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

71–80 of 123 posts

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#71

Post by ndnxhs »

Geimfari wrote: post #34
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…

But you aren't paying for the editors and only a fraction of the donation goes to covering server costs. The Wikipedia project does not need your money and the foundation has enough money to survive indefinitely if they'd cut costs.

They already have costs vastly below other projects of their size

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#72

Post by hug »

scrollaway wrote: post #62
hug wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem, in all this, is not getting Wikipedia 's expenses down to nothing. I use Wikipedia all the time, and I love it. It's an incredibly useful site and should be funded well enough to keep running indefinitely, and even have room for improvement. On the other hand, if I choose to donate money to Wikmedia, 80% of it goes to other places, like their "content" sites, which consists of this bunch of mediocrity: W…

Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons are both heavily used within Wikipedia, and Wiktionary is a very useful resource. It's kinda like saying "I don't want the money I donate to Mozilla to end up funding shitty projects like Gecko and Servo! I want it to end up in Firefox!" There are offshoots in those, yes, but that doesn't make it a huge waste. Remember wikipedia was a very, very long shot for a very long time. To fund s…

Re: Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons, I feel like you glossed over "except as those projects also support Wikipedia", and as for Wiktionary, any of the ninety other online dictionary services will do me just as well.

With regards to the comparison to Gecko & Servo: If 80% of the development effort was going towards those projects being used only for integration with FirefoxOS, I would have the same complaint. Mozilla isn't doing that, though, and even when they were funding FirefoxOS, they didn't spit a half page banner in my face every time I opened Firefox saying "Firefox will be dead if you don't send us money!" when they were really talking about FirefoxOS.

In case it wasn't abundantly clear, I'm pointing fingers at Wikimedia's scummy donation-soliciting practices on Wikpedia.

> if you don't trust what they're doing, then you shouldn't be donating to them in the first place IMO, regardless of their ownership of Wikipedia.

I don't. So I don't. And, in fact, will be happy to argue in a bar that they shouldn't be donated to. If I could donate purely to support Wikipedia only, however, I would, and I would also argue that others should too. But I can't. So I don't.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#73

Post by adventured »

Geimfari wrote: post #33
omouse wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're only well-funded for now. That funding can go away if enough people, such as yourself, complain about this. They need to sustain themselves, just like any other organization. If they are a net negative in the world, I would withhold donations. For producing material like this? It's still a net positive and therefore still worthy of donating to.

The foundation has so much money that they could fully sustain themselves just from their endowment if they wanted to. They really do not need donations from the public and their petitions for money are misleading for the majority of people, who think they are helping to pay for editors (free) and server costs (minor costs).

They have enough cash to safely operate for one year roughly with current expenses, without new contributions. I'm not sure where you're getting that they can free-stand just on their foundation's financial position.

Expenses were $81.4 million in 2018 (up from $69m in 2017). Cash is $73.9m (up from $49.5m). Wages were $38.5m.

Here is their audited 2017-2018 financial report [PDF]:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/60/FY17-...

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#74

Post by microcolonel »

shawnz wrote: post #46
morpheuskafka wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think morpheuskafka is saying that if they are going to reuse a brand, as is already proposed, they might as well use the least confusing and silly short name for wikimedia commons he can think of.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#75

Post by vanderZwan »

Retra wrote: post #56
vanderZwan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it was a struggle to keep wikipedia's lights on, I'd consider donating myself Isn't that kind of problematic too though? The idea that donations may only go to organizations that would struggle otherwise? (I know I'm inferring something you didn't explicitly say, but I do think that is a fairly common sentiment as well)

Then it wouldn't be a charity donation. Giving money to successful projects is better done as an investment (or maybe purchase.)

I see no logical reason why being successful as a project implies that investing with a profit motive is the best option for guaranteeing continued success.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#76

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

hug wrote: post #72
scrollaway wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons are both heavily used within Wikipedia, and Wiktionary is a very useful resource. It's kinda like saying "I don't want the money I donate to Mozilla to end up funding shitty projects like Gecko and Servo! I want it to end up in Firefox!" There are offshoots in those, yes, but that doesn't make it a huge waste. Remember wikipedia was a very, very long shot for a very long time. To fund s…

Re: Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons, I feel like you glossed over "except as those projects also support Wikipedia", and as for Wiktionary, any of the ninety other online dictionary services will do me just as well. With regards to the comparison to Gecko & Servo: If 80% of the development effort was going towards those projects being used only for integration with FirefoxOS, I would have the same complaint. Mozilla i…

> as for Wiktionary, any of the ninety other online dictionary services will do me just as well.

Wiktionary already covers a large number of languages where other online dictionaries have noticeably poorer content, or there may be no other real online dictionary at all. Wiktionary’s entry template puts a lot of emphasis on etymologies, for instance, and these etymologies are often not easy to find on the web (as opposed to dusty print dictionaries one might not have ready access to).

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#77

Post by hug »

sago wrote: post #69
hug wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem, in all this, is not getting Wikipedia 's expenses down to nothing. I use Wikipedia all the time, and I love it. It's an incredibly useful site and should be funded well enough to keep running indefinitely, and even have room for improvement. On the other hand, if I choose to donate money to Wikmedia, 80% of it goes to other places, like their "content" sites, which consists of this bunch of mediocrity: W…

What a thoroughly unpleasant attitude. > which consists of this bunch of mediocrity: Wiktionary I use Wiktionary very regularly, and find it incredibly useful. Presumably you don't use all of Wikipedia either, what makes you 'give a shit' about the other 99.9+% of content?

You may find my attitude unpleasant: What I find unpleasant is a large organisation deliberately deceiving users into thinking that the resource they consider valuable is underfunded, when really they are spending those donations on side shows that these people don't even know exist, let alone want to use. WMF are like the Internet charity version of Susan G Komen.

With regards to the usefulness of Wikipedia versus Wiktionary, I like to think about their impact on the world.

Wikipedia: Eclipsed every online encyclopedia, massively, and most print encyclopedias in most degrees, and is a huge source of knowledge to a great many people who otherwise would not be able to have access to that knowledge.

Wiktionary: Is another dictionary.

It's hyperbole, sure, but it ain't by much.

That said, if you like Wiktionary enough that you want to donate to it? More power to you. I don't, particularly. And y'know, maybe this is an elitist attitude that stems from the fact that I speak English and English dictionaries abound. So grant me that I may be mistaken, and let me say "hey, also, throw in all of the hosting for Wiktionary into what I want to donate for as well, and I will be fine with it." If that's the case, then there's still a good 75% of any donation I make funding things I, yes, "don't give a shit" about. Lemme tell you, Wiktionary isn't exactly a large expense on the WMF books.

I regularly donate to a fair number of charities. If I have to donate $100 to WMF to get $20 of value of Wikipedia, I won't. If I could donate $20 to WMF to get $20 of value to Wikipedia, I would. Even if 5% of my donation went elsewhere, that would be fine. It doesn't, so it's not, and I will continue putting my charitable contributions somewhere I think they will be used to more effect.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#78

Post by hug »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #76
hug wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons, I feel like you glossed over "except as those projects also support Wikipedia", and as for Wiktionary, any of the ninety other online dictionary services will do me just as well. With regards to the comparison to Gecko & Servo: If 80% of the development effort was going towards those projects being used only for integration with FirefoxOS, I would have the same complaint. Mozilla i…

> as for Wiktionary, any of the ninety other online dictionary services will do me just as well. Wiktionary already covers a large number of languages where other online dictionaries have noticeably poorer content, or there may be no other real online dictionary at all. Wiktionary’s entry template puts a lot of emphasis on etymologies, for instance, and these etymologies are often not easy to find on the web (as oppo…

Granted, the etymology section on Wiktionary is useful (although I personally have a tendency to hit etymonline.com for etymology).

I really didn't intend for this to come across as a broadside against all of the Wikimedia properties. A projects by themselves, I would say they're all okay, I guess, but they're none of them projects I would siphon money from Wikipedia to fund.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#79

Post by ivalm »

mprev wrote: post #63
est31 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know how much money Google is wasting? Their main source is still ads from their websites. They could lay off all of their staff that's not working on the search or ad parts and put that money into dividends instead. But instead they are using lot of money that belongs to the stakeholders on this giant project of finding a new thing that's similarly profitable as search. I definitely agree that WMF has definitely…

When I visit Google search there isn’t a banner begging me for money that will be piped into Google Wave, Buzz, or some other unrelated venture.

No, instead your personal data is sold to fund Google Wave, Buzz, or some unrelated venture.

Would you prefer wikimedia shift into selling user data and putting advertisements? If not, then donate.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#80

Post by DC-3 »

hug wrote: post #61
currymj wrote: post #51

What is the appeal of getting them to cut costs down to nothing? It seems weird to me that people resent a budget of $70 million/year for the most useful website in existence. What would you rather the money be spent on?

The problem, in all this, is not getting Wikipedia 's expenses down to nothing. I use Wikipedia all the time, and I love it. It's an incredibly useful site and should be funded well enough to keep running indefinitely, and even have room for improvement. On the other hand, if I choose to donate money to Wikmedia, 80% of it goes to other places, like their "content" sites, which consists of this bunch of mediocrity: W…

Anecdote warning - I have been studying Old English this year and have found Wiktionary invaluable.
Post reply on HN