Amazing!

Yep. Just like for-profit companies, having a diverse range of revenue streams is necessary for securing the financial health of the organization. While Wikipedia receives significant donations from companies like Google and Microsoft, it is essential to also solicit contributions from individuals to ensure that their income is not overly reliant on a single source. Just like in for-profits, Wikimedia likely determines the percentages of income from various sources needed to maintain this diversity. This concept seems particularly important for Wikipedia given its mission to provide unbiased information.

On another note, I’ve seen your same “100 years” notion mentioned a few times on this post. I can’t imagine that everyone who’s saying it independently had the idea to analyze their financial statements and calculate projections over 100 years. Is this an article you’re quoting? Just curious.

Apparently that particular round of slander was not as successful as this one.

If you’re asking that question because you’re genuinely conflicted about donating and you’re not just here spreading divisive nonsense on behalf of Elon Musk, you could do a deeper delve into the entire foundation or look up the Wikipedia page on Income Statements.

You seem to be hung up on the operating expenses. That’s just a finance term for certain operational costs like the electricity bill and insurance. It does not mean the total of what it costs to run the organization and that everything else is in excess. Similarly, salary expenses includes everyone from the HR department to the custodians, not just the rich CEOs.

The entire 485 word intro to his Wikipedia page is unsourced:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

The politically elite are so used to puppeteering public sentiment with ease, and so confident in their efforts to suppress education in America that they have stopped trying to be sneaky. All American ‘news’ is propaganda and the this is a blatant attempt to divide the public on one of the last free resources for factual information**. Free as in non-criminalized. These types of posts by EM are to incite division in order to amp-up for the criminalization of information. And it’s not very difficult to see.

**factual when readers uphold its integrity through critical consumption and editing.

Love that everyone on this thread is a financial analyst and a 501c consultant.

For-profit companies have the margins they do because they’ve successfully detached humanity from their spending obligations. Wikipedia does not need to do quarterly global lay-offs or labor off-shoring when their technology doesn’t meet release deadlines. They are a nonprofit. They exist to bring factual, accessible information to the world. If you support for this cause, donate. If you don’t, don’t donate or don’t use. If you care for the cause but want the CEO to take a paycut, well, find them one who will stick around for more than a few years on less than the average mega CEO salary. Because most of them have not.

Pathos is a simple marketing mode that is one of three used by every company and I don’t really see a problem with it. It’s intentionally contrary to the one for-profit companies use to gain revenue—fear.

This is the answer I was looking for! Thank you!

The problem I have with this is that it still links to my primary number through data profiling. Seems like a good option if I just want to keep my personal number separate from my work clients. But for data privacy, idk.

He means Merry Xmas to the CEOs, who have successfully regained control of the remaining 99.99% of the population, and whose ancestors from the Virginia Company would be very proud.

Most Greyhound routes do.

I wholly believe the same. If LM used a mobile device of any kind at any point during his mission, it would be possible to trace his whereabouts and match the path of the shooter to the path of LM. I further believe that the fast food industry (specifically MDs and its associations that lobby to continue the rampant unchecks of processed food) is behind the hit. Or at the very least, is using it as a PR opportunity to deflect blame of health problems in America to the health insurance industry. They are, after all, facing another lawsuit for causing diabetes that was officially filed on the same week as the shooting: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byvrmbomype/Martinez v Kraft Heinz et al complaint 12-10.pdf

Md and Starbucks are business partners. How convenient that every mention of this case is accompanied by both their names being lauded as thee who put a “terrorist” behind bars.