We lusophones thank you! There have been CENSORSHIP, like the North Korean one, in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Literally, like what North Korea does. Users are BANNED from editing. If you, from the USA, could help lusophones by investigating who is behind that censorship, we would thank you!
We, lusophones, thank you! There have been CENSORSHIP, like the North Korean one, in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Literally, like what North Korea does. Users are BANNED from editing. If you, from the USA, could help lusophones by investigating who is behind that censorship, we would thank you!
Their bias and corruption is endemic and systematic. If editors don't toe the line and shine anyone not left of center in a subtly or overtly bad light, that editor will be bogged down in paragraphs of site bureaucracy every time they try to edit or be outright IP range banned.
The linux foundation is the same. They say that donations go to developers such as linus Torvalds, but then in the next paragraph they say 100% of donations go to diversity and inclusion efforts. Gnome also twice ran out of money because they spent it on diversity and inclusion efforts.
@x0vg5hs1 If you have to covertly crowdsource resources for diversity and inclusion, then you can't claim that everyone wants diversity & inclusion. This is like sneaking your dog's medicine into their food. Progressives are going to turn a lot of people off if this is how they support their causes. Progressives pretend like they're the smartest people in the room; that forcing people to say or do things they don't agree with is what's best for the people they're forcing. To be fair, this isn't unique to progressives. For society to function, there always needs to be some sort of compromise: some sort of forcing people to do things they don't agree with. The difference is that progressives have no shame in lying to your face to accomplish their goals. They will gloat about how popular their causes are, and how "weird" a traditional/ conservative person is for opposing the latest social cause. In another breath, they will shame traditional/ conservative people for controlling everything and forcing people to do or say things they don't agree with. TL;DR: The vast majority of people in the West don't have a problem working with brown people or women. The issue is how it is forced on major institutions of society. No matter how unprepared the "diverse" workforce is, companies are forced to comply regardless of the consequences of putting ill-prepared people in important positions. Corporations have other hiring issues such as nepotism, favortism, corruption, but attacking those other unfair hiring practices won't make people question your moral character. Attacking Diversity & Inclusion practices in the government or workforce, however, makes one look like they don't want racial minorities or women to succeed. When in reality, the pushback comes from the real-world consequences of ignoring incompetence.
I stopped donating to Wikipedia many years ago. They not only allowed pages to have blatant lies, but when the actual person they were lying about tried to make a change it was denied. What a joke of an organization.
It's because of their primary source policy. They don't allow using primary sources as sources. You have to use a left wing media report as a source. Those left wing media sources are also used even if they are slander and libel and contradict the primary source
To be fair, allowing the subject of the article to make changes isn't much better at preventing bias or potential false information. I would agree they should have a correction process though.
I mean, you're donating for something specific and your money goes elsewhere, and it's spent on something that has NOTHING to do with your original donation. Smells like a good lolsuit.
This is legit. The wording of their donation please message clearly implies it's for running the site. Fraud is defined quite broadly in law, but boils down to promising something in exchange for money but then using the money for something else. "deception when raising money" is legally fraud. There is case here. Hope someone pursues it. I'm pretty sure most of the wikipeida donation pleas specifically referenced servers an infrastructure and how they can't afford it, which is a blatant lie and absolutely fraud in the eyes of the law.
It actually _is_ considered fraud. If I set up a charity (or foundation) and begged for money to go to homeless people or something, but then I funnel it to all my own causes and beliefs, that would be fraud and I'd be investigated by the phedz. Woke activists do it and it's all gucci mayne
They were *just* begging for money because they can't run the website, but they're spending all the money on nonsense. Shameful! I've always thought they were so poor because of how they keep repeating it, but turns out they're con artists
@DaveB-w2i at least liquor has calories. This is like a homeless person turning around and using the money to renovate an apartment complex they're the landlord of
@@EmergencyChannel Not really, the for-profit businesses want the public to be well off and buy their stuff because that's how they get their money. Those who live on donations and grants are the ones who can afford to hate you
No, they get far more than 2x more. He mentions in the video that the vast majority of the infrastructure cost is not Wikipedia, but for infrastructure of third party dei/agenda groups.
Well, actually Wikipedia is separately funded. It has enough to operate for decades. But the activists can't touch that fund. ALL the donations are used in this fund. It's for activism.
yea its much more than 2x, basically the endowment generates enough to run it forever. If the donations went into the endowment instead of being squandered it would be a billion by now.
Correction: they have been a propaganda website for many years. They are still neutral and somewhat reliable regarding purely technical information, like programming algorithms, but that might change in a future as well.
@@OlegLecinsky Yeah when it comes to people it's just a bunch of Libel and it's surprising they haven't been sued by any of their victims. Reddit is kinda similar, filled with cancerous leftism, but that's where most search results come from when searching technical or gaming things so you kinda gotta put up with it until a better alternative comes along.
Lusophones like me thank you! There have been CENSORSHIP, like the North Korean one, in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Literally, like what North Korea does. Users are BANNED from editing. If you, from the USA, could help lusophones by investigating who is behind that censorship, we would thank you!
Please look into the companies you donate to. I don't have that disposable income so I can't guide you, but charity/non profits tax info is public somewhere...
@@harielkops3287 Even the articles about historical Conservative persons, who lived in the XIX Century, are censored. Articles about living Conservatives are rarely allowed. And, in doing so, they get many defamation/lies.
Wait, are they saying that women want to read different things than men? Isn't that sexist? I thought there's literally no difference between men and women and it's all a social construct.
what will really boil your noodle is if a woman reads something that a MAN wrote and disagrees with it, then they will have a WOMAN write it up and then they will agree with it.
The way it works is whatever is convenient to them in the moment is what is true, and if you call them out on what they said in the past you are a bigot/ism label
In an ideal world there is no difference, but we are not in an ideal world. Nowadays you need to appeal to that sweet sweet target audience of women, not just everyone
@@violaanderson175Not even in an ideal world. Humans evolved to cover eachothers shortcomings. Men are pre-disposed to being good at things women are not and vice versa. This ultimately leads to a greater functional sum than the individual parts.
Stated goals aren't the actual goals. The actual behavior and its consequences are the strategy toward unsaid goal. If they said what they want, people would not support them.
Yes, this is now the case for most large foundations these days. Just don't donate even if the product is useful to you. Their loss until they get their act together. They don't need your money anyway. Keep it and donate to projects who have little means and really need it, and won't spend it on BS.
Most of their money comes from the big club, tax deductible, then the charity reinvests it in big business, hires relatives of very important people, lobbies, etc.
@@joseoncrack You'd be better off and have more effect by taking a $20 bill to a homeless person, then it could go to something useful, even if it was drugs - that's better than going to woke cancerous garbage.
If you look at the details, they are spending half their money on growing their service into languages and cultures where they're weak, and improving the quality and depth of their information. Nothing is being spent on activism.
I use Wikipedia and am laughing at this guy's take. They aren't a hosting company, they are an information company and are spending money on equity between languages, a major problem for them if you explore outside the English version. They are also bringing entries from other cultures and languages into English, and generally improving the depth and accuracy of their information. Hardly a grift. Not sure about this guy's dubious take though.
@@generalmarkmilleyisbenedic8895 I'm hardly an activist. I hate activists. I just dislike gross misinformation. Plus I use Wikipedia and like their process to remove bias. It's very science like. If only they could blind their editors and not let them know which side they were editing, pathetic human bias would die completely.
It's the oldest left-wing grift in the book. Promise to combat Problem X. Ask for money to combat Problem X. Never solve Problem X (or, in fact, actually make it worse) so your excuse never dries up and you can keep asking for more money to combat Problem X, forever.
@@dawnfire82create the problemm, create the demand, promise you're going to satisfy the demand, turn the investment you received into more problems so the demand rises, repeat
I fell for it the first time they pled for donations many moons ago. Then paid attention to how they used their money the next year and haven't donated since. This has been a trend for a long time, glad its seeing more coverage.
@@clray123 They are conservative orgs, clearly they must spend for conservative goals. Wikipedia has the facade of being a non-political organization, and that is fraud.
I feel scammed. I assumed my money went towards the hosting, software development, staff and maybe to support the most active editors. I'm considering a legal action.
You have no case. Don't even bother. With charity type donations, unless you specify EXACTLY how your donated money is to be spent, it can be spent in ANY fashion they choose. Up to & including taking it & placing it straight into their pockets. This is 100% legal. Now if you donated & specified something like, "My donation can only be spent on actual service related expenditures & CANNOT be used for payroll related expenses." & you found that they gave themselves raises with it, then you would have a case. I worked for a charity that EVERYBODY would recognize & was floored by this fact. The CEO gave himself a 6 figure salary that went up every year. Totally legal.
@@Shuck-Shick-Blam The banner I read made me think I was donating for the development & operation of Wikipedia (the website). If they used the money for a different purpose, I believe it can be considered a scam in my jurisdiction and they knew my jurisdiction, because they explicitly mentioned it in the banner, which probably makes them legally responsible here.
The donation request message pretty clearly implied that the money would be used for hosting wikipedia, helping keep the servers up and whatnot. Legal fraud can be boiled down to a company or organization promising to do one thing with your money, then doing something else. There is actually a case. @@Shuck-Shick-Blam
No, it isn't. That has just somehow become a stupid Internet buzzword in the last year or two, like "grifter." ACTUAL money laundering is feeding money from an illegitimate source (like illegal drug sales) through a legitimate source that's hard to account for so it 'looks' like legitimate money (like the car wash in Breaking Bad). These are donations. There's nothing illegitimate about such a source.
This isn't what money laundering is. Money laundering is taking money from an illegal source and then making it look legitimate. What wikipedia is doing is just fraud, telling people money is for servers and then using it for something completely different.
@@toby9999 It's completely gone woke, it's a well known fact. They added those fake pronouns to articles and things like that. Also, on a more personal level, they censored a page for a "mildly famous" comedian/musician, I suspect because he's very vulgar and blasphemous. I went to search for info of his discography and books and found the page was deleted. So I created an account and asked on their forums why and I got banned for "vandalism" (I never even tried to edit a page, I only asked that question).
@@toby9999 Quality varies so enormously it is unreliable. I'm an electrical and network engineer and would never use it as a serious technical source. Quick story. Many years ago, I was a counterintelligence agent. The wiki page on counterintelligence was wrong. I corrected it, using correct modern (at the time) military doctrine, definitions, unclassified techniques, and so on. Re-wrote the whole thing. Within a month it had been overwritten and changed back to the previous, wrong form by some terminally online loser who had status on the platform and was convinced he knew more than an actual, current, badge-holding, gun-toting practitioner active during a HUMINT-intensive conflict (Iraq, at the time). And that was just run-of-the-mill arrogance and incompetence. It has been the target of concerted propaganda efforts for a long, long time. There are professional activists who do nothing but patrol Wikipedia and erase information they don't like and insert information they do.
@@toby9999for technical stuff it's still good. But with anything else you should be suspicious. Especially with articles about people who are still alive and have a valid criticism against this ideology. Just think about how inflationary they use words like racist, transphobe or misogyny. It would be a miracle to not get a wrong impression of some people if you read their Wikipedia article, even though it's not an accurate description and misleading.
Yea basically as a text site their costs should only go down every year, the rest is sent on vacations to hawaii under the cover of "climate conferences".
It's just a blanket term for outside companies to provide "consulting" services to the tune of millions of dollars to make "recommendations". Ie. a giant grift network.
I have donated to Wikipedia every year since I learned their founder was from Huntsville, Alabama. That was so many years ago I can't remember how many it is. I just retired after 30 years in IT and have returned to the home I grew up in, which is 20 miles from Selma, Alabama. Ever heard of that place? My direct manager for the last 14 years or so was a black man from Selma. There never was a problem between us. There were also women all around me at work. They received the promotions they sought. I guess what I want to say is that I am an old white man, retired from IT and living in the Deep South. I am seeing firsthand how DEI is a failing concept, especially in IT. Want to change the world, especially in the US? Then change the hearts and minds of underprivileged kids before they become teens. A lot of companies would love to have Wikipedia's liquidity position, so count me out until you really need some money. And come to your senses. What's next? Are you going to hire Alissa Heinerscheid?
It's worse than that. Some people are now avoiding minorities for choosing doctors because their not sure if they earned their degree or if they got their job because of their race. DEI has made racism worse because now people have a real excuse to do so.
They begged me for money, I gave them £10. Now this? REALLY? They made it sound like they were in trouble, and I didn't want Wiki to go down. It's an important website. And they spent it on this?! 🤬👹
@@banedon8087oh, sweet summer child. That group is behind many regressive things, civilizational wise. Whenever anything comes up that foils their plans or they dont like, no matter how unrelated, they will call you anti semite to quiet you down.
The result of being infected by the Woke. Everything must turn to the Message including making the users involuntarily live, practice, and spread the Message.
The people in the comments saying "uhmm actually the DEI spending is actually to fix the language translations, this guy has no idea what hes talking about" these people are lying through their teeth and dumb as rocks.
@@Davebsukit’s not “America” per se. It’s a globalist group of elites that run the UN, WHO, CDC, etc. Massive money laundering scheme full of evil people who want peasants to vote away their rights.
LOL. What does that even have to do with simply archiving and fact checking information? No wonder why they are always begging for money.
16 วันที่ผ่านมา
Facts? huh? They went to court and admitted there are no facts. they had to admit it else face very large fines for fraud. They are an entertainment venue and almost all of their edits have been coming from one place, Israel. This is all about forcing communism and revisionist history
I cancelled my monthly donation to them after knowing this. Why are they not 100% focused on maintaining and expanding world knowledge? Instead they got political. Never donating again.
they always say this message will only be there for a short time, but i swear the few times i click on a wikipedia article i pretty much always see full page donation ads
My conclusion is, when you have a successful foundation and are rained upon with money, you invent silly goals to somehow get rid of this money or embezzle it. The question is just, why are they begging for more every year?
@@Idontevenwanachannel It reminds me of a period in which I experienced how a research institute I worked for applied for a grant and the ministry was said to be "swimming in money" at that time - which they had to spend within a set period else it would "disappear" back into the overall budget. So instead of vetting out projects they were actually telling the grant applicants outright how to rephrase their proposals so as to obtain the funding despite flawed ideas. The world is a strange place when it comes to public spending, redistribution, and politics. (Our project funded by this ministry, of course resulted in nothing except several million Euros wasted.. ok it supported the (modest) salaries of some employees on the payroll for a couple of years, but really nothing good or interesting came out of it, and the bs was fairly obvious from the start.)
Thank you for exposing this. Wikimedia has been a top recipient of my annual charitable giving for many years. I won't donate again until the organization apologizes for the gross misuse of funds and has the responsible people removed. By the way, it's not just 100 years of funding. If you take onto account expected returns and present value, it's more than enough to operate at current costs indefinitely, i.e. forever. Wikipedia does not need any more money, ever, if managed responsibly.
"Racial equity" is an abstract, undefined concept... how do you spend money on it? Rhetorical question. Obviously the answer is it's being funneled in to special interest companies who don't really do anything other than take money.
"racial equity" means being racist against whites because the blacks had it bad (in history, not in present day). But now the racism problem is fixed, so now they need to change from "racial equality" to "racial equity" so they can get back at whitey
i swear it wasnt Gen X who did this.... We built Wiki - then the "kids" got control. We wrote Ruby. then the "kids" got control. we built the iphone then... you see the pattern here. Makes me sad to know how much time I put into some of these companies, only for them to use my code to gatekeep and whip.
Just deleted the latest request email. I thought I was donating to maintain access to knowledge .. how silly of me! ... listened further, sounds like I got scammed by an activism group.
I tried correcting their racialism article, and they would not accept my correction of using the dictionary definition to describe a topic as bad scholarship filled with logical fallacies.
There have been CENSORSHIP, like the North Korean one, in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Literally, like what North Korea does. Users are BANNED from editing. If you, from the USA, could help lusophones by investigating who is behind that censorship, we would thank you!
In the charity sector, about 90% or so of donations go on 'admin' i.e. paying wages and the remaining 10% goes on the actual cause. It seems to me Wikipedia is doing the same thing, because that is a very large heap of cash they're blowing year on year.
Used to feel bad that I never donated to Wikipedia, now I'm glad I never did
We lusophones thank you!
There have been CENSORSHIP, like the North Korean one, in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Literally, like what North Korea does. Users are BANNED from editing.
If you, from the USA, could help lusophones by investigating who is behind that censorship, we would thank you!
MEE TO
I should've given the $50 dollar I donated to homeless person. What a waste of money.
@@miki_9034 Each homeless person is worth more than the entire Wikipedia project.
Captured institution. Firmly controlled by the mentally unsound.
Never going to donate to them again
Exactly my thought. Way to ruin something that could have become world cultural heritage.
@@OwnerOfTheCosmos There's that and heavy rewriting of history.
We, lusophones, thank you!
There have been CENSORSHIP, like the North Korean one, in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Literally, like what North Korea does. Users are BANNED from editing.
If you, from the USA, could help lusophones by investigating who is behind that censorship, we would thank you!
Their bias and corruption is endemic and systematic. If editors don't toe the line and shine anyone not left of center in a subtly or overtly bad light, that editor will be bogged down in paragraphs of site bureaucracy every time they try to edit or be outright IP range banned.
I haven't been donating to them since 2010
I've donated in the past. Never going to happen again.
Ditto.
Same! I thought they needed money for servers, didn't realize they were throwing it around for political garbage.
More than political, there's a lot of "tennis" in the nonprofit world. A racket.
Well, same here
@@MilwaukeeF40C I like the way you worded that.
Sounds like they have money to burn... so why are they constantly begging for donations?
Prezactly.
to expand their propaganda operations, what else
Because people will still give them money so they can funnel it into woke bs
"Consultants" also celebrate expensive christmas parties, you know!
The money is going to businesses run by friends & family and it will never be enough.
The linux foundation is the same. They say that donations go to developers such as linus Torvalds, but then in the next paragraph they say 100% of donations go to diversity and inclusion efforts. Gnome also twice ran out of money because they spent it on diversity and inclusion efforts.
As it should be.
@x0vg5hs1
If you have to covertly crowdsource resources for diversity and inclusion, then you can't claim that everyone wants diversity & inclusion.
This is like sneaking your dog's medicine into their food. Progressives are going to turn a lot of people off if this is how they support their causes. Progressives pretend like they're the smartest people in the room; that forcing people to say or do things they don't agree with is what's best for the people they're forcing.
To be fair, this isn't unique to progressives. For society to function, there always needs to be some sort of compromise: some sort of forcing people to do things they don't agree with.
The difference is that progressives have no shame in lying to your face to accomplish their goals. They will gloat about how popular their causes are, and how "weird" a traditional/ conservative person is for opposing the latest social cause. In another breath, they will shame traditional/ conservative people for controlling everything and forcing people to do or say things they don't agree with.
TL;DR: The vast majority of people in the West don't have a problem working with brown people or women. The issue is how it is forced on major institutions of society. No matter how unprepared the "diverse" workforce is, companies are forced to comply regardless of the consequences of putting ill-prepared people in important positions. Corporations have other hiring issues such as nepotism, favortism, corruption, but attacking those other unfair hiring practices won't make people question your moral character. Attacking Diversity & Inclusion practices in the government or workforce, however, makes one look like they don't want racial minorities or women to succeed. When in reality, the pushback comes from the real-world consequences of ignoring incompetence.
Yeah I've been hearing a lot about the ridiculousness in the software industry now, especially with Linux Distros.
@AlvinKazu the racist ones are ok
It's worrisome taking Windows is no better.
I stopped donating to Wikipedia many years ago. They not only allowed pages to have blatant lies, but when the actual person they were lying about tried to make a change it was denied. What a joke of an organization.
It happened so many times, it is tiring.
This
It's because of their primary source policy. They don't allow using primary sources as sources. You have to use a left wing media report as a source. Those left wing media sources are also used even if they are slander and libel and contradict the primary source
To be fair, allowing the subject of the article to make changes isn't much better at preventing bias or potential false information. I would agree they should have a correction process though.
Example: Their views on Holodomor
and they have the balls the ask for donation to keep the services up every year. That should be considered fraud.
I mean, you're donating for something specific and your money goes elsewhere, and it's spent on something that has NOTHING to do with your original donation.
Smells like a good lolsuit.
This is legit. The wording of their donation please message clearly implies it's for running the site. Fraud is defined quite broadly in law, but boils down to promising something in exchange for money but then using the money for something else. "deception when raising money" is legally fraud. There is case here. Hope someone pursues it. I'm pretty sure most of the wikipeida donation pleas specifically referenced servers an infrastructure and how they can't afford it, which is a blatant lie and absolutely fraud in the eyes of the law.
Actually it might be fraud. They're asking for money to run the site, but spending it on diversity (code for kickback) schemes.
@@DonVigaDeFierro donators should indeed sue wikimedia as collective
It actually _is_ considered fraud. If I set up a charity (or foundation) and begged for money to go to homeless people or something, but then I funnel it to all my own causes and beliefs, that would be fraud and I'd be investigated by the phedz. Woke activists do it and it's all gucci mayne
They were *just* begging for money because they can't run the website, but they're spending all the money on nonsense. Shameful! I've always thought they were so poor because of how they keep repeating it, but turns out they're con artists
The "Jimmy Wales yacht" meme has been around for a loooong time.
Reminds me of a homeless person asking for money for food and then running to the liquor store.
@DaveB-w2i at least liquor has calories. This is like a homeless person turning around and using the money to renovate an apartment complex they're the landlord of
@@GregFirehawk Very good point!
@@chaos.corner didn't jimmy wales quit ages ago and now badmouths the site for censorship/bias?
People need to stop giving money to companies that hate them
The begging for donations scam needs to be treated like an ad and blocked immediately
All big businesses hate you.
Menard's loves me more than the Tides Foundation does.
@@EmergencyChannel Not really, the for-profit businesses want the public to be well off and buy their stuff because that's how they get their money. Those who live on donations and grants are the ones who can afford to hate you
And publicly shamed
@@EmergencyChannel If you think private businesses hate their customers, you haven't lived under socialism yet
What this chart tells us is that Wikipedia gets 2x more money than they need. The fact that they are e-begging despite that is disgusting.
No, they get far more than 2x more. He mentions in the video that the vast majority of the infrastructure cost is not Wikipedia, but for infrastructure of third party dei/agenda groups.
@@MrHPlays Thanks. I hate it even more.
Money is one hell of a drug.
Well, actually Wikipedia is separately funded. It has enough to operate for decades. But the activists can't touch that fund.
ALL the donations are used in this fund. It's for activism.
yea its much more than 2x, basically the endowment generates enough to run it forever. If the donations went into the endowment instead of being squandered it would be a billion by now.
'Safety and Inclusion'
What, you're a information website.
Haven't you been listening to the "Progressive" crowd? Some facts are just too dangerous to be discussed or even known by the masses!
Think of all the good and useful things they could spend that money on. Feeding the poor, homelessness, animal cruelty, curing disease...
Administering a website is dangerous business. Gotta have hard hats, goggles, and OSHA compliance.
Correction: they have been a propaganda website for many years. They are still neutral and somewhat reliable regarding purely technical information, like programming algorithms, but that might change in a future as well.
@@OlegLecinsky Yeah when it comes to people it's just a bunch of Libel and it's surprising they haven't been sued by any of their victims. Reddit is kinda similar, filled with cancerous leftism, but that's where most search results come from when searching technical or gaming things so you kinda gotta put up with it until a better alternative comes along.
This is one of many reasons I do not donate to Wikipedia. The others have to do with their blatant censorship.
Okaaaaay, stopping my monthly donation immediately
Lusophones like me thank you! There have been CENSORSHIP, like the North Korean one, in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Literally, like what North Korea does. Users are BANNED from editing.
If you, from the USA, could help lusophones by investigating who is behind that censorship, we would thank you!
@@g_br can support the above claim, the revisionism in brazil's history is absurd
The main editor for India page is heavily biased too, literally abused Hindu cultural stuff being proposed for images lmao!
Please look into the companies you donate to. I don't have that disposable income so I can't guide you, but charity/non profits tax info is public somewhere...
@@harielkops3287 Even the articles about historical Conservative persons, who lived in the XIX Century, are censored.
Articles about living Conservatives are rarely allowed. And, in doing so, they get many defamation/lies.
At this point the word "foundation" is a red flag
found your wallet-ation
As far as I know it s just done for not paying taxes
Tides, RWJF, Open Societies all playing tennis with a racket.
I just think of Soros everytime I see the word "foundation".
Cough* money laundering cough*
Stopped donating many years ago when their political bias became overwhelming
Wait, are they saying that women want to read different things than men? Isn't that sexist? I thought there's literally no difference between men and women and it's all a social construct.
what will really boil your noodle is if a woman reads something that a MAN wrote and disagrees with it, then they will have a WOMAN write it up and then they will agree with it.
They believe in nothing other than power. They claim any belief that suits them in the current second.
The way it works is whatever is convenient to them in the moment is what is true, and if you call them out on what they said in the past you are a bigot/ism label
In an ideal world there is no difference, but we are not in an ideal world. Nowadays you need to appeal to that sweet sweet target audience of women, not just everyone
@@violaanderson175Not even in an ideal world. Humans evolved to cover eachothers shortcomings. Men are pre-disposed to being good at things women are not and vice versa. This ultimately leads to a greater functional sum than the individual parts.
Fighting racism with racism
I think you'll find it's often fighting perceived racism with real activre Racism.
Mostly just fighting reality with racism.
Stated goals aren't the actual goals. The actual behavior and its consequences are the strategy toward unsaid goal. If they said what they want, people would not support them.
There's some nasty anti-white racism on Wikipedia that is passionately defended by the admins for example in the article on Heavy Metal.
More like conjuring racism so that we can “fight” it by laundering money.
The upper management at Wikipedia should be in prison for fraud.
Well, this is disgusting. People donate because they think it is for wikipedia, and it is for woke activism.
Yes, this is now the case for most large foundations these days. Just don't donate even if the product is useful to you. Their loss until they get their act together. They don't need your money anyway. Keep it and donate to projects who have little means and really need it, and won't spend it on BS.
Many such cases.
Most of their money comes from the big club, tax deductible, then the charity reinvests it in big business, hires relatives of very important people, lobbies, etc.
@@joseoncrack You'd be better off and have more effect by taking a $20 bill to a homeless person, then it could go to something useful, even if it was drugs - that's better than going to woke cancerous garbage.
If you look at the details, they are spending half their money on growing their service into languages and cultures where they're weak, and improving the quality and depth of their information. Nothing is being spent on activism.
I'm glad I never fell for their grift.
Most people wouldn't know about their woke bs. I use Wikipedia every day a lot as a technical source, so $2.75 seemed reasonable, but no more.
I use Wikipedia and am laughing at this guy's take. They aren't a hosting company, they are an information company and are spending money on equity between languages, a major problem for them if you explore outside the English version. They are also bringing entries from other cultures and languages into English, and generally improving the depth and accuracy of their information. Hardly a grift. Not sure about this guy's dubious take though.
@@Gothloreyoure an activist reeeeeing throughtout the comments
@@generalmarkmilleyisbenedic8895 I'm hardly an activist. I hate activists. I just dislike gross misinformation. Plus I use Wikipedia and like their process to remove bias. It's very science like. If only they could blind their editors and not let them know which side they were editing, pathetic human bias would die completely.
@Gothlore Redditor spotted.
I never understood how you need money to end racism. Ending racism seems like something that can be done for free.
As Danzel Washington said: "No president can legislate us into liking each-other"
Racism was on life support and people found out there was money to be made, so here we are.
It's the oldest left-wing grift in the book. Promise to combat Problem X. Ask for money to combat Problem X. Never solve Problem X (or, in fact, actually make it worse) so your excuse never dries up and you can keep asking for more money to combat Problem X, forever.
@@dawnfire82 pretty sure thats not exclusive to left wing
@@dawnfire82create the problemm, create the demand, promise you're going to satisfy the demand, turn the investment you received into more problems so the demand rises, repeat
This is why I don't donate to them despite their incessant pestering.
I fell for it the first time they pled for donations many moons ago. Then paid attention to how they used their money the next year and haven't donated since. This has been a trend for a long time, glad its seeing more coverage.
Equity has just become a code word for corruption.
Another captured Organization. Donated once. Glad i never did it again.
Wait until you learn how captured conservative orgs are spending...
@@clray123 They are conservative orgs, clearly they must spend for conservative goals. Wikipedia has the facade of being a non-political organization, and that is fraud.
All conservative orgs together won't come close to the billions of a single big lefty foundation.
@@clray123While you are correct in that conservative orgs are captured, that is irrelevant here. This is supposed to be a neutral organization.
I feel scammed. I assumed my money went towards the hosting, software development, staff and maybe to support the most active editors. I'm considering a legal action.
Well, it is. Just definitely not all of it
You have no case.
Don't even bother.
With charity type donations, unless you specify EXACTLY how your donated money is to be spent, it can be spent in ANY fashion they choose. Up to & including taking it & placing it straight into their pockets.
This is 100% legal.
Now if you donated & specified something like, "My donation can only be spent on actual service related expenditures & CANNOT be used for payroll related expenses." & you found that they gave themselves raises with it, then you would have a case.
I worked for a charity that EVERYBODY would recognize & was floored by this fact. The CEO gave himself a 6 figure salary that went up every year. Totally legal.
@@Shuck-Shick-Blam The banner I read made me think I was donating for the development & operation of Wikipedia (the website). If they used the money for a different purpose, I believe it can be considered a scam in my jurisdiction and they knew my jurisdiction, because they explicitly mentioned it in the banner, which probably makes them legally responsible here.
Realistically you'd have to wait for someone to open a class action against them and a lawyer willing to work the case is slim.
The donation request message pretty clearly implied that the money would be used for hosting wikipedia, helping keep the servers up and whatnot. Legal fraud can be boiled down to a company or organization promising to do one thing with your money, then doing something else. There is actually a case. @@Shuck-Shick-Blam
Any even remotely political article of theirs is so left-leaning it's actually nuts.
I was about to make the mistake of donating. Thanks for the video. Disgusting behaviour from them.
I stop donating to them years ago. When governments start actively controlling it.
the term is " money laundering" to our activist pot head friends who don't want to work real jobs but look busy.
No, it isn't. That has just somehow become a stupid Internet buzzword in the last year or two, like "grifter." ACTUAL money laundering is feeding money from an illegitimate source (like illegal drug sales) through a legitimate source that's hard to account for so it 'looks' like legitimate money (like the car wash in Breaking Bad). These are donations. There's nothing illegitimate about such a source.
Yes, they take your money for other purposes
This isn't what money laundering is. Money laundering is taking money from an illegal source and then making it look legitimate.
What wikipedia is doing is just fraud, telling people money is for servers and then using it for something completely different.
Not everyone who smokes weed is marx demon, a-hole.
I was a small donor over 10 years ago. Then I started notice some things
Same. The gamergate page is straight propaganda.
Wikipedia has been lost for quite a while, sadly.
Stopped donating to them since I noticed they introduced the wrong pronouns.
Their fundraising bs aside, in what way is it lost? I use it as a technical source. It's still excellent.
That was years after they started allowing bias and lies to infest what was supposed to be a reference site to repllace traditional encyclopedias.
@@toby9999 It's completely gone woke, it's a well known fact. They added those fake pronouns to articles and things like that. Also, on a more personal level, they censored a page for a "mildly famous" comedian/musician, I suspect because he's very vulgar and blasphemous. I went to search for info of his discography and books and found the page was deleted. So I created an account and asked on their forums why and I got banned for "vandalism" (I never even tried to edit a page, I only asked that question).
@@toby9999 Quality varies so enormously it is unreliable. I'm an electrical and network engineer and would never use it as a serious technical source.
Quick story. Many years ago, I was a counterintelligence agent. The wiki page on counterintelligence was wrong. I corrected it, using correct modern (at the time) military doctrine, definitions, unclassified techniques, and so on. Re-wrote the whole thing. Within a month it had been overwritten and changed back to the previous, wrong form by some terminally online loser who had status on the platform and was convinced he knew more than an actual, current, badge-holding, gun-toting practitioner active during a HUMINT-intensive conflict (Iraq, at the time).
And that was just run-of-the-mill arrogance and incompetence. It has been the target of concerted propaganda efforts for a long, long time. There are professional activists who do nothing but patrol Wikipedia and erase information they don't like and insert information they do.
@@toby9999for technical stuff it's still good. But with anything else you should be suspicious. Especially with articles about people who are still alive and have a valid criticism against this ideology.
Just think about how inflationary they use words like racist, transphobe or misogyny.
It would be a miracle to not get a wrong impression of some people if you read their Wikipedia article, even though it's not an accurate description and misleading.
What I Know Is that the site is useful if it is a neutral subject.If there is anything of present politics,it is totally biased to the Left.
Yea basically as a text site their costs should only go down every year, the rest is sent on vacations to hawaii under the cover of "climate conferences".
They don't need your money
We need them to not have ANY money.
I'm glad that this channel exists.
So donating to Wikipedia is like throwing your money away. Got it. Thanks for the heads up.
More like giving it to Stalin. Throwing it away would only hurt you.
Remember Wikipedia has way more money than they need for hosting. And they're always begging you for more on top.
It's like Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk shows up at your house, shaking a cup with "donations please, need help, need food, many kids" written on it.
And this is why I instinctively dismiss their calls for donations
Racial Equity is that another word for DEI / ESG ?
Yes
That's what the E refers to in DEI.
it's probably worse
It's racial communism which is most of the time deeply discriminatory on an individual basis.
It's just a blanket term for outside companies to provide "consulting" services to the tune of millions of dollars to make "recommendations". Ie. a giant grift network.
Thank you for letting us know. This year’s donation was my last.
If I were you I'd run a chargeback.
Also, nothing has changed. Theyve been like this for years. You shouldve comprehended the situation better.
The company who begs for money spent MILLIONS... Glad I've never once donated.
good reminder to not donate to them.
I stopped giving them money years ago when I learned how the management of pages was being gamed in favour of a particular worldview.
It's mainly because those people have way more idle time even though they are smaller in number. This idle time also makes them feel irrelevant.
Exactly. They claim to require reliable sources, but their "reliable sources" are only left propaganda sites.
Same.
I have donated to Wikipedia every year since I learned their founder was from Huntsville, Alabama. That was so many years ago I can't remember how many it is.
I just retired after 30 years in IT and have returned to the home I grew up in, which is 20 miles from Selma, Alabama. Ever heard of that place? My direct manager for the last 14 years or so was a black man from Selma. There never was a problem between us. There were also women all around me at work. They received the promotions they sought.
I guess what I want to say is that I am an old white man, retired from IT and living in the Deep South. I am seeing firsthand how DEI is a failing concept, especially in IT. Want to change the world, especially in the US? Then change the hearts and minds of underprivileged kids before they become teens.
A lot of companies would love to have Wikipedia's liquidity position, so count me out until you really need some money. And come to your senses.
What's next? Are you going to hire Alissa Heinerscheid?
It's worse than that. Some people are now avoiding minorities for choosing doctors because their not sure if they earned their degree or if they got their job because of their race. DEI has made racism worse because now people have a real excuse to do so.
They begged me for money, I gave them £10. Now this? REALLY? They made it sound like they were in trouble, and I didn't want Wiki to go down. It's an important website. And they spent it on this?! 🤬👹
Okay, not giving them any donation anymore.
Never donate to the thing that discriminates against and/or hates you.
Oy, that's extremely antisemitic.
@abcdeabcde4877 I think I missed a reference somewhere (or it's too late at night)?
@@banedon8087 They have a thing against whites.
@@banedon8087oh, sweet summer child. That group is behind many regressive things, civilizational wise. Whenever anything comes up that foils their plans or they dont like, no matter how unrelated, they will call you anti semite to quiet you down.
What's going on with Wikipedia? Why are they spending stuff on "Equity" all of a sudden? What does Equity have to do with Wikipedia?
The result of being infected by the Woke. Everything must turn to the Message including making the users involuntarily live, practice, and spread the Message.
It's "The People's" Encyclopedia.
It's black and white and Red all over, if you get my drift.
They’ve been doing it for over a decade they are ideologues pushing an agenda and hire more people who agree with themselves.
yea, why do they spend this much money on horses? 🤔
The grifters have arrived with hands out.
This is why you NEVER give money to Wikipedia.
They not only DON'T need it, they SHOULDN'T have it.
The people in the comments saying "uhmm actually the DEI spending is actually to fix the language translations, this guy has no idea what hes talking about" these people are lying through their teeth and dumb as rocks.
This is why I never give to anyone. The only person I trust with my money is me.
We need a Wikipedia alternative that focuses on doing is damn job
You're welcome to start one. You could even copy all their articles as an initial seed.
Wikispooks
Ditto for pretty much every US Income Capitalist managed company in the world (BlackRock etc). Thanks America.
@@Davebsukit’s not “America” per se. It’s a globalist group of elites that run the UN, WHO, CDC, etc. Massive money laundering scheme full of evil people who want peasants to vote away their rights.
Wiki spooks
No space.
Wow, I did not know this -- thanks for making me aware, I most certainly donated in the past without knowing that how they spend it
and they still ask more Donations...
that makes sense now...
Fortunately, I never donated to Wokepedia.
😆
Looks like money laundering. Someone should investigate
I would love to see where the discovery trail leads.
Wow. Now I don't feel bad for not donating
LOL. What does that even have to do with simply archiving and fact checking information?
No wonder why they are always begging for money.
Facts? huh? They went to court and admitted there are no facts. they had to admit it else face very large fines for fraud. They are an entertainment venue and almost all of their edits have been coming from one place, Israel. This is all about forcing communism and revisionist history
"We need your donation..."
No, you are good 👍
This is why Wikipeida can't be seen as selling accurate information. Just look at the Yasuke situation.
I've donated years ago, now I will never donate again
internet archive could use some extra toads for their shining beacon of internet history made from cardboard, 2 sticks and a piece of string.
No one should give this company a dime
You're telling me they had the ability to host their site for 10x years but because of the free money that had to be spent on useless stuff
I cancelled my monthly donation to them after knowing this.
Why are they not 100% focused on maintaining and expanding world knowledge?
Instead they got political.
Never donating again.
Okay, if they are a non-profit, they need to lose that.
Inclusivity is a non-profit activity so....
But still they are misappropriating funds to fund these wokos.
This is why I stopped donating. Never fund the people who hate you.
The wiki nowadays full of propaganda
they always say this message will only be there for a short time, but i swear the few times i click on a wikipedia article i pretty much always see full page donation ads
Everytime i go on Wikipedia "please, please, we cant continue without $2.74 from you!" Now they can shove it!
If you have 31 million for stuff like that, there's no need to ask for any donations ever again
I never donated to them because I always knew they were off on a lot of things.
My conclusion is, when you have a successful foundation and are rained upon with money, you invent silly goals to somehow get rid of this money or embezzle it. The question is just, why are they begging for more every year?
Even nonprofits are obsessed with growth, and will find ways to spend money instead of saving for a rainy day
@@Idontevenwanachannel It reminds me of a period in which I experienced how a research institute I worked for applied for a grant and the ministry was said to be "swimming in money" at that time - which they had to spend within a set period else it would "disappear" back into the overall budget. So instead of vetting out projects they were actually telling the grant applicants outright how to rephrase their proposals so as to obtain the funding despite flawed ideas. The world is a strange place when it comes to public spending, redistribution, and politics. (Our project funded by this ministry, of course resulted in nothing except several million Euros wasted.. ok it supported the (modest) salaries of some employees on the payroll for a couple of years, but really nothing good or interesting came out of it, and the bs was fairly obvious from the start.)
Just added Wikipedia to the "no donation" list
Wikipedia: (Bernie S. voiceover) Once again I’m asking you to donate.
Wikipedia: spends it on “The Message!”
I can't believe I donated to them a couple of times. They will get no more money from me, that's for sure. All these organizations are going down...
Thank you for exposing this. Wikimedia has been a top recipient of my annual charitable giving for many years. I won't donate again until the organization apologizes for the gross misuse of funds and has the responsible people removed.
By the way, it's not just 100 years of funding. If you take onto account expected returns and present value, it's more than enough to operate at current costs indefinitely, i.e. forever. Wikipedia does not need any more money, ever, if managed responsibly.
Libgen is far useful than wikipedia nowadays.
you'd be better off donating to a church to help homeless
Donated once. NEVER AGAIN.
THIS is why I haven't donated to them in over 12 years. That and their biased editors.
"Racial equity" is an abstract, undefined concept... how do you spend money on it? Rhetorical question. Obviously the answer is it's being funneled in to special interest companies who don't really do anything other than take money.
"racial equity" means being racist against whites because the blacks had it bad (in history, not in present day). But now the racism problem is fixed, so now they need to change from "racial equality" to "racial equity" so they can get back at whitey
i swear it wasnt Gen X who did this.... We built Wiki - then the "kids" got control. We wrote Ruby. then the "kids" got control. we built the iphone then... you see the pattern here.
Makes me sad to know how much time I put into some of these companies, only for them to use my code to gatekeep and whip.
This madness all started with Gen X. Look at the age range of the people in charge.
Wikipedia is like The Southern Poverty Law Center, both Ultra-Progressive !!
Exact reason why I always roll my eyes when they beg for donations
$31 million thought they were broke as they keep begging for money whenever you view one of thier pages
I donated to Wikipedia in the past, but the last few years I wouldn't touch them!
Just deleted the latest request email. I thought I was donating to maintain access to knowledge .. how silly of me! ... listened further, sounds like I got scammed by an activism group.
Never donating again...
Wikimedia's grift just hurts charities in general. People will stop donating money, even in the causes they believe in, because of cases like this.
It shocks me just how many people in the comments of this video HAVE actually donated in the past. LOL, sad.
I tried correcting their racialism article, and they would not accept my correction of using the dictionary definition to describe a topic as bad scholarship filled with logical fallacies.
There have been CENSORSHIP, like the North Korean one, in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Literally, like what North Korea does. Users are BANNED from editing.
If you, from the USA, could help lusophones by investigating who is behind that censorship, we would thank you!
Let me guess. It's the small hats again.
Alguma página relacionada a política imagino?
US users aren't allow edit either. It's a bs site at this point.
@@MapleBR Não somente páginas relacionadas a política.
Mas a QUALQUER assunto que incomode os censores.
And they are BEGGING for money......
I think this is a horribly under-reported topic. We need to amplify this message so that more people are aware of this.
I've been quietly hoping Wikipedia shuts down due to lack of funds. Now I have more reason than ever to hope for this, but less hope overall. Darn.
I stop donating to them years ago. They are part of the system.
I used to donate years ago but never again. Seeing how half of their money goes to BS, they'll never get a penny more.
In the charity sector, about 90% or so of donations go on 'admin' i.e. paying wages and the remaining 10% goes on the actual cause. It seems to me Wikipedia is doing the same thing, because that is a very large heap of cash they're blowing year on year.
This is some kind of money laundering
I don't use wikipedia anymore, nor support them financially.