it seems like every other month they are begging for money again. Now we know where it went.

[@ChaseMMD]

Yet I check there balance sheets and there cash on hand goes up year over year.

[@littleluxia]

They're not getting a penny from me

[@Astelch]

I got a prompt please keep wikipeda free we are struggling in these hard times. Glad i never donated!

[@benjaminaswad6486]

Whenever Wikipedia comes up, I will always remember the guy who made up the story of Yasuke 😂

[@jeremys3951]

Black samurai?

[@benjaminaswad6486]

@jeremys3951 yep

[@1nt9rn9t-dudewillheim2]

What do you mean "made up"?

[@nhozdien5058]

Black man servant did exist but he wasn’t a samurai. The white writer published a story about Yasuke as if he was a known samurai back then. It’s just a fictional story not based on any real historical events.

[@drecognis]

Yasuke is a mere joke when compared to Zhemao hoaxes Bored and lonely Chinese woman wrote her own vision of Russian history, creating over 200 articles, starting 2012 to 2022

[@AndrewRayGorman]

I think we call this misappropriation of donated funds

[@lawz7787]

The thing is, big govt likes this 😢

[@Anonemousehouse]

Technically the only thing they mention is the site being up after that they have no obligation, IMO the website is incredibly useful and its a good thing whomever has done the work to build the wiki up and kept it going in the background

[@dead-claudia]

@@Anonemousehousei want to see a year or two of them missing their target but still exceeding normal operating costs to see where the excess lies, where their inefficiency is. that can help me determine how best to restrict my donation.

[@jay-tl2un]

Absolutely correct. They say they need donations to "help keep the site up and running", not for pushing a political agenda. I have a strong feeling this is very illegal, and I bet, if this gets enough traction online, they could be facing a lawsuit.

[@huks9380]

Wikipedia has been public about it for years. I am surprised people are only talking about it now.

[@oasis042]

This is what Activists do bro. They grift. $31m for equity and $20.5m for safety and inclusion lol. sooo $51.5m all up on DEI.

[@cooliostarstache5474]

I'm beginning to think it's actually just money laundering and they're not actually spending more than a few thousand dollars on training or whatever it is they're claiming to do

[@robbobbrah8953]

Always follow the money. Everything can be made a business.

[@highlandlab1924]

It's Hollywood accounting. They probably own the companies they pay that money to. The last thing you want is a profitable business, you want to write off as much cash as losses as possible. Some of the biggest movies never turned a profit.

[@hochhaul]

@@robbobbrah8953 And the DEI propaganda is intended to direct attention away from the financial system. This all began after Occupy Wall Street. DEI exists as part of ESG compliance, which is required by the central banks.

[@Touchgrassplz]

Example: I am the activist, I pay my company. My Friend, A, owns another company, My company gives him some business. And so on and so forth.

[@evilsworn2901]

As an engineering student. Bro History, Politics and Socials make up that 99% of wikipedia. If you look up their articles on electronic components or physics laws, if it's not in a shit ton of pop media, the articles are barren like my mom.

[@sheenydonut]

i lol'd

[@unknownunknown6753]

AND THEY HAVE THE GALL TO BEG FOR MONEY TO “Keep Wikipedia ad free” WHEN THEY PULLING THIS?

[@MrVvulf]

I stopped giving to them 4 years ago when their political bias become overt and everything they posted parroted the mainstream media. They didn't maintain even a semblance of objectivity whatsoever, so what's the point of supporting them? If I want to hear one side, I can tune into CNN or MSNBC to hear the left's position, or Fox News if I want to hear that of the right.

[@Leeyouno]

Something about a cup of coffee. Lol

[@sneakymitchell7802]

its a web page. You can make your own web page for free.

[@joshmonus]

People who type in all caps believe what they have to say is more important than everybody else. Common overinflated ego social defect.

[@rannnoch]

Can't fucking believe I have felt guilty for not donating to wikipedia at least one time in the past. Something something early life section.

[@vertex546]

The only question Asmongold needs to be asking is this : "Why does an encylopedia need a DEI department?"

[@aguy5912]

Because Wikipedia's editors are a bunch of leftists. Don't believe? Go to literally every wiki about modern political issues or people. Donald trump is called a criminal alt right lying fascist. While the only thing written about joe biden is his "achievements". Or puberty blockers as an example, Well they act like all medical institutions support it by specifically bringing up all the sources that support it and absolutely giving no reference to the sources that don't support it, even though there are a lot. They act like the only people that oppose them are stupid conservatives and republicans.

[@racool911]

It's more that the encyclopedia is owned by a company that likes doing activism projects

[@dddux]

So they can censor everything their own way, change or erase everything they deem inappropriate. That's insane.

[@garrettmarshall1288]

@@racool911yes. They call it their “movement.”

[@osteoferocious7187]

So they can implement the 'right' descriptions 😅

[@PowerfulRift]

Racism is about contempt, hatred, or discrimination-not about using racial identifiers in practical, neutral contexts. Identifying someone by race for clarity, like saying ‘the Black guy over there’ or ‘the white guy in the group,’ isn’t racism if there’s no prejudice or malice behind it. There’s a clear double standard in how society reacts to racial descriptors depending on who says them. For example, a white person using a racial identifier often faces backlash, while similar comments from non-white individuals go unnoticed. This inconsistency doesn’t help fight racism-it fuels unnecessary division. Intent and context matter. If the intent is neutral and the purpose is clarity, there’s no reason to label someone as racist. Misunderstanding these nuances only perpetuates hypersensitivity and distracts from real issues of discrimination. We can acknowledge historical injustices without overreacting to everyday descriptors. Not every mention of race is offensive, and hypersensitivity to these identifiers is more about individual feelings than societal harm. Let’s focus on addressing real prejudice rather than policing neutral language. Judging people by their actions and intent-not by how others choose to interpret them-leads to more meaningful discussions about race and equality. This approach promotes understanding rather than perpetuating unnecessary conflict.

[@NefashusLP]

Very well said, better than I could - I'll save this

[@ahuman7199]

"Give us $2 so we can fund our DEI department."

[@jrwilliams4029]

Wikipedia will take a massive L from this. I bet they don’t spend that much next year. Why are they always begging for $$$ if they have 31 million to spend on DEI?

[@BlackJesus8463]

yup!

[@tpf92]

Considering how "infected" wikipedia has become, I could see them going down with the already sinking ship.

[@cjyoung5635]

They beg because it costs a ridiculous amount of money each year and will increase pretty much daily because each page adds to the cost.

[@KeiosKod]

31 million on racial equity, 20 million on safety & inclusions so 50 million on DIE, actually.

[@nilloc93]

wikipedia's been like this for years, everything has a left wing bias on the site and they've been spending ~40% of their budget on the "Movement" for the past few years.

[@panadam2437]

With this ammount of money they can buy bonds and in a few years having wikipedia running forever just from interest. That should be the main goal. To be self sufficient

[@PrionicProteins]

Why don't they do that? Is taking money from people who don't understand their true ends the real goal?

[@Blopusanian]

Yeah but then the executives who are probably laundering the money won’t get as much.

[@amatoyoichi8468]

Wikipedia is like homeless person in NY. They beg for money then uses it on crack.

[@masterbasher9542]

With that mindset. Better of letting Wikipedia die...

[@PuellaMagiHomuraAkemi]

@@masterbasher9542 Eh they have enough money and its good if they dont die, this just shows they are in zero danger at all

[@Meathole7]

what do they eat?

[@shayanshadow5364]

more like a multimillionaire homeless

[@justhaku9240]

Because as we all know, homeless = bad evil people that 100% of the time spend their money on **** This community is so cooked

[@SongokuJidai]

I donated in 2018 at Christmas as I felt generous. Gave them £10 (about as many $). I later got an aggressive email titled "WEVE HAD ENOUGH" from them and I shlt my pants. I thought my IP had been misused or something. No. They were mad about not getting donations and were basically strong arming their supporters to put more in. That really angered me, and until Jimmy Wales (or whatever his name is) writes me a personal apology I will not donate to Wikipedia and suggest no one else donate either.

[@Justaguy0111]

sounds like Egirl energy

[@Skylancer727]

I never got that, but I did chip in about $20 from 2015-2018. Kinda stopped after that though.

[@johnadams1600]

I did not donate in 2018 at Christmas, so now in 2024 I am happier than you

[@bryandraughn9830]

What else did the email say?

[@VerninTheRat]

If you look into it, you'll find out that they actually don't need to be hounding their visitors. They get the funding that they need, from big companies and other organizations, through tax-deductible donations. What's more, is they waste a lot of money on an array of meaningless items. You can look into it, and it is obvious that Wikipedia is a bunch of crooked people, now. The site can be replaced quite easily and will be, should they fall from their fickle podium of grace. I honestly have had a disdain for their site and their begging antics for quite sometime; Then, I looked more into it and I was like, "Holy smokes these people need to stfu and give ME some money. Or let someone else take the reign." They have no right to be pestering anyone for money, at all. We deserve a more dignified platform, to serve as what is arguably, one of the more used databases in the WWW, currently.

[@DrunkSnowWhite]

14:54 you can't use wikipedia as a source for your school assignments because it's not a static source, so the paragraph you reference one day might be completely gone the next day if the article gets a rework. It has nothing to do with the credibility of the site: it's because trying to cite it defeats the purpose of citations. This is why they tell you to use the sources that wikipedia cites rather than citing the site itself

[@VazzyCow]

Back in elementary school my teachers used to tell us students that Wikipedia isn’t a trustworthy site. Guess they were right in some way lol

[@ericgolightly8450]

Other than this, it is pretty safe for information.

[@IronLotus-k1n]

wikipedia's best use in school was as a repository for actual sources.

[@bryandraughn9830]

It's not a trustworthy SOURCE. Each article lists the sources for verification. It's just there to organize information so you can quickly find sources.

[@kamilrichert8446]

some hot topics differ wildly depending on the language of the article (especially ones about basically any specific war)

[@trummplehummp558]

My computer science teacher told me basically the same thing about fifteen years ago when I was in middle school. Because of that, I've never once felt bad about not donating.

[@moonasha]

I've considered donating, now I will literally never do it.

[@holderian0]

Never do it, they always make it sound like they are on the verge of collapse. They can run the site without donations for decades.

[@suspicious_pebble]

The righteous need not cower before the drumbeat of human progress. Though the song of yesterday fades into the challenge of tomorrow, God still watches and judges us. Evil lurks in the datalinks as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil. -- Sister Miriam Godwinson, "The Blessed Struggle" Love your pfp, had a good laugh at this.

[@CubicIronPyrite]

Spread the word, and never forget.

[@christerjakobsen8107]

@@suspicious_pebble Geez, Alpha Centauri has such based quotes.

[@bren.r]

You shouldn’t, period. They’re a propaganda medium just like mainstream media.

[@QuickBulletin]

So it costs them three million dollars per year to actually run Wikipedia, but raise hundreds of millions and use that extra money to discriminate? Also I see some people bringing up that 31 million number in the comments. THE OTHER CATAGORIES like Effectiveness at 39 million, Safety and Inclusion at 20.5 million are also slush funds. Why do you clowns think its just Equity? LOL!

[@vuhdoo7486]

Why is it discrimination, when they are doing the OPPOSITE! They are for a more free equal world, in which everyone has the same chance without regarding your ancestry. It all depends on yourself. You are discrimitive if you don't want your neighbours to have the same chance and rights as you have. Why should a women get paid 20% less then a man, when both are doing the same work in the exact same time? Why shouldn't someone who doesn't speak your native language as well as you get the same amount for the same work/time? The states are one of the most unsafe places on earth, where you have to fear to get shot by a cop in a normal car control. Same goes for inclusion, why shouldn't you include people who came to the usa , which is a land of immigrants. Why shouldn't you invest in effectiveness, when it can help a majority to be more effective? Nearly everyone knows, that they have enough capital to run wikipedia for the next 100+ years. Why shouldn't they invest the remaining money to make the live on this planet better for everyone? Do you fear that someone will steal your job, just because they got the chance to show what they are capable of?

[@Justacatlmao]

I used to feel bad that I never donated to Wikipedia, now I’m glad that I never did.

[@ricardohoang8452]

It was wikipedia that rooted Shadow's shitty historic accuracy

[@Not_Octopus]

Same, begging me for $2. Should never ask for money again.

[@DavikShaftler]

I completely regret doing so.

[@mkv2718]

@@ricardohoang8452Shadow? like the Hedgehog?

[@XeLYoutube]

Never did ❤

[@Arcademan09]

"safety and inclusion" *YOU'RE AN INFORMATION WEBSITE*

[@ugn154]

Some people don't feel safe laying down on their L shaped couches and foot rests, comfy blankets over their laps, with drink on hand 😓

[@Erowens98]

Want to control society? Control information. Inserting ideologs into Wikipedias management was inevitable.

[@williamyoung9401]

Don't let Elon's tweets gas light you, folks; it's all manipulation. "Get rid of Wikipedia (and every other independent information source out there) and only listen to Corporate Media." This is all part of the plan, folks. Distract you with "DEI" gaslighting. Don't be fooled.

[@stevenharper9108]

That teacher take is pretty wild. Teachers are just people, some suck, some are great. Plenty don’t need the money and just do it for the love of the job. It’s not like anyone could have known in the 90s we’d have the kind of device I just wrote this comment on.

[@DavidSmith-cr7mb]

"plenty suck" since when? this is the soft bigotry of low expectations. if you TEACH our next generation, you should be stellar. you dont have to be PERFECT, but you should NOT SUCK.

[@JDReC100]

@@DavidSmith-cr7mb ... he said "some suck", not "plenty suck". and i agree with him. i've had many great teachers, but ive has some god-aweful ones as well. on top of that, the education department has been a circus for a while, but post covid its been an abolute madhouse. freinds and family who work in education have told me the things going on behind the scenes. its getting worse.

[@ssjwes572]

@@DavidSmith-cr7mb Seeing plenty instead of some is a personal problem.

[@soulsharts]

Careful, asmon might ban you for not agreeing with him 100%. They're literally all tarded, you can't argue otherwise.

[@ZettXXII]

wikipedia gets worse and worse on any critical topic, why donate? I love the idea, but too many articles get edited for political or idological reasons and therefore it's gonna be like most of reddit now

[@NunyaBizness-t2q]

Been that way for years my guy and it's only getting worse.

[@sjmcc13]

I can not remember the topic, but a little under 15 years ago I found a topic where there was issues with someone re-editing a page to suit their personal agenda rather then the facts. Once you realize how many experts are not actually mature, or can be very petty if they feel their ego is slighted it is not surprising.

[@TwoBs]

It already is like most of Reddit and has been for a decade plus. You know how Reddit has power mods? Wikipedia has the exact same with power users over editing. You’ll see the same names constantly sitting on certain pages making sure no edits get made that goes against the narrative they put forth, notably political entries, and they reverse them ASAP (even when properly cited/sourced) and try to sweep all traces. Genuinely don’t know why anyone would ever donate to them.

[@pauljs75]

@@NunyaBizness-t2q Longer time than most would think too. Deletionists are rampant too. Even though you're tagging something as a WIP (using the stub tag?) - they pull it before you can gather the references needed to make it complete. And then they block the edits needed to bring that in with more information later on. So like what is the point? At least Wikibooks is a bit better about new content if you're dabbling with the format. Sure there's no claim of having the reviews or whatever as part of some "general refrerence", but it's much better to build a public reference of newer information without interference. I suspect it's a bit of it's own thing though, given how it split off.

[@EB-bl6cc]

@@pauljs75 not defending wikipedia on the whole but them being like that kind of makes sense. They likely get millions upon millions of bullshit edits a day that they have to deal with, to the point that unless something is coming in already sourced they probably don't want to waste their time on it. Might be a bit hardcore but it does make some sense. If it were me I would have my sources ready before trying to make an edit/addition

[@evandercaldwell9993]

Also the way Wikimedia is advertising their donations you would think they are struggling financially and are purely working on a self-sufficient basis, when in truth the have WAY more money on the back-end than they admit!! It appears hypocritical..

[@doyoulikejazz9516]

Education major student from Germany here. We have a massive problem with too few teachers all over the country. The trend is to set incentives to make the job more attractive through bonus pay for teaching at schools outside the metropolitan areas (Buschzulage, it's about 1000€ per month extra at least in my state) and by states (who wouldn't previously offere that) offering to make teachers civil servants (where you pay less taxes, get basically the best pension model in Germany, a start pay of 50k but waive the right to strike), and so on. result: we have A TON of education majors in universities now, half of the people in my immediate circle of friends are either policemen or teachers.

[@theyellowarchitect4504]

the goverment micromanaging the job market always leads to centralization and needless jobs

[@vuhdoo7486]

@@theyellowarchitect4504 you obviously didn't understand his point. The majority like 90% upwards are public schools there. The state creates incentive, like every company would, so that teachers are willing to move to more rural areas where they are needed, since they can't decide where you have to work. That's the opposite of centralization, in which the state can decide where you have to work and live! Instead it's showing that teachers are necessary for a working society and that you should discriminate against teacher. It also shows that teachers are underpaid.

[@JustSomeReptile]

Wikipedia should focus on giving us factual information on subjects, not DEI.

[@ericgolightly8450]

They've been doing that.

[@CameronDC-Grimes]

In my opinion a good chunk of Wikipedia pages on many topics, substances are biased. I wish it had X's community notes

[@Brwigames]

​@@CameronDC-Grimes Wouldn't work, because Twitter and Wikipedia are fundamentally different things. The people who make community notes would also be the ones editing those contents. Realistically, anyone can edit almost any page on Wikipedia, where in Twitter, the community posts serve to fact-check posts created by someone, not editable by other people.

[@ohsweetmystery]

The CEO has said she does not think the truth is very important. Look it up.

[@ohsweetmystery]

@@ericgolightly8450 😂😂😂

[@mogaming163]

Reminder that Wikimedia Foundation is not Wikipedia, I think Wikipedia requires like 3M-6M to host and backup all of its sites and translations (including other wikis). Really sucks how they make it seem like 90% of the funding is going towards making sure Wikipedia can run without ads when the majority is going to the executives who've doubled to tripled their salaries in the past couple years.

[@Arcidi225]

Oh, 3-6m is a number that makes sense. I thought the number they gave for infrastructure was way too high.

[@toomanyaccounts]

@@Arcidi225 which they have enough money to not ask for donations for 20 years if they didn't spend it on nonsense that people had no idea was being funded

[@BQD_Central]

Don't care because they beg on Wikipedia, not on their Wikimedia page.

[@mogaming163]

@@BQD_Central not saying you should, just letting you guys know that they only need 3-6 million, not the 100+ million they find a way to use up, hence the reminder prefix.

[@phrozt]

This right here is the biggest issue

[@MickyChowMein69]

He went from saying all teachers are stupid to most teachers are stupid. There are different types of intelligence. You have academic intelligence and common sense intelligence to name just two types. For example , my dad could speak ancient Greek and teach mathematics to university standard however he couldn't see that someone wasn't a friend and was taking him for a ride. He had no sort of street smarts. Its the same with courage. Fighting is the courage of the lion and running and jumping high is the courage of the horse. Not everyone works with money as their primary aim. He seems to like over simplifying things that are actually very complicated.

[@polaris911]

how can an encyclopedia be objective if they're using donations to support their activism?

[@Junior.illinois]

100%

[@imperialist-x]

Queue up the Omni Man meme and "That's the neat part, they can't"

[@Ishy5891]

Cant anyone edit the pages lol wtf are we talking about it? Except of course certain pages.

[@BuiRoyValdez]

​@Ishy5891 i know I have observed some pages being edited to remove information over time. It really is irksome for some information that is not easily obtainable either to see it just be...erased.

[@TanyaSapienVintage]

@@Ishy5891 yeah, every single page with the slightest bit of controversy attached to it. Post something factual complete with receipts, and if it doesn't agree with the narrative, they revert your edit and then ban you.

[@MichaelToddBurdine]

I always thought Wikipedia ran on a shoestring budget and barely had enough money to keep the website up. Thought it was just a fun little hobby website that people add to for fun. They made it sound like every penny you send would really make a difference. Turns out they have an extra 30 million to throw away. As stated in the video, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia consisting of cold hard facts. George Washington was born on Feb. 22 1732 and so on.

[@Lurker_Z]

*50 million

[@John_1-1_in_Japanese]

Cold hard facts as defined by an admin-defined list of reputable and trustworthy sources like magazines and tabloids. I.e. every single public figure on Earth that has ever said they don't like immigration policy is a far right[1. The Atlantic], white supremacist[2. Washington Post].

[@TheJohn_Highway]

Wikipedia has been hilariously wrong on everything history-related for the past decade. They've been altering history nonstop.

[@timokreuzer381]

It's like with everything that leftist can get a grip on: they turn it into a system to push their ideology and get more power over society.

[@raifthemad]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia consisting of cold hard facts. - Oh wow, someone hasn't read any topics with even a whiff of politics attached to them in the last decade or longer, it seems. The people with the right to lock topics and decide which sources are "credible" are most if not all no-life far left ideologues. Has been like that for at least a decade since I last paid attention and knowing how such people operate, they must have driven out anyone who wasn't "one of us," by now, making it even more skewed and biased.

[@StuartFerguson55]

Some people like teaching... Come the f on bro.

[@joshuafurr9439]

Political and ideological points totally aside ~ If I had ever donated to Wikipedia(I haven't, but have considered it), I would be PISSED to learn this because of the principal alone. If they ask for money to keep their servers running and I give them money for that purpose and they spend a huge portion of that money on ANYTHING else, that's just wrong.

[@Vamooso]

To be fair to Wikipedia, they have many people in many countries speaking many languages and their DEI does include things like translators and such.

[@CranstonSandwich]

@@Vamoosothen why not say that when asking for donations?

[@PuthySlayer69420]

wokepedia lmaooo

[@carsandsports123]

​@Vamooso I think Translation is fine but as pointed in the video most of it is going to thr usual suspects when you hear DEI

[@douglasarthur2673]

It’s called a lie

[@GanonGerudo]

This video just proves donating is risky and falsely advertised.

[@Vamooso]

DEI is an all-encompassing term, in Wikipedia's case it's multinational covering hundreds of languages and countries, it's different from Disney's DEI of to look good for financiers.

[@RheaLifeOC]

Always has been, the majority of facilities/foundations take 65-90% of the donations for the company itself..there are even some who give 5cent from 1$.. Welcome to the real world..a reason you should always donate directly to facilities or rather look up how much % they take up to 30% is reasonable, everything above like WWF etc. is not.

[@Clarkeyrules1]

Falsely advertised how ? They’re literally telling us what they’re spending it on. In order to inform the world on topics the world is concerned with, you probably need a diverse set of inputs … unless you want only one source of information to be relevant

[@standard6502]

​@@Vamoosothat's a good mixture of cope and bullshit you just posted 😂😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

[@DosonTheGreat]

@@Clarkeyrules1 Nope. You don't need it. "Probably need" Weasel words.

[@T0B1A541]

I've been donating $5 a month to Wikipedia since 2020. Welp, December was my last donation. These kinds of projects are not why I donated. Keeping the servers running was the reason. So I guess they can expect my next donation in about 100 years.

[@Tigglytoot]

I donated $2 once and the last thing I want those 8 quarters going towards supporting is anything with the world inclusion, discrimination, equality, equity…Thanks a lot Wiki.

[@TheWowWowWest]

Exactly, like Zack said, this is worth being upset about. These are totally "problematic" and "regressive" concepts. And we should definitely always be angry about this and never get over it...

[@vuhdoo7486]

So you aren't an inclusive person, and you discriminate ~50 % of the people around you. You don't want to be paid fairly for your job, and you want for your kids and their friends that everything in their life depends on their ancestry, and not on themselves. great. What a selfish person.

[@Rhinlord]

Wikipedia is a very good encyclopedia for non political topics. It is exceptionally bad with controversial topics due to how its sourcing standards are. It effectively values secondary sources and opinion pieces just the same as primary sources.

[@ChaosSwissroIl]

Worse that than, It actually bans primary sources if a secondary source is available. It is designed to filter all information through journalists aligned with The Message. There is a reason why CNN, authors of "Most peaceful protest" and "Trump fell on stage after loud noises" are considered authoritative, but anyone to the right of Pol Pot is not trustworthy.

[@IronAlpha10]

I might be wrong but doesn’t Wikipedia not allow primary sources for topics?

[@FEDsShotMOM]

Yeahhhhhh history is political and there are things that are intentionally not referenced

[@tumultoustortellini]

​@@IronAlpha10They allow for primary sourcing on uncontestable points of information, but they stick to secondary sources for interpretation, since they don't want unqualified writers interpretating citations over experts who've already written books

[@christopherenders4280]

It's not just about the sources they allow, but whether those sources might lead to the reader engaging in wrongthink or not. The FBI's UCR table 43 is a perfectly reputable source on crime data, for example, but you're not going to be able to cite it without multiple paragraphs explaining away the more "politically inconvenient" parts.

[@ItsSauIGoodman]

6:33 the dude he banned saying "you finally stopped moaning after every sip of soda you take" 😂😂😂😂 I've been calling that shit out for like 3 years, so glad someone else noticed it. "Mmm"

[@lol-ih4wy]

Yummy soda

[@nineswords]

I donate every year when they have the popup and I thought that they need the money to run and host wikipedia. Now I'm pissed beyond belief and won't give them a single cent anymore.

[@gilramos5767]

If "inclusivity" meant purchasing laptops for kids that need them or helping remote places get access to the internet/Wikipedia then fine. But this is just extremely irresponsible for a company that begs for money.

[@DalmarLesage]

Even if it's that, it's still irresponsible for them to beg for money if they are doing that. You don't donate money that you need for rent...

[@Lurker_Z]

Wikipedia isn't a charity, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't purchase laptops for kids. Encyclopedias give unbiased information. What's so hard to understand?

[@joemama2737]

⁠​⁠@Lurker_Zthey mean in the sense that if you’re an encyclopedia allocating money to charitable causes. You should be donating to give people better access to information, not to push political agendas

[@Lurker_Z]

And I mean an encyclopedia has no place allocating funds to charity causes. At the most, its members, individually, can do what they want with their personal money, including giving them to charity. The goals of an encyclopedia and the goals of a charity *do not meet. Ever.*

[@Vamooso]

@Lurker_Z Wikipedia is a legal charity though

[@RezhaarnoldBen]

what does any of that mean ?

[@MrBeetsGaming]

What they mean by spent is laundered... Everything not under infrastructure is going towards making the owners and their friends rich and honestly probably a good chunk of the infrastructure spending too.

[@bren.r]

So much for a “non-profit”

[@VodkamanBR]

@@bren.r Wikipedia isn't making any profit, now, the people running it on the other hand...

[@GBR9794]

@@bren.r non-profit was never feasible though. capitalism always win.

[@Sableye666]

Wikipedia: "I'm weak, I'm weak..." Also Wikipedia: "UNLIMITED EQUITY!"

[@Vaguer_Weevil]

Sounds rather familiar doesn't it

[@chillpengeru]

Lol

[@elijahwatjen9839]

So we are wikipedias enemies xd

[@WybremGaming]

30million to propaganda no surprise, i'll never send them a dime.

[@oRnch199]

Totally unbiased guys. Absolutely not money laundering.

[@johnthomas4868]

How in the hell does it take $286 million to run a freaking 90% text-based website that’s editable by any jackwagon with a computer and access? Smells like dat grift is over 9000!

[@lineage254]

It does not, he said infrastructure cost was 3m. They are making bank.

[@johnthomas4868]

@ thank you for pointing out the need to add the /sarc to my statement, Captain Obvious 😉

[@youtubeenjoyer1743]

⁠​⁠@@lineage254 How can it cost 3m when you can easily host terabytes of static data on aws or azure or others for a fraction of that?

[@spiderchaw5153]

@@lineage2543 million for what?

[@fartgarfunkeljr]

Imma firin' mah treasury secretary, BLAAAAAAAAAAHHH

[@blicleak1101]

That teacher rant was BIZARRELY stupid

[@MarkPanado]

agree, this dude is out of touch with reality

[@phantom_dragon0007]

Please look up the B-BBEE law thats mandatory here in south afrika if you want to make a business. You literally have to hand over half of everything you own to a random black person and no bitching. These incluse acts can shuf it elbow deep.

[@OwentheKingofDudes]

I now no longer feel guilty for never donating to Wikipedia.

[@solomani-42]

Same 😂😊😅

[@littleluxia]

I *never* felt guilty 😅

[@FFNOJG]

YEP! i quit using them forever ago because they are totally controlled by the IC

[@hedition9346]

Come on be real. Even if today it is revealed wikipedia used the money to save all the poor children, homeless people and abandoned puppies, we still won't feel bad for never donating.

[@marg7772]

You just watched one clickbaity video by a dude with no real world expertise and knowledge on how wikipedia runs and what it uses its money on and you decided to make your decisions based on that? Very smart and mature.

[@JackSmith-gv5yw]

Wikipedia always tried to give the impression that they were struggling to keep the servers running!...Pfft!

[@OneWayTwoBrazil]

Wikipedia does not need a HR department or intolerant "inclusion" programs.

[@davilanetworks382]

they have over 700 employees in what world do they not need a HR department

[@griffinarcher2911]

Wikipedia spends money to have people actively monitoring certain sites so that no one can change statements that are provably false. Inclusion probably just means they hired a bunch of Indian dudes

[@fantastikboom1094]

@@davilanetworks382 They don't need 700 employees

[@davilanetworks382]

@@fantastikboom1094 they have a website that receive over 250 million unique hits a day

[@davilanetworks382]

@@fantastikboom1094 250 million unique hits to your site a day says they do

[@appelultim8753]

I knew something was strange when the wikipedia article for the 2024 election had only critisism for Trump and praise for harris

[@shrandis]

They have been politically biased for several years, I'm glad people are noticing even if a bit late.

[@DevilsAdvocate_HigherThanU]

To be fair any topic that doesn't have one correct answer (math, physics, chemistry, etc) usually has some extremist writers/editors since only extremists care enough to write wiki pages on politics or the humanities etc.

[@namelessdude207]

@@DevilsAdvocate_HigherThanUthe problem with wikipedia is that they consider news (even the biased ones) as legit sources...

[@JewTube001]

The political side of wikipedia pages has always been like that. For non-political pages like dog and cat breeds it's a pretty good website though

[@oscardalmatiner8724]

A few years ago I looked up the articles on Trump and Hillary. Haven't donated ever since

[@iam16bits]

Remember that none of this is going to editors because they do it for free like the jannies they are.

[@williamjenkins4913]

That's ok. The editors are getting a good enough paycheck from the govt. or company having them site on certain topics.

[@TopFix]

"Effectiveness" = owner's ferrari collection

[@sarzootashoota351]

This is my Ferrari "Diversity" and my Lotus "Inclusion"

[@TopFix]

This would be okay if they were clear and upfront about where the money would go when asking for funds, rather than begging for money like the site has barely enough to keep running.

[@biggieboomboom]

Asmon is right about lower wages generally attracting lower skilled talent on average, which is generally less intelligent. It is not a hard rule for every individual though--only in aggregate, and in the context of our culture. Wikipedia is rightly not used as a direct source because anyone can edit it without solid justification; it can be used as a kind of repository of solid sources where you can find properly cited information and then follow/cite those links. Just because other sources like the ADL says stupid things sometimes (visavis pepe) doesn't mean Wikipedia is OK. Proper sources are peer reviewed or have a rich institutional history of reliability. Unfortunately, many of those formerly "reliable" sources have become corrupted and captured by political ideology (maybe they always were and we just notice it now because of how absurd the ideology is), so it's more difficult to know who to believe. This was Asmon's point about the ADL, but it applies to the NYT, esteemed scientists, and more (just look at the lies the "experts" told us during covid, such as how liberal protests were not a public health threat yet conservative ones were, or the who mask thing to conserve PPE for front like workers, vaccine efficacy/safety, etc.). Yet, still, the venerated institutions are generally more accurate than the average Joe editing Wikipedia without citations, unless you look at certain politically charged topics.

[@PadreMaronnolo]

And everyone called us racists when we started noticing...

[@ericgolightly8450]

If you're more angry about the whole equity thing than the guilt tripping for money, that's quite alarming. That "everyone" might be on to something...

[@Dagothdaleet]

Follow the money

[@ultratronger]

@@ericgolightly8450 theyre spending money (31 million dollars a year) on something that doesnt exist

[@davilanetworks382]

no just stupid, the graph is missing employee salaries, something that would be on it if it was real. 700+ employees with a average salary of 75k

[@ultratronger]

@davilanetworks382 it wouldn't necessarily have to include employees' salaries depending on the graph, I haven't seen the full video or the article, salaries could perfectly well be included somewhere else. Also those salaries would amount to a little over 50 million, which is about the same as both the equity, and the security and inclusion combined, which would make sense but also why would you label them as that, it's stupid

[@sixxgunz3774]

I used to donate to Wikipedia because I thought it was a legitimate source of educational information... and then I found out how politically driven they were, so I stopped funding them.

[@lawz7787]

There’s a reason why teachers say to never source Wikipedia in your paper. At most you look at the sources under a Wikipedia page and read that instead

[@ykmnkmi]

Or only look abstract things

[@Regarded69]

Once I started paying attention I noticed there is a massive disparity in the quality of articles. The absolute worst articles are the ones about induviduals and lesser known followings, beacuse their followers will turn their wikipedia page into a promotion. I've looked at some wikipedia articles history and seen that they've been deleted for being biased many times over 15+ years but it keeps being brought back by the followers which make wikipedia accounts and infiltrate the voting and debates section of the article most people never see. In major articles about well known things there is usually more factuality but there is still a battle raging behind the scenes and any topic that people are emotional about will end up with bias, mainly in what language is used and how things are framed.

[@bren.r]

@@lawz7787 are the sources any better when the only ones that are included are left wing ones? Right wing sources are just not allowed on Wokepedia.

[@lawz7787]

@@bren.r never said anything about left wing or right wing. I’m just saying if you wanna use Wikipedia, just use the references that are on the bottom of the page.

[@TyCook-s1c]

Whenever you see the term "safety and inclusion" it's telling you they're discriminating against indigenous Europeans. End of story. Civil rights need to be enforced.

[@VogonJ]

They have ESG/DEI 'freelancers' editors that edit professionals inputs. No more 'truths'. Also used in schools...

[@GBR9794]

ESG and DEI are opening new companies for evasion tactics btw. The Deep State Arc has begin.

[@masterbasher9542]

If I were a principal of a school. I'd have access to and the use of any wiki blocked by default. And mandate a lecture on critical thinking to explain why...

[@VogonJ]

This 'activism' on wikipedia startet after GG1, helped by a 'socialist activist professor'. I was there observing some of it. A year+ later a group started 'terrorrising editor community on WiPe

[@LabelsAreMeaningless]

Truth is not biased. Too many people conflate truth with perspective based opinion. There is no such thing as 'my truth', but there is such thing as 'my experience'. Experiences are anecdotal and can give people a biased opinion, but if they step back and get a more complete picture of the events which occurred, that is how you find the truth. If two people watch the same event and have two different story, they aren't both correct. One may be correct, or both may be wrong. At least one of them inserted opinion or theory in place of their missing information. Truth is not subjective. Never has been and never will be. It can not be.

[@ChaosSwissroIl]

No, truth definitely has a distinct and strong right-wing bias.

[@tumultoustortellini]

Everything is contextual. Truth isn't biased and is objective, but the narratives people craft around events can both be correct, if they attempt to analyze different things or interpret the same thing different ways. When you get to too small of a scale, everything turns into quantum physics, even the idea of "correct" (though, this is more of a social thing. people just happen to rub against it a lot).

[@pistonsjem]

half full / half empty

[@abrahamlincoln3181]

High salary is not necessarily an indication of intelligence or competence,look at all the executives earning millions,while losing their companies billions with their bad decisions.

[@ugn154]

100%

[@araamahasla555]

You just don't know whom they wok for. Mostly for themselves though, they will just get that money, golden parachute and go into another company to do it all over again while rounding out another set of yearly bonuses into their pocket. They are parasites, health of the host means nothing to them - it is not their job.

[@LockeTheAuthentic]

Call me impressed, they've convinced me to not donate even harder!

[@technoweb2873]

Are people still using Wikipedia? The school district in my home town banned every single school from grade K to 12 from using Wikipedia because of the misinformation on it.

[@CherylC725]

I saw a video of the CEO of Wikipedia saying we don’t strive for the truth just a substance of the truth… Wtf.!

[@masterbasher9542]

That's a way to spiral towards doublethink easy.

[@aceathor]

10:32 I'm French and I can say that the word " truth " have a gender (and it's feminine). We say " La vérité " not " Le vérité ". This is what most English speaker don't understand, everything physical and non-physical have a gender. (Table and desk have a different gender) English speakers don't use gender, and they confuse sexes and gender. I agree with Asmon but what he need to say is " Truth have no sexe "

[@mateuszzimon8216]

​@@aceathorin many languages have a gender, in Polish is niebinarna/niebinarny if is he/she....

[@varnix1006]

In words of Patriot AI in MGS2, they don't create content, but provide context.

[@PryncessTempest]

Isnt this the same site that's been begging me for donations for the past few years?

[@finkamain1621]

They're been doing this for over 15 years now

[@PryncessTempest]

@@finkamain1621 Really?! i didnt know

[@charlesbrown4483]

@@finkamain1621 Well yeah they've always supposedly operated on donations. But people saying "the last few years" only noticed because wiki's begging has gotten really in-your-face over the last few years. Massive pieces of of website are designated for begging-space, begging pop-ups, etc..

[@F3ND1MUS]

Decades

[@inwector]

I lost my faith in wikipedia when only 34 countries out of about 200 recognized something happened, and Wikipedia chose to show the information about the alleged event happening as fact, and also providing information about "denial" of the event happening as denialism, even though the vast majority of the world don't recognize the event ever happening. Surprising that one of the countries that the supposed event happened between offered to open the history logs and the other country refused the notion. Also need to note that the supposed event supposedly happened in 1910's and the nation that claims the event happened claimed that it happened about 70 years later, when they had presence in the western media. Wikipedia is biased and have a political agenda.

[@dubletrouble2985]

Now I see why my teachers never let me cite my sources from Wikipedia. Cause they spend half their budget funding people who want to destroy history.

[@ericgolightly8450]

????? Wdym "Destroy History"? It's literally an encyclopedia.

[@sarzootashoota351]

No they never let you use it as a source because you need to get the actual source in Wikipedia uses other sources to write its articles citing Wikipedia is like using a second source as a primary source. 😊

[@ChrisHöppner]

@@sarzootashoota351love the passive aggressive smiley. Nice touch.

[@johannes3608]

Was just about to comment this

[@Wintercide]

@@ericgolightly8450 Because the activists types want to rewrite and diminish the facts. Who do you think it is that's writing, in school books, that the Native American's gave the US their land willingly?

[@zmortis111]

Well they certainly weren't spending it on accuracy and lack of bias.

[@sneetchw]

everyone in the comments talking about "Wikipedia bias" but haven't given a single example

[@ChaosSwissroIl]

@@sneetchw Xiden and Burisma.

[@williamjenkins4913]

@@sneetchw 3 examples were given in the dang video. Why are you even commenting before watching?

[@alamedaslim9438]

Google wikipedia donations and they've been doing this for over a decade at this point.

[@blegher]

And people say that For Profit companies are corrupt...

[@strategygaming5830]

those people think making a profit at all is evil (except when they make a profit that was fair and totally good)

[@toomanyaccounts]

For profit is honest while not for profit lies.

[@blackcat7k]

Wikipedia is beyond compromised. It's been that way for years.

[@BrianGreene-rn9uz]

Yeah Asmon is pretty clueless on this subject, even one of the co-founders has said it is now a far left activist site.

[@Boodah6811]

He wants to make purple hairs rich apparently and he’s using his single experience to paint the whole nation it’s short sighted

[@Honeyboobooboo]

I've seen multiple podcast where they look up their own profile and the information is very opinionated on themselves rather than providing simple facts. And colleges have never considered them to be a reliable source. Ever.

[@ThePrinceofRainVT]

Never gave them A penny and NEVER will now.

[@Neninho_]

I completely agree that wikipedia is not a source. Why would teachers accept "Wikipedia" as a source, when it tells you where the information is from? Just quote the original source, if you can't find the source listed on the page, then it's unreliable information that wasn't vetted properly. This way if the information is from a site that's known to be biased it'll be much clearer than adding a layer of anonymity. That's what my teachers all demanded, I was never told not to use wikipedia, just to always check the original source.

[@bananaana1860]

My good teachers taught us media literacy and spotting bias, my bad teachers taught us to not trust Wikipedia and to trust "credible" sources like National Geography or Forbes. Good teachers taught us how to read articles, spot biases, read studies/research papers, and determine if it was a well conducted study or a poorly conducted study.

[@Rainsoakedcoat]

The fact you put credible in quotes when comparing National Geo/Forbes to Wikipedia shows you can't spot a bias if it bit you in the ass.

[@PraxesArdenn]

If you haven't noticed by now how ideologically slanted wikipedia is, then your MeDiA lItErAcY is trash

[@itssryan8431]

@@Rainsoakedcoat if your implying that National Geo and Forbes are more credible sources compared to wikipedia then you are lost my dude. At least wiki has some fact checking going on.

[@chillpengeru]

​@@RainsoakedcoatThe point went wayyy over your head dude.

[@bruh-ment-um]

Sometimes, an adblocker is better than a donation you'll never know how's being spent

[@YungMugiwara]

Agreed, Chairman Twomad

[@nbboxhead3866]

Good to see a fellow adblock user during the adpocalypse! Which one do you use? I use uBlock Origin on Firefox as it manages to circumvent KZbin's adblock-block, while keeping its blocking rate at literally 100 percent on every website I've ever visited. It's good enough that I'm here advertising it without being paid anything. Anyway ads suck peace out!

[@TheJohn_Highway]

Adblocking is how everyone should be browsing websites.

[@YungMugiwara]

@@TheJohn_Highway Amen to that

[@BorisMiljkovic]

High school teachers are either stupid or checked out, because of the low wages. I remember my electronics class in high school. Teacher would hand out notes to one of the students, who would read outloud and we would write it down. He just looked through the windows in his 70's suit and hairstyle (this was the 90's) Once, there was someone observing our class and that is the only time this teacher held a proper lecture. That day I learned about transistors. This is the only subject I remember. He was an amazing lecturer.

[@JayDog459]

I was cool with giving them 5 bucks last year cause I felt bad, but as soon as they started begging for more whenever I'd go on their site AND through emails, I regretted giving anything at all.

[@masterbasher9542]

If in doubt, spam filter for life

[@alexanderthered5603]

Judge Alex, a tv court judge, was called gay on his Wikipedia page before. It was changed later and it was utterly infactual, but it was still there on the page until someone told it to him.

[@mr44mag]

It also had a page on how the Soviet Union was defeated by Mecha Abraham Lincoln. Wikipedia is around the same reliability as Britannica with a lot of it being edited for politics (or humor.)

[@alexanderthered5603]

@mr44mag Wait, you're saying the USSR wasn't defeated by Mecha Lincoln? :(

[@NunyaBizness-t2q]

​@@alexanderthered5603No, to date only Mecha Washington was ever finished.

[@selay333]

They’ll argue sometimes when asked to remove things like this claiming they have a source followed by said source ether never mentioning it or correcting it.

[@exterminatus_now]

​@NunyaBizness-t2q Exactly, Mecha Washington was used during the Lunar Conflict of '88. Mecha Lincoln was supposed to be ready by 2002 but the Clinton Administration cut the budget for the (M)echanized (E)xoskeletons for (C)ombat and (H)umanitarian (A)id program.

[@PeterFraser-hp3rs]

1:35 Well, I actually strongly support DEI in principle, but I don't understand why a company adopting such a belief system should cost a penny. If a company wants to have a diverse workforce and have DEI as part of their mission statement, where hiring and firing isn't influenced by any other factors than a person's suitability for a particular job, then they should just implement that policy in house -- end of. Why a company would want to fund costly programmes that promote DEI is inexplicable, especially if doing so costs millions!

[@theSato]

I regret donating just a week or two ago. They act like "Wikipedia's gonna DIE if you guys don't donate!!! this amazing resource is going to go away!" -- and "gosh, Wikipedia is important, I want to do my part so it can live! My money's going toward the server costs and required pay of employees!!" but if we all didn't donate, then they'd just have to use some of this 'extra' money to cover the server and infrastructure.

[@trucid2]

Washington monument syndrome. If they run short on money they'd keep the DEI programs running while instituting rolling blackouts for the site.

[@christopherenders4280]

Sounds like a chargeback is in order. The company engaged in fraudulent behavior and misappropriated donated funds.

[@notaprinny]

For anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't problematic on it's own, even without this, I believe the word enshittification is the one where Wikipedia says someone other than the person who said it invented the word, because it was only in tweets and nowhere else for the first five years or so after it started being used, and then a journalist said it, so they attribute it to that journalist because they only allow sources that are 'trusted', and there is no trusted source of that word being used before it was used in that journalist's article. They literally put disinfo that they know is wrong in that article purely because Twitter isn't a trusted source, despite the tweet using that word having still been up and showing when it was used. Your eyes aren't a trusted source, only the Mainstream Media is.

[@notaprinny]

I just doublechecked. Enshittification was first used by a twitter used back in 2013, but if you go check the wiki article they say it was first coined in 2022. Blatant disinfo.

[@notaprinny]

This isn't something they don't know about btw. They just refuse to acknowledge the Tweet as existence of the word's existence as it is not a trusted source.

[@Ash-Ketchum-and-Pikachu]

yeah no shit. Wikipedia is a site flooded with midwits who want to feel correct rather than seeking the truth

[@ssjwes572]

@@notaprinny The media launders stories this way. They'll report on a report and never look at the substance of the first. Then after that it's "the truth". Edit they site the first as the source and not the actual stories sources. That's how things like "Russian collusion" gets started.

[@lkl3210]

I donated cuz I thought they were going out of business and they were actually doing shit like this. Can I get a refund?

[@lkl3210]

Isn't it fraud? That sticky they had asking for money to keep the lights on and blabla when they actually needed money for activism not for the business

[@thelionprince4530]

$51 million for DEI initiatives? Who are the idiots giving them money????

[@Erowens98]

Everyone who thinks their donations are going toward supporting freely available knowledge

[@xodnoob]

The idiots who don't see that Wikipedia is full of garbage information among articles that are actual accurate.

[@Vamooso]

It does include things such as translators and anti-bias training, of which I think are legitimate uses for a global information website with many languages.

[@TheCynicalAutist]

@@Vamooso Sure.

[@letopizdetz]

That is not what the report is saying. He just didn't show where the money is really going because it didn't support his narrative. He just showed out a couple of lines from a general description, not the line items.

[@nanovega3918]

It's hilarious how they're like "It's a free font of knowledge curated the best we can for everyone!" And like, they clearly prefer one side of the aisle's representation of events, not to mention all this junk.

[@aa1greg]

Wikipedia also states that a genocide has taken place in Gaza since oct 8th 2023, ideologues control the hottest topics on Wikipedia

[@are3287]

it has though

[@aa1greg]

​@are3287 the Arab population in Gaza has increased by 30k+ since Oct 2023, its impossible unless you change the definition of genocide.

[@vuhdoo7486]

I don't know what you think of the South African Government , but I would assume, that they are neither ideologues, or in the left/woke bubble. They are nationalists. And they (the government and court) said it was a genocide. "The ruling comes as part of a case South Africa brought against the Middle Eastern country, accusing it of committing genocide against the Palestinian people in its war in Gaza," (vox news) This shows that some Governments and NOT Wikipedia are saying that's genocide!

[@JoeMama-sl8ux]

Begging for money is always a bad look and an indicator that there is MUCH more lurking under the surface than you think.

[@lennysmileyface]

Wikipedia is run by a charity though. Literally every charity "begs" for money lol.

[@JoeMama-sl8ux]

@ my statement stands

[@masterbasher9542]

Reminds me of the mindset I have towards beggars on the street...

[@UnfunnE]

Wikipedia took donations and lit them on fire.

[@Sparlock_Official]

That teacher take is deranged.

[@Chesslover69420]

Never going to donate them again

[@snap4720]

Again?

[@NeilSharks]

bruh I've donated $4-$5 maybe 10 times to wikipedia cause I use it almost everyday. Not doing doing that shit anymore...What a waste.

[@iso_Bandit]

Gottem

[@db5094]

@@snap4720 nothing wrong with supporting what seems like a good cause

[@snap4720]

@db5094 $34 million seems like you got scammed

[@Darkjack-FR]

The more I hear about “safespace”, the more I see a psychiatric logic with public asylums.

[@billhammer9241]

I'm glad someone brought this up. I would never have imagined a video like this surviving on KZbin. They've exaggeration-lied about some of my respected content providers, calling them cult leaders and bigots. I understand that at times I click on them. They are located near the top of my search results and often if I am in a hurry I go there first. They should not be at the top any more. They are not an accurate source. Even university professors tell you they won't accept Wiki as a source. I'd be happy if they'd just stop showing up in my top results so they would be easier to avoid. I usually right-click and open up the top five or so search results at first without taking time to look at them; that's how Wiki gets hits from me. When I see it's Wiki, I close it.

[@davidnone8951]

Teachers in japan get an average salary for High school earn between ¥3.5 million and ¥7 million annually (~$24,000 to $48,000 USD). High school teachers in the U.S. earn an average of $61,000 to $63,000 annually, though this varies widely. Its not the pay its the culture.

[@jormilos]

There's definitely truth to the cultural problem at hand but I'm curious about what the cost of living in Japan is like though. America is one of the most expensive places to live in (not THE most, I believe that's Singapore), especially if you're in a major city. Like how does their 24-48k compare to an American's 61-63k. Even for America, I'd love to see what the low end and the high end (+ locations) for that average came from because our cost of living varies wildly throughout the country. 60k a year is probably bordering poverty line in places like NYC and San Fran/LA. But you'd be doing pretty well if you were in a smaller city in like Kentucky or Tennessee

[@blackneos940]

Wikipedia: The Biased Encyclopedia

[@ericgolightly8450]

They're not biased, just greedy.

[@Lazerspike]

@@ericgolightly8450 HHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHh, good joke!

[@ericgolightly8450]

@@Lazerspike I'm on a Wikipedia page titled "Hartle-Hawking State". I want you to head over there, and point out any potential biases to me. Or you can keep spamming "HAHAHA" because you have no real point.

[@weslawrence888]

@@ericgolightly8450 Sure, when you go over to Trump's page and tell me there's no biases. LMFAO, just because it has biases doesn't mean every page does. Wtf is this take.

[@Assassin1-1PW]

@@weslawrence888 You people say any facts against Trump are bias, so it wouldn't really be a fair experiment. I've read it, by the way.