Posts by YourLocalGP

Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you?

The tone of the email has been discussed to death here already. What I would point out is the inappropriate nature of the implication that staff should be paid while Wikipedia editors are not. I would expect that from Mail Online, not from El Reg. The peer-editing model relies on small, gratis contributions from many, with no obligation or financial target. Reg would be the first to complain if wikipedia has paid editors who were seen to be editing with conflicts of interest. What portion of wikipedia editors complain that they should be paid? I expect it is tiny.

Re: one thing....

TV spots are often given either free or paid for as part of a CSR programme by a broadcaster. Larger charities are statistically more efficient in terms of pounds-to-cause, under much more stringent scrutiny for malpractice than smaller outfits, and for many reasons have lower proportional operating costs (e.g. salary demands are lower due to the CV recognition employees gain). Many canvassers work for expenses only, and others are subsidised in-kind via donations from marketing firms and corporates.