The Arbor Day Foundation

[JR Hill]

I just got my annual mailing from them with stickers etc. And the ballot for our place. At the end of the ballot is a 'contribution' to have the ballot counted. Again, to have the ballot counted.

I don't think that foundation is on the side of forest owners who actually maintain a forest. What think you?

 

[nedsim]

There are several things that deter me from donating to an organization I might otherwise, and this sort of thing is near the top of the list. Another is asking the donor to subsidize the credit card fees associated with a donation, but not offering an address where I can simply mail a check.

 

[JR Hill]

I grew up in Nebraska. Actually not far from the whole Arbor Day thing. I am insulted for what it has become - just another raise the money thing. I think originally it was a really cool organization.

But for them to harangue me in south central WA, owning forest land, they are NOT my friend. They are pulling on the shirt tails of city people who want EVERYTHING to be public accessible land. Go anywhere and do anything. You are Frreeeee. Well, someone has to care for the land and pay the taxes.

 

[Del_]

There are several things that deter me from donating to an organization I might otherwise, and this sort of thing is near the top of the list. Another is asking the donor to subsidize the credit card fees associated with a donation, but not offering an address where I can simply mail a check.

I just donated $2.75 to Wikipedia and selected to pay the $.35 CC making it $3.10.

Paypal.

 

[nedsim]

I just donated $2.75 to Wikipedia and selected to pay the $.35 CC making it $3.10.

Paypal.

I don't have a problem with the request to cover the fee, in fact it's a good reminder that CC transactions are not free. What I object to is a lack of choice when the fee becomes significant.

I donated $25 to Wikimedia recently, and did it thru Paypal because I'm not going to the bother of writing and mailing a check for a buck or two. But they do give the option to donate via mail.
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Postal_donation

One thing that seems to get overlooked is that us old folks have the ability to make donations from IRAs which are exempt from income tax even if you don't itemize deductions. But there are restrictions that make it safer and easier to do it by check. I'm at the point of having to take required minimum distributions from my IRA, and that's how I plan to make larger contributions in the future.

 

[Breckinridge Elkins]

I just donated $2.75 to Wikipedia and selected to pay the $.35 CC making it $3.10.

Paypal.

I donated $25 to Wikimedia recently

I find it hilarious that people still get suckered by those Wikipedia fundraising banners. Wikipedia/Wikimedia has several huge grants and an endowment with enough cash to run operations for years. They also have a for-profit division called Wikipedia Enterprise that sells directly to large tech companies. All the donations do is allow Wikimedia to spend money outside the scope of it's grants and endowments.

 

[JR Hill]

I find it hilarious that people still get suckered by those Wikipedia fundraising banners. Wikipedia/Wikimedia has several huge grants and an endowment with enough cash to run operations for years. They also have a for-profit division called Wikipedia Enterprise that sells directly to large tech companies. All the donations do is allow Wikimedia to spend money outside the scope of it's grants and endowments.

Do you have a Wiki link to this?

 

[nedsim]

I find it hilarious that people still get suckered by those Wikipedia fundraising banners. Wikipedia/Wikimedia has several huge grants and an endowment with enough cash to run operations for years. They also have a for-profit division called Wikipedia Enterprise that sells directly to large tech companies. All the donations do is allow Wikimedia to spend money outside the scope of it's grants and endowments.

I'm with you on the hair-on-fire banners, but I haven't seen anything credible that says the Wikimedia Foundation is run in a manner contrary to good non-profit practice. Specifically, it has enough assets to cover 1.8 years of operation, which is not outlandish for a non-profit.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703

Have you seen something I haven't?

 

[Del_]

I'm with you on the hair-on-fire banners, but I haven't seen anything credible that says the Wikimedia Foundation is run in a manner contrary to good non-profit practice. Specifically, it has enough assets to cover 1.8 years of operation, which is not outlandish for a non-profit.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703

Have you seen something I haven't?

If you count gobs of misinformation, he's likely seen something you haven't.

Going by his prior postings his head is filled with it.

 

[Bill G]

The "Arbor Day Foundation" is a total joke and a money grab.
I phoned them a few times trying to locate an intelligent person.
I was unsuccessful.

 

[Breckinridge Elkins]

I'm with you on the hair-on-fire banners, but I haven't seen anything credible that says the Wikimedia Foundation is run in a manner contrary to good non-profit practice. Specifically, it has enough assets to cover 1.8 years of operation, which is not outlandish for a non-profit.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703

Have you seen something I haven't?

You pretty well summed it up. Do you need more?
Their fundraising makes it sound like they could be shut down at any moment but as you say, they have 18 months of operating cash on hand. But that's just their Tides Foundation endowment. They also have several grants from other sources. Then there is Wikimedia Enterprise. This a premium service sold to corporate customers. It allows services like ChatGPT, Siri, Alexa, etc to scrape user created content for commercial purposes. It also allows corporate clients to curate their own pages. It makes their fundraising language absurd: "...a place of free, collaborative, and accessible knowledge [...] volunteers work together to create and verify the pages you rely on."
Hardly.

 

[nedsim]

In my perfect world all advertising would stick to facts and be free of hyperbole and puffery. But if we had to nix every product or service that advertised using those strategies there wouldn't be much left. We'd be driving Ladas, eating brussels sprouts and turnip, and drinking this: