Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030 • Hacker News Board

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#121

Post by profalseidol » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 4:29 AM UTC

ThePadawan wrote: post #108

profalseidol wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I see this "MediaWiki" logo on this wiki full of ads: https://pathofexile.gamepedia.com/Path_of_Exile_Wiki Then somehow, my brain connects this to Wikimedia and thinks it's for-profit?

> this wiki full of ad Wow, you weren't kidding. This is genuinely the first non-pornographic website in years that has ads which are so aggressive that they make it past my uBlock Origin.

Back when I was playing this awesome game. I tried to create a tool that webscrape this wiki (on the client side), so you have faster (I had a not-so-good internet) access. The game is so complicated that you need wiki almost all the time.

But then most of community saying, the site needs to make money from ads so it can maintain it, etc etc. I should've replied back - but not this much ads. And they use FOSS software anyway.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#122

Post by Tpt » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 8:51 AM UTC

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…

I don't think they where ever Wikimedia Foundation staff paid to work on Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikivoyage, Wikisource Wikispecies, Wikinews and Wikiversity. So, these projects cost to the Wikimedia Foundation the hosting (probably around ~100k/year at most) and some other small cost (trademark, some community support). Wikidata is developped by Wikimedia Deutchland that is an other organization than the Wikimedia Foundation and has its own fundraising. So, I believe that if you donate to the Wikimedia Foundation nearly all your donation is going to Wikipedia.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#123

Post by Tpt » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 8:57 AM UTC

a-nikolaev wrote: post #88

teej wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but for reducing ops and maintenance costs by using new techs you need people to mamke changes to the system. And it's probably not something volunteers would want to commit to do.