The Foundation supports challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that jeopardize Wikipedia’s community-led governance model and the right to freedom of expression.
An amicus brief, also known as a “friend-of-the-court” brief, is a document filed by individuals or organizations who are not part of a lawsuit, but who have an interest in the outcome of the case and want to raise awareness about their concerns. The Wikimedia Foundation’s amicus brief calls upon the Supreme Court to strike down laws passed in 2021 by Texas and Florida state legislatures. Texas House Bill 20 and Florida Senate Bill 7072 prohibit website operators from banning users or removing speech and content based on the viewpoints and opinions of the users in question.
“These laws expose residents of Florida and Texas who edit Wikipedia to lawsuits by people who disagree with their work,” said Stephen LaPorte, General Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. “For over twenty years, a community of volunteers from around the world have designed, debated, and deployed a range of content moderation policies to ensure the information on Wikipedia is reliable and neutral. We urge the Supreme Court to rule in favor of NetChoice to protect Wikipedia’s unique model of community-led governance, as well as the free expression rights of the encyclopedia’s dedicated editors.”
“The quality of Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia depends entirely on the ability of volunteers to develop and enforce nuanced rules for well-sourced, encyclopedic content,” said Rebecca MacKinnon, Vice President of Global Advocacy at the Wikimedia Foundation. “Without the discretion to make editorial decisions in line with established policies around verifiability and neutrality, Wikipedia would be overwhelmed with opinions, conspiracies, and irrelevant information that would jeopardize the project’s reason for existing.”
Point remains. Those expenses are for other projects as well not directly related to Wikipedia. There is no public information of actual cost to running / supporting just the Wikipedia, so that was probably the best source they could find. There are a ton of news articles about this and you can look them up if you want better sources. The end here is that your donating $ to a company that makes a millions in profit every year without the donations.
Yeah but since they donate they can sit on a high horse and look down on those of us that don’t unquestioningly hand over our meagre earnings.
Wikipedia has become one of the most important sources of information in modern life, up there with GPS, GIS, anfpd Google Search. It deserves to be very well supported. It deserves anything it needs to continue in perpetuity.
And yes, if it keeps making stands for truth, knowledge and free speech, it’s going to have to have more of my money
Please show the class where the other poster or myself said anything to the contrary.
I care that people donate
This is an exaggeration - their solicitation may be a touch aggressive, but nothing compared to some: they don’t have a picture of a starving kid and say “you’re 17¢ per day …”. plus I believe they only do it like once per year
Its amazing how much people disagree in this thread compared to reception from the other one I linked where they pointed it out. Their own Wikipedia page has a whole section about how their aggressive donation system makes them look like they are about to be shutdown yet they made over 10 million in profit excluding donations for the last couple years.
I don’t even care if someone donates or not. Wikipedia making it look like they are going to fall apart if they didn’t get your $1 donation is bull.