Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google gives Wikimedia millions

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: Google gives Wikimedia millions

#51

Post by dorfsmay »

SEJeff wrote: post #34
xref wrote: post #7

I used to contribute heavily to Wikipedia in 2007-08 and intermittently since, however recently it has become an absolute nightmare to contribute. Creating a missing article almost immediately is met with an admin nominating it for deletion for something like “notability”, the catch-all term for “I personally don’t care about this topic, and if it was important someone would have made it already.” If you survive dele…

And it is super arbitrary. There is a joke I made over 10 years ago making fun of a friend and it is still up (totally not giving it away as then it will be deleted). The admin / oversight is hit or miss to the extreme.

Or somebody makes one top 40 song and has a long article including which highscool they went yo, but a university professor who wrote a language like Clojure, used by thousands of companies, isn't notable enough!

Re: Google gives Wikimedia millions

#52

Post by [deleted] »

save_ferris wrote: post #25
commoner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Wikipedia became more popular, it also started attracting people and companies who try to use it for writing promotional articles on themselves with little to no basis in reality. The notability requirement helps ensure that articles are accurate and can be verified with trustworthy sources. A topic only needs 2 trustworthy sources for an article, and if it doesn't meet that bar, then the topic is probably better…

And also to scrub existing articles of certain details. A former coworker once told me about a stint he did working for a company that sold wikipedia edits. The founder was Brazilian and apparently their company was super popular with Central and South American politicians trying to scrub their pages of various financial scandals and other things unbecoming of a politician. I was shocked when he first told me about i…

[deleted]

Re: Google gives Wikimedia millions

#53

Post by lokedhs »

ajross wrote: post #48
lwansbrough wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Google innovates, it’s usually in a vein attempt to kill competitors in a place where it sees an opportunity for more revenue. Competition from Google is hardly ever fair (despite most of their projects being spectacular failures regardless.) So no it’s not impossible, but it’s always gonna happen when it’s Google/Amazon and the “innovation” is a free alternative to a successful independent business.

> When Google innovates, it’s usually in a vein attempt to kill competitors in a place where it sees an opportunity for more revenue Isn't that how everyone innovates? (FWIW: you meant "vain", I think, but that doesn't seem like the right word either. Maybe "arrogant" was the spin you wanted?)

Vain seems like an appropriate word to use, when interpretated as "producing no result; useless"

That is, after all, the end result of many of Google's attempts at dominating a space. Their love of shutting services down will likely make further future dominations of new fields even harder.

Re: Google gives Wikimedia millions

#54

Post by paradoxparalax »

dorfsmay wrote: post #51
SEJeff wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it is super arbitrary. There is a joke I made over 10 years ago making fun of a friend and it is still up (totally not giving it away as then it will be deleted). The admin / oversight is hit or miss to the extreme.

Or somebody makes one top 40 song and has a long article including which highscool they went yo, but a university professor who wrote a language like Clojure, used by thousands of companies, isn't notable enough!

What can make us less sad is that quality of people who notes the Professor is also important, not only quantity.

There was a fun story I can't find here on HN right now (Algolia is pretty good to search now , but Im out of coffee), On how the guys who make OpenBSD(If I recall) use/used(not clear) CVS instead of GIT to filter out people they didn't ultimately wished to have the attention from.

Re: Google gives Wikimedia millions

#56

Post by [deleted] »

save_ferris wrote: post #25
commoner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Wikipedia became more popular, it also started attracting people and companies who try to use it for writing promotional articles on themselves with little to no basis in reality. The notability requirement helps ensure that articles are accurate and can be verified with trustworthy sources. A topic only needs 2 trustworthy sources for an article, and if it doesn't meet that bar, then the topic is probably better…

And also to scrub existing articles of certain details. A former coworker once told me about a stint he did working for a company that sold wikipedia edits. The founder was Brazilian and apparently their company was super popular with Central and South American politicians trying to scrub their pages of various financial scandals and other things unbecoming of a politician. I was shocked when he first told me about i…

[deleted]

Re: Google gives Wikimedia millions

#57

Post by dingdongding »

kondro wrote: post #43
webaholic wrote: post #14

I hope this reduces the "we need donations" banner to an extent. I contribute changes whenever I can, so seeing that banner each and every time is a bit frustrating.

Probably not. Wikimedia like money[1]. They've been running a revenue surplus of $20m+ per year for the last while and are currently sitting on a $130m cash & equivalents hoard. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/60/FY17-...

Considering there expenses are $80m in 2018, I think it is okey if they keep some surplus as a cushion.

Re: Google gives Wikimedia millions

#59

Post by titanix2 »

zozbot123 wrote: post #33
Mirioron wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like Wikipedia has also become more and more political as it gained popularity. Some of the decisions the admins have made over the years make me question the trustworthiness of what I read on Wikipedia, because some articles paint a one-sided view of events. Luckily it seems to mostly be limited to certain topics.

Spoiler: it's always been like that. Sometimes it's useful to look at the talk page for the article and/or the history of revisions, looking for obvious controversy.

Looking at other languages (when they exists) can also be very informative.

Re: Google gives Wikimedia millions

#60

Post by paradoxparalax »

strainer wrote: post #31
haberman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did you try to contribute? Last year I added an article about a musical ensemble. I followed the processes and it seemed to be fairly straightforward to get approved. (The ensemble had a bunch of articles written about them in the NYT).

I have marvelled at the quality of WPs music theory articles where I think different outlooks are well tolerated and accepted. 8 years ago I tried to fix WP philosophies entry on the concept of "Appeal to Nature" and was even joined by an experienced academic but our efforts[1] where removed by admin/users wishing to describe the topic as a kind of simple fallacious trope[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?…

that's saddening.

I remember when there was no Internet, and you never hear about it will possibly exist (where I was back then)

and then when it some day became something I just hear about and had the dream to use someday and see working with my own eyes.

And then I though Internet will bring the political (r) evolution that will make humanity human, and that it will have all the Knowledge of All the Scientists from All the World open to anyone, even a poor kid like me, to see and learn and thrive...

Wikipedia is still what is closer to that dream I had as a kid who had ever never touched a computer...So it is saddening, but we still have hope.

Post reply on HN