I volunteer with Wikimedia, have done for years and have not given a penny. Because I pay in large chunks of my soul. (And get back large chunks of soul, so it’s all good.) This makes it harder for me to say “give money to Wikimedia” … but not so much harder I won’t say “give money to Wikimedia.” p.s.: please give some money to Wikimedia.
Generalising, a lot of people who work for charities do so at a considerable salary hit to working elsewhere because they feel that’s a worthwhile contribution to the cause in question. Warm fuzzies help, because it’s nice to feel like your job’s worthwhile rather than doing something you don’t actually enjoy at all for more money. This is not a rational actor thing, but a how humans work thing, and of course they’re pretty clearly distinct in this case.
A charity is only a tool to get something done. That there is a thing called “the charity sector” over here and a blob of potential donors over here and a not very differentiated flow of money from one to the other strikes me as a bit of an anti-pattern. It may be just me, but I think in terms of there being a group of people in a conspiracy to achieve a given end here and setting up as a charity may be a useful way to the given end. (SIAI certainly fits this description. Wikimedia started as such a thing and we’re still trying to get our heads around having become more than famous.) Or just a non-profit corporation. Or a for-profit corporation. Or a trade association. Or a political party. Or no corporate body at all, just a bunch of people.
I volunteer with Wikimedia, have done for years and have not given a penny. Because I pay in large chunks of my soul. (And get back large chunks of soul, so it’s all good.) This makes it harder for me to say “give money to Wikimedia” … but not so much harder I won’t say “give money to Wikimedia.” p.s.: please give some money to Wikimedia.
Generalising, a lot of people who work for charities do so at a considerable salary hit to working elsewhere because they feel that’s a worthwhile contribution to the cause in question. Warm fuzzies help, because it’s nice to feel like your job’s worthwhile rather than doing something you don’t actually enjoy at all for more money. This is not a rational actor thing, but a how humans work thing, and of course they’re pretty clearly distinct in this case.
A charity is only a tool to get something done. That there is a thing called “the charity sector” over here and a blob of potential donors over here and a not very differentiated flow of money from one to the other strikes me as a bit of an anti-pattern. It may be just me, but I think in terms of there being a group of people in a conspiracy to achieve a given end here and setting up as a charity may be a useful way to the given end. (SIAI certainly fits this description. Wikimedia started as such a thing and we’re still trying to get our heads around having become more than famous.) Or just a non-profit corporation. Or a for-profit corporation. Or a trade association. Or a political party. Or no corporate body at all, just a bunch of people.