Wikipedia is begging for money again

>it would be a great loss to the world
[citation needed]

jews gonna jew

independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/jimmy-wales-the-internets-shy-evangelist-2374679.html

>Jow Forums: everything should be foss, projects should be paid by donations
>also Jow Forums: hurr durr they're begging for money, muh socialism, muh jews

Attached: 1530802222271.png (804x743, 11K)

Right above the Monopoly Money and below Warcraft Gold options.

>$31 million in wages
>for a website whose content is sourced by volunteers

huh?

>foundation, inc.
Hold the fuck up, I'm not familiar with the US legal system, but doesn't >inc. mean it's for-profit?

t. blocks ads and will never donate

>being pro foss means you have do donate to liberal propaganda machines. No exceptions

Attached: 1476049976746.jpg (1280x960, 90K)

>something something strawman

>derp time to use the fallacy i know the name of derp
There was no strawman

Wikipedia is controlled by liberals. The majority of the super editors or what ever the fuck they're called are liberals. The admins are liberals. Why the hell would someone who is not liberal donate to that cesspool just because they're pro foss?

Warcraft Gold is actually worth something now.

All this money just ends up funding extremist left wing candidates in US elections.

How is asking for donations socialism?

Jumbo needs a new yacht.

>liberal boogeyman
spooky

Wat, have they funded candidates in US elections, nevermind extremists?
How is Wikipedia a "liberal propaganda machine"?

...

> advertising
The only loss there is that it would bend under any government and censor everything.

Attached: 1499937154562.png (1058x503, 289K)

Where exactly did I say you should, you brainlet? I was only showing Jow Forums's hypocrisy for pushing for FOSS while at the same time ridiculing projects that ask for donations.
I didn't say that you or Jow Forums should donate. You pulled that one out of your ass a.k.a. strawman.

What the hell depreciates at a rate of 2.7 million a year?

Who needs to eat?
Wikipedia doesn't have paid editors
Wikipedia doesn't need paid admins, since people will do it for free.
Wikipeida only need backend IT staff to keep the site rolling on, the amount of staff required would be ~20-25 people.
ie. Wikipedia could stand to lose ~40million or so in funding a year.

>How is Wikipedia a "liberal propaganda machine"?

Didin't you know? It doesn't allow for us to edit the role of Trump from President to God Emperor, truly a censorship to us kekistani bros.

that applies to any website f a m if they want to stay up

>>Jow Forums: everything should be foss, projects should be paid by donations
yep.
>>also Jow Forums: hurr durr they're begging for money, muh socialism, muh jews
yep, see: They're begging for money they don't even need.
They only *need* ~$5 million a year.

my thoughts exactly. wtf?

I knew that from all other questions and arguments you would choose to answer to the one, and with that pic nonetheless. You lads are becoming predictable.

Corporation status just means the owners are protected from liabilities of the business. So if for example they were to get sued and ordered to pay billions of dollars by the court, Wikimedia Foundation would have to pay, but none of it would come out of Wales' bank account. Non-profit corporations can and do exist.

So you can't ridicule wikipedia begging for donations while being pro foss?

Are you retarded?

Everything in that pic is correct, so it's the one to use against low tests like yourself

Attached: faggots.png (1280x392, 236K)

>low tests
>expected reply
You're here on a chinese basket weaving forum same as me user, quit projecting, that's all you can do.

>So you can't ridicule wikipedia begging for donations while being pro foss?
No, not really. Unless you only stand by your principles when it fits your agenda which would not be surprising.

>Posts Thatcher
>OP is an absolute retard
Who could have guessed.

t. has never managed anyone or anything

They protected Sarah Jeong and have done plenty other anti-white shit. FUCK Wikipedia.

foss and liberal propaganda are two different things that are related by the people who subscribe to both.

Lmao didn't she crash the entire britbong economy, with soros making literally billions overnight because of it?

If you're asking if they've donated to political campaigns, then yes. Pretty much all the mascots of the far left have gotten a share of the wikipedia donations.

Didn't she fix the stagflation?

> since people who aren't able to be held accountable for their actions will dependably dedicate 40 hours a week for free
> only need backend IT staff to keep the site rolling on
Sites*
Wikimedia has a wide range of sites to manage, even if Wikipedia is by far the most popular.
Besides, what about the lawyers (required), security for the physical building(s) that the IT guys work at (also required), janitors to keep the place from looking like some NEET's bedroom (if you don't think this is required then idk what to say), etc.

If though Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder, is a libertarian/objectivist

lmao
I was wondering about candidates but is it that they've given money to far-left political campaigns? Can you give examples? Seems weird they'd donate to political campaigns outside of stuff like net neutrality and such that you'd of expect them to donate to

my uni prof said that there's a dedicated team of tech people who write tech related articles on wikipedia. i can't find sauce so don't quote me on that, though.

They're only asking. Are you so autistic that you can't simply ignore it?

>leftism can only exist in a highly moderated space
Delusional

Socialism forces people to give, whereas donations are completely voluntary.

>private non-profit website
>content is created by volunteers
>asking for money, not holding a gun to your head and taxing you for it

You need to be 18 to visit this site.

>security for the physical building(s) that the IT guys work at (also required)

The vast majority of businesses don't have security, even ones that directly handle large sums of cash like grocery stores and department stores. I doubt wikipedia owns their own that need protecting, those are probably all managed through some 3rd party host. Whatever building they own is probably just a plain office building, very likely in a complex with other offices that might all share the costs of a single night guard to watch for break ins.

they're asking for donations, is that socialism to you?

Tech

>getting upset about a private foundation using their money as they see fit and being entirely transparent about the whole process
I must've missed the part where you propose a better alternative

leftism can only exist in spaces where namecalling is seen as a valid argument. IE "Delusional"

If that's how you see it, then don't give them money. What's the fucking problem?

>Wikimedia has a wide range of sites to manage, even if Wikipedia is by far the most popular.
the rest of what you said is bullshit but this is the real reason. The Wikipedia donation drives are actually just a revenue stream for wikimedia foundation. They trick you into thinking you are donating to keep wikipedia alive but really 95% of your donation is used to support something completely different.

They're still begging.

> hyuck Jow Forums shure is one confused guy

It's a funny argument that leftism can only exist in a highly moderated space (as opposed to right-wing ideology). It implies that leftism is a weak ideology. But in that case, why is the "weak" leftism able to moderate away the "strong" right-wing ideology? Isn't right-wing ideology strong enough to fight against that sort of thing?

Wikipedia is shit. Don't give them money.
If they died tomorrow I wouldn't give a damn, and neither should you.

?
how does that logically follow?

>security for the physical building(s) that the IT guys work at
It's like 25 people, so that's a floor of a building, no security is required since that's part of the building itself and therefore your rent.
> janitors to keep the place from looking like some NEET's bedroom
That's an outsourced contract service, no company has their own janitors except some old boomer companies that haven't moved to future yet.
> what about the lawyers (required)
not required. period.
>Wikimedia has a wide range of sites to manage, even if Wikipedia is by far the most popular.
anything that isn't wikipedia is shit I don't care about.

?

The argument is that leftism, being a weak ideology, needs to be upheld with bullying and emotional outbursts instead of logic.

What leftism really represents is decay in societal order, in the name of empathy to those who do not benefit by the structures of society (illegal immigrants, homosexuals, etc). In fact, it is natural for any civilization to move toward the left as it is softened by time. People forget about the harsh realities that led to the formation of civilization and become prone to committing the crime of virtue signalling. It is a form of entropy, and is, in a way, unpreventable.

Of course, as more people begin to demand illogical policies based on emotional arguments, the logical ones that are perceived as less caring and less understanding for the disenfranchised are branded as cruel and evil, and so get cast aside by an ever-larger portion of society.

Look it up, it happens all the time.

If a charity used 97% of there donations for overhead they would be shut down. As for transparency, I would say the donation message is completely bullshit and only going through there financial statements would you figure it out. which is about as transparent as a brick.

Wikipedia is ran by extreme autist admins. Some of them don't even sleep.

>Wednesday

you mean those ideological freaks that guard the "integrity" of certain articles?

So the weak leftism is capable of taking an open space and pushing right-wing ideology out? Sounds like right-wing ideology is the weak one in that case, if it's so easy to just snuff it out. Also if you have some material on the subject I'd be interest to take a look. Mainly to know on what this "analysis" relies on.

I'd donate if Wikipedia actually did something about the blatant foreign propaganda campaigns that graffiti the site.

Yeah, I would argue that under the right circumstances logic and reason are easy to snuff out. I also agree with you that modern right wing ideology is extremely weak, as they tend to win at the game of the leftist, showing that they care about underserved fringe elements of society. It's not a game that they can win.

If you want to read more, and have a bit of time on your hands (the concepts are very well suited for sound bites and listicle - type dissemination), check out the unqualified reservations blog.
unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html

*tend to play the game of the leftist
** the concepts aren't very well suited

Sorry, I was distracted while writing that.

>Yeah, I would argue that under the right circumstances logic and reason are easy to snuff out.
Yeah but we were talking about political ideologies

>not required. period.
why yes hello wikipedia, have a baseless lawsuit that still needs to be defended against, sure glad that you decided that lawyers weren't required

lmao, was considering donating $10, but they aren't getting a penny from me now

Did you read my post? Your political ideology stems from the arguments that you respond to. Leftism draws its arguments from the heart, not the mind.

Here's a better link for the UR blog that I found
unqualified-reservations.org/

Give that money to me.

Only a brainlet would think one side of politics represents the ultimate logic and reason and is based on facts while the other is just silly feelings and whatnot. What are you, 12

>feels over reals
Damn, is it opposite day?
>Unironically linking a /blog/
Oh you

no u

Namecalling again? Perhaps you should find a productive argument instead if you want to be taken seriously. It's obvious you don't have the attention span to read an entire post, as I've already mentioned the problems that modern conservatism has with feelings, as well.

Either way, I think we both can see how the progressive mind works from our exchange: you tend to deny facts that don't agree with your worldview instead of incorporating them.

>opposite day
what do you mean?
>>oh you
is it invalid because somebody wrote it on a website?

Attached: 1531911932670.png (441x416, 117K)

She without a doubt killed the UK's mining industry permanently.

>Socialism forces people to give
You're thinking of capitalism.

Attached: Bezos_Amazon.jpg (640x775, 40K)

>jeff bezos forced you give your money to amazon
>jeff bezos forced somebody to work for amazon

are you ok in the brain?

hahaha

Yes, you are presenting something as fact while linking an opinion piece. You berate the other side for this but here you are doing the same. Be consistent user.

Now kill yourself and/or go back to where you came from. Stop fucking up my fucking board you dumb nigger reddit shitposter.

Attached: why we hate polfags.png (1306x354, 542K)

It is a fact that leftist platforms are built on emotion instead of logic, though. Name me one (1) that doesn't attempt to appeal to emotion.
>Those poor undocumented migrant workers! Dont you feel sorry for them?
>Those poor gays that can't marry! Isn't it unfair that there are so many homophobes?
>Those poor blue collar workers whose jobs are getting automated! Shouldn't we give free money to them so they dont have to be productive members of society?

I have not doctored or modified this image in any way. This shit needs to fucking stop.

Attached: tumor.png (1902x1629, 371K)

Politics is just weighing interests.

The right wing has clearly defined structures.
The government serves only the (theoretical) tax payers.
The laws apply to all of them equally creating equal oppertunities, but not equal results. In the most extreme cases this leads to societies with huge inequality in the world as the less capable individuals wont find help.

The left wing on the other hand does not acknowledge boundaries. The government serves all and all serve the government. Everything is up for discussion. And the resulting equality is more important than equality before the law. The end justifies the means. In extremes lead to imperialism, class and racial violence.

yea, fuck him