Enough Musk Spam

2830 readers

374 users here now

For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.

No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.

Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.

Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.

Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

jordanpeterson@lemmy.world

an0nym0us@lemmy.dbzer0.com

356

Elon Musk takes aim at Wikipedia (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 3 months ago by neme@lemm.ee to c/enoughmuskspam@lemmy.world

90 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)

I donated to Wikipedia once before, but never again. Their endowment has grown to a level where they should be completely self-sustained. However, spending is out of control.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer

Edit: I'm glad Wikipedia exists, but to say they are hurting for more cash is completely false. Even according to their own financial disclosures, web hosting expenses have stabilized under $4-million a year (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation). As contributions continue to grow, it is spent on higher salaries for executives. The CEO made $789k in 2021, all while content is created by volunteers.

Edit, edit: a relevant chart straight from the Wikimedia Foundation Wiki page is below. Internet hosting is one of the smallest expense buckets and has been relatively flat year-over-year. Alternatively, salaries and wages are on an unsustainable upward trajectory. This chart is even a few years old and salaries have almost doubled in the last three years to over $101-million in 2023, all while hosting expenses have remained flat.

[–] Aslanta@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I’m pretty sure we want content created, vetted, and edited by volunteers. It prevents bias, in theory.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sure, I'm not against that and I never said otherwise. It also helps keep costs down. I definitely don't want to see an Elon-enshitified version of Wikipedia with ads and paid content creators. I mostly like Wikipedia just as it is. The one exception would be that I don't like how they try guilt tripping everyone for donations.

With $400-million between Wikipedia and their endowment, they should easily be able to cover the $3-million in web hosting expenses, without ever touching the principal of their investments. Wikipedia should be already setup to run in perpetuity, if not merely decades.

[–] dukepontus@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is that you musk?

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

My post has nothing to do with wokeness or whatever Musk is ranting about. The guy who wrote the essay I linked, originally posted it in 2016/2017? and has been keeping it updated. This abuse of spending is not a new topic. But sure, keep donating so the executives can take home more pay.

[–] abaddon@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The "essay" (for me) read more like a rant about the author's opinions regarding hypothetical situations and how, in many people's views, a successful non-profit spends money. Sure, maybe WMF could spend less but the table looked reasonable. I've donated before and I'm sure I will again because I use Wikipedia all the time. I am going to spend more time learning about the organization and its spending, but as of reading the linked material, I'm unmoved.

Also, I get that 789k is a lot of money. Really more than anyone needs but it's hardly an absurd amount given the norms for CEO pay. Yes, CEO pay is ridiculous but so is the entire economy, speaking as a US citizen. I would have guessed higher and many non-profit CEOs make much more than 789k. Plenty of people, with less responsibility and impact, make more than that so that pay is not really a WMF specific point.

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I’ll donate, once they start blocking corporate and government contributors.

[–] ZDL@ttrpg.network 1 points 3 months ago

It's hard, however, to deal with people acting as individuals who just happen to be paid by Apartheid Manchild to write or edit articles slanted to his fucked-up worldview.

[–] Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 months ago

Tbf, if it is true, it is kinda ridiculous they spend 29℅ of their budget on DEI nonsense. They should use their donations for keeping up the infrastructure and maybe rewarding high-quality editors. Kinda tells me they are doing very well financially and I'm better off supporting other projects.

Musk can still go fuck himself.

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

Was going to donate to wikipedia a while ago but didn't because they didn't have any fees. Hosting doesn't cost that much for them and their current fund will have them set for a long time. Because of this, I might have to donate.

[–] anonymous111@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Does anyone know what the equality money is spent on?

Is it things censorship bypassing or something else?

load more comments