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

Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

wikimediafoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 123 posts

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#41

Post by toomuchtodo »

teej wrote: post #31
toomuchtodo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikimedia has sufficient assets to host Wikipedia in perpetuity ($91 million @ 4 percent withdrawal rate = $3.64 million, ~$1 million above their current hosting tech and people costs). As long as Wikipedia text and media dumps are archived in the Internet Archive, it's not going to disappear even if Wikimedia Foundation goes defunct. No further fundraising is required, ever, if properly managed.

A 4% withdrawal rate has a non-zero failure rate over 30 years, let alone in perpetuity. I would say they are no where close to being completely self sustaining. Also, using math calculated for personal retirement (The Trinity Study) is not appropriate for a trust/endowment/etc. Different risk tolerance, different investment strategy, different goals. On top of that, assuming they will have zero effective cost increa…

My numbers may need adjustment, but the principal is sound. Wikimedia must stop wasting donor funds and pleading poverty.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#42

Post by 2ion »

sigi45 wrote: post #29
c0l0 wrote: post #9

The thing that depresses me the most about Wiki[mp]edia is that the US$ 100 that I donated to them a few years ago (presumably,) predominantly went into creating material like this. Given how incredibly well-funded Wikimedia is, their yearly extort^Wdonation-drive with 50%+ viewport-sized banners plastered all over Wikipedia, claiming that the encyclopedia you're viewing is in dire need of your money to barely sustai…

Wikisomething gave me so much information. The price i'm paying with my few donations i made over the years, are donations i don't bother to check what they are doing with it. Why? I'm not part of it. I'm just here, reading stuff on wikipedia. I don't know what they wanna try out. I don't know who or why so many people are part of it. I haven't written a single article. I fixed stuff but thats it. Perhaps they need i…

Your trust is misplaced. Wikipedia editors (unpaid) generate their income from other things than money, be it a sense of accomplishment, altruism or agenda setting. Most articles on everything except science is tainted by bias. Wikipedia is no replacement for the classic lexicon in terms of redactional quality.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#43

Post by teej »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #41
teej wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 4% withdrawal rate has a non-zero failure rate over 30 years, let alone in perpetuity. I would say they are no where close to being completely self sustaining. Also, using math calculated for personal retirement (The Trinity Study) is not appropriate for a trust/endowment/etc. Different risk tolerance, different investment strategy, different goals. On top of that, assuming they will have zero effective cost increa…

My numbers may need adjustment, but the principal is sound. Wikimedia must stop wasting donor funds and pleading poverty.

I think "needs adjustment" is reductive. Wikipedia could easily 10x pageviews and article count over the next 20 years. If Wikipedia doesn't grow content, coverage, and quality they could become irrelevant. Thinking donations should just go towards keeping the lights on doesn't sit right with me. An endowment that keeps Wikipedia running forever may very well need to be over $1 billion.

It turns out, the folks who planned out the endowment were very thoughtful. Check out this great read on the motivations, challenges, and plans of the endowment. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#44

Post by chc »

2ion wrote: post #42
sigi45 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikisomething gave me so much information. The price i'm paying with my few donations i made over the years, are donations i don't bother to check what they are doing with it. Why? I'm not part of it. I'm just here, reading stuff on wikipedia. I don't know what they wanna try out. I don't know who or why so many people are part of it. I haven't written a single article. I fixed stuff but thats it. Perhaps they need i…

Your trust is misplaced. Wikipedia editors (unpaid) generate their income from other things than money, be it a sense of accomplishment, altruism or agenda setting. Most articles on everything except science is tainted by bias. Wikipedia is no replacement for the classic lexicon in terms of redactional quality.

I'm really confused by this comment. Of course Wikipedia isn't a replacement for a dictionary. It's not supposed to be. And I don't see why you view "Wikipedia editors are motivated by things other than money, such as altruism" as an inherent negative either.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#45

Post by [deleted] »

teej wrote: post #43
toomuchtodo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My numbers may need adjustment, but the principal is sound. Wikimedia must stop wasting donor funds and pleading poverty.

I think "needs adjustment" is reductive. Wikipedia could easily 10x pageviews and article count over the next 20 years. If Wikipedia doesn't grow content, coverage, and quality they could become irrelevant. Thinking donations should just go towards keeping the lights on doesn't sit right with me. An endowment that keeps Wikipedia running forever may very well need to be over $1 billion. It turns out, the folks who pl…

[deleted]

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#46

Post by shawnz »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #18
microcolonel wrote: post #10

> while shortening “Wikimedia Commons” to its nickname “Wikicommons” Literally never seen anyone write "Wikicommons", in all the years I've heard people talk about Commons, but heh. I don't really understand how they manage to (in my opinion) waste time on nonsense like this. The services run great, the contribution volume is immense, and the quality of the tools is improving constantly. I want the Wikimedia Foundati…

If this were to go through, they should just make WC be called "Wikimedia." Wikipedia is a wiki encyclopedia, Wikimedia should be a wiki of media. What is a wiki of a commons?

So you're suggesting reusing a brand they've already used in the past except with a totally different meaning? And that will be less confusing?

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#48

Post by darkpuma »

c0l0 wrote: post #9

The thing that depresses me the most about Wiki[mp]edia is that the US$ 100 that I donated to them a few years ago (presumably,) predominantly went into creating material like this. Given how incredibly well-funded Wikimedia is, their yearly extort^Wdonation-drive with 50%+ viewport-sized banners plastered all over Wikipedia, claiming that the encyclopedia you're viewing is in dire need of your money to barely sustai…

Those fund-raising banners are a great place to use ublock origin's cosmetic filters.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#49

Post by lixtra »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #35
KerrickStaley wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Wikipedia is a non-profit doesn't mean that brand outreach and other administrative/meta work isn't important. These are as important in non-profit as in for-profit organizations and are a normal part of business. As a past donor I'm happy that they're spending resources in this area.

Exactly. This is an area I think many technologists tend to glance over: "They paid how much to a 'brand consultancy' to replace an M with a P??" And while these types of things can get "fluffy", if this branding change results in just a small percentage of additional people becoming more aware of the broader goals and projects of Wiki(m/p)edia, it was money well spent.

But they don’t advertise in the banners that they spend the money in such a way.

I may have a partial match in goals with Wikipedia. If 20% of the money goes to goals I support and 80% goes to goals I do not support or that are even contrary to my goals, how much should I give?

I decided for me to donate to projects that better serve my goals.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#50

Post by zepearl »

c0l0 wrote: post #9

The thing that depresses me the most about Wiki[mp]edia is that the US$ 100 that I donated to them a few years ago (presumably,) predominantly went into creating material like this. Given how incredibly well-funded Wikimedia is, their yearly extort^Wdonation-drive with 50%+ viewport-sized banners plastered all over Wikipedia, claiming that the encyclopedia you're viewing is in dire need of your money to barely sustai…

I donated twice to cover hosting & maintenance of Wikipedia, then became aware of the many other activities into which the funds were/are flowing, so I stopped donating. I care about Wikipedia, not much about the rest.
Post reply on HN