Hacker News Reader

Comment by baobabKoodaa | Hacker News Reader

I always find it weird when a charity or non-profit publically announces that they stop accepting certain forms of donations due to ideological reasons. It's a signal that the organization isn't particularly starving for donations. If you were planning to donate to Wikipedia any sum less than $130,100.94, remember that 70% of Wikipedians consider such donations to have no impact at all. So if you were about to donate $100k, for example, nobody at Wikipedia cares about such a tiny donation. So maybe donate that $100k to an organization that actually needs it instead?

View on HN

I don't think there's anything weird about it. Accepting a form of payment increases demand for that form of payment. Not accepting a payment decreases the demand. In effect, wikipedia is paying the price of decreased donations to buy a decrease in the influence of cryptocurrencies. No different than spending money to advance a non-profit's goal, except that the money being "spent" is in lost potential revenue rather than distributed actual revenue.

The publicity of it is to establish an understanding that cryptocurrencies are entirely populated by scammers and their victims, and that ethical companies don't do business with scammers, do not accept money from scammers.

> In effect, wikipedia is paying the price of decreased donations to buy a decrease in the influence of cryptocurrencies.

Exactly! They have amassed so much money that they can afford to wage ideological crusades against things unrelated to their core mission. That's a clear signal that it's time to reduce donations to Wikipedia.

> No different than spending money to advance a non-profit's goal, except that the money being "spent" is in lost potential revenue rather than distributed actual revenue.

The difference is spending to advance Wikipedia's core mission, versus spending to advance random unrelated ventures.

> ethical companies don't do business with scammers, do not accept money from scammers.

Nope, that's not it, at all. If that were the case, they would have announced some kind of KYC initiative to identify scammers and refuse their donations. But they aren't targeting scammers specifically - scammers are still welcome to send their donations in USD, and Wikipedia will happily accept their donations. What they won't accept is donations in crypto, regardless of the origin of that donation.

I think this is a targeted action against scammers, because use of cryptocurrency alone is a sufficient signal that the sender is a scammer, to the point that it is worth disassociating with the entire platform.

> publically announces

That’s how RfCs work—they’re public by nature, so that people can comment. It’s hardly feasible not to then promulgate the outcome.

> they stop accepting certain forms of donations

They haven’t. This is a proposal through an RfC. The foundation may or may not accept it.

> organization isn't particularly starving for donations

Well it isn’t, so that’s a good thing. People should stop donating to the foundation for a while. Hopefully the bureaucracy will be slashed.

Thanks for the clarifications. I misread the title and assumed that the RFC had been passed.

The RfC is passed but the effect of that is to make a request. Imagine you and I were to form a committee to discuss, e.g., landscaping in municipal gardens: we might pass a motion to suggest planting different flowers, but that would amount only to a request to the gardeners/the competent authority.

Okay. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia politics so it seems I used incorrect term again.

Your confusing the Wikipedia community of users, which anyone is free to participate in, and have passed this RFC, with the Wikimedia Foundation, which accepts donations and runs the systems and networks that Wikipedia runs on.

https://networkcultures.org/cpov/2010/03/27/mayo-fuster-more...

Such hybrid and “community” driven systems are far from problem-free. But this one has created Wikipedia, which most people think is a good thing. Obviously it’s tricky to walk the line.

> It's a signal that the organization isn't particularly starving for donations.

That's not a conclusion that came to my mind. Despite all the hype, Bitcoin is still a niche payment system and basically everyone can use a more established payment method instead.

> basically everyone can use a more established payment method instead.

Are you hypothesizing that the amount of donations will not be reduced as a result of this decision? Even the person who wrote the proposal admitted that this decision would lead to less donations. Are you suggesting 100% of people who were going to donate with crypto are now going to donate the same amounts using traditional channels?

> I always find it weird when a charity or non-profit publically announces that they stop accepting certain forms of donations due to ideological reasons. It's a signal that the organization isn't particularly starving for donations.

It's as or more likely a signal that the cost of accepting those forms of donations is too high. Cost for non-profits can mean more than just currency, it can be things like ethics, morality, popularity, political stances, etc.

Exactly right. And note that this is done purely and openly for ideological reasons - there is no maintenance cost argument being made.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com