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

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#81

Post by a-nikolaev »

hug wrote: post #77
sago wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 W…

Yes, totally agreed. Wikimedia is over funded, yet they beg for donations all the time, and then go spending our money on tens of side projects that have no clear direction, purpose, or goal.

Edit: That branding research is another avenue for wasting our donation money.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#82

Post by roenxi »

vanderZwan wrote: post #53
Macha wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two issues I have are: By having a high expense situation and constantly begging for donations, it puts wikipedia, the main venture, at risk if other wikimedia ventures don't pan out. If it was a struggle to keep wikipedia's lights on, I'd consider donating myself, but if it's for wikimedia to expand other projects with questionable benefits, I'm not inclined, and portraying the latter as the former rubs people s…

> 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)

The situation becomes a bit clearer after drawing a distinction between a broad mission ("feed the starving") and a specific mission ("maintain wikipedia").

I'm ok with donations to a specific mission or a group with a very clear this-is-what-we-need-to-fund style goal and budget, and obviously if they are achieving their mission then they don't need more donations.

I'm not normally comfortable with the broad-mission style organisations. A large pool of money to be spent on an amorphous goal, by a group of essentially unknown people of unknown ability and beliefs? That is a scandal waiting to happen, and probably going to be mired in admin fees and corruption over the medium-long term if it isn't already.

Any charity that isn't struggling to keep the lights on is fundamentally suspect.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#83

Post by perfmode »

atdt wrote: post #67

I spent over four years as an engineer at the Wikimedia Foundation, which trained me to expect the double-take most people do when they hear the name for the first time. They either think they misheard you, or worse: they think you represent a knock-off entity that is trading on a misleading brand similarity, and they squint at you with suspicion. It's as if you told them you work at "AmaZone". So you can immediately…

That’s a shitty situation. Sorry to hear that.

You were doing the lords work.

did you ever consider saying that you work at Wikipedia?

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#84

Post by YjSe2GMQ »

51lver wrote: post #14

I get the distinct feeling this is from some busy body with too much free time looking to make an impact... Change for change's sake is bad. Think of the tech debt.

This is essentially about cleaning up debt (though brand debt, rather than technical). Read atdt's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19259543

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#85

Post by hug »

DC-3 wrote: post #80
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…

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

I think it's great that Wiktionary is a good resource for you!

Hearing things like this only makes me with more that people could donate to individual projects and not the WMF at large.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#86

Post by a-nikolaev »

ndnxhs wrote: post #71
Geimfari wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, but a lot of it is bloat that does not contribute to Wikipedia itself.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#87

Post by a-nikolaev »

8ytecoder wrote: post #37
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 was going to say that I don't mind and I'm happy to donate whatever I donate every year. But then went and looked up information on their budget - it's quite surprising that they spend as much as they do and it's not very clear on how they spend it and also plans on how they are going to contain the spend. I don't mind Wikimedia having a fat balance sheet and at least a few years worth of reserve but the growth of…

Exactly. Their annual spendings grow exponentially, roughly matching the donations amounts. It cannot be operations costs. More like irresponsible foolish management.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#88

Post by a-nikolaev »

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…

The internet technologies will be also improving, which may be even reducing their operations and maintenance costs (per page click).

And when they will _actually_ need more money, they can always ask.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#89

Post by darkpuma »

ivalm wrote: post #79
mprev wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, but this phrasing sounds like a threat of some sort, blackmail.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#90

Post by spac »

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…

where is the 80% figure coming from in the parent comment?
Post reply on HN