It feels a bit cherry-picked... and I counted $500k of examples listed. The more I read of the rant, the more I felt that the author is trying to manipulate me.
> Unfortunately, the lab experiment went horribly wrong, killing the poor creatures before the research could be concluded
Feels like there must be more to the story... and was a million dollars spent on this? Or more like $5000? Again, feels like they're trying too hard to incite outrage. (Perhaps that's the way on Twitter)
But it isn't, the original "Wikipedia has cancer" article has no connection whatsoever to these "culture wars" screeches. This Twitter thread is trying to tie it's critique over $500k of the hundred million budget to a well established different criticism to leech off legitimacy for it's partisan-infested shitposting.
Well, there is money on the line. Lots of money based on the statements linked in parents post. If I were to read it cynically, I would comment that someone, who was expecting to see a donation did not so they decided to start an all out information war with Wiki over this.
That said, even if cherry picked, the example provided is sufficiently damning for me to refrain from donating if it was determined to be true ( I am not a donor to that cause so I have no horse here ).
<<Feels like there must be more to the story..
I agree with this wholeheartedly. There is a concerted effort to go after Wiki for one reason or another. The situation they find themselves in is not new, but has only recently became an issue in public eye. And I am saying this as a person, who is leaning towards saying 'Wiki does not NEED more money; other charities should get a slice'.
> Unfortunately, the lab experiment went horribly wrong, killing the poor creatures before the research could be concluded
Feels like there must be more to the story... and was a million dollars spent on this? Or more like $5000? Again, feels like they're trying too hard to incite outrage. (Perhaps that's the way on Twitter)