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.
It's an early 20th century edition of 18th century memoirs, in French. The project is not secret by any means but I'd rather not name it directly so as to not generate expectations that I may not satisfy.
That’s a rather idiosyncratic interpretation that doesn’t align with current views or legal structures in the Western world (look up ‘publicity rights’)
‘Ownership’ isn’t a property of the universe. It’s a value imposed by human society and philosophy. The physical reality you describe is true but irrelevant
I sometimes worry if they ever achieve their goal they might not be wise enough not to kill the golden goose.
reply