Mentioning
the first two points can be either red herring or an interesting
digression to read, I'll opt for the second interpretation.
The International Committee of the Red Cross had a global
budget of $1.6 billion in 2016.
Quite a rilevant comparison, I'd say.
Discussions on this mailing list and elsewhere are a classic example of
the concept of voice, as formalized by Albert Hirschman in his work on
responses to decline in organizations. [4] We are unhappy with a
decision but reluctant to simply exit the group, either because we don't
see an alternative, or because of the sunk costs of
emotional investment, or because of the sense of identity that comes
with belonging to the group, or because ultimately we can live with
the decision. And so, with exit not available as an option, we use our
voice instead, even though it has proved to only have a very limited
effect on making different decisions. (And also because we *do* love to
argue.)
"Cope or go away" in this context is interesting rather than simply rude highlighting some widespread misconception about what is the most interesting part of the Wiki-ecosystem for the majority of people around.
So now we're left with how we raise money, and the common complaints about the size, frequency, and tone of fundraising banners. The argument is that fundraising messages use unduly alarmist language, and that donors are therefore misled into thinking that Wikimedia is facing imminent danger. I do believe that not enough credit is given to the people who craft those messages in banners and emails. These people care an extraordinary amount about doing the "right thing." They have literally spent years doing A/B tests to soften the tone and figure out the least alarming language possible to raise the required amounts. All that while enduring constant criticism of their work. They are heroes.
They don't do the "right thing", instead, they do the "most effective thing". Also,
to raise the required amounts is not true, given that targets were always exceeded.
if we look beyond privileged communities and we strive to make up for historical oppression. The modesty of financial ambitions reflects a certain privilege and ignores the vast resources required to actually focus on communities left out by structures of power and privilege. If we are to live up to our commitment to epistemic justice, we must give ourselves the financial means to do so. The longer the injustice persists, the more compounding harm is done. Our work *is* urgent, even if it's not the same urgency that drives donors.
There we go with this strawman, once again. Totally unrelated to how donations are asked, definitely unrelated to how funds are currently allocated.
Summing up a long, brilliant, essay to justify ambiguity in banners.
Vito