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

Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

readwriteweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 139 posts

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#71

Post by bdonlan »

klipt wrote: post #64
kens wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, normal users cannot see deleted articles or their edit histories (which I think is crazy). Only Wikipedia administrators can see this information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Acces... says: Because many deleted articles are found to contain defamatory or other legally suspect material, deleted pages are not permitted to be generally viewed. However, they remain in the database (at least…

> Because many deleted articles are found to contain defamatory or other legally suspect material, deleted pages are not permitted to be generally viewed. But if defamatory material is added to a popular article and reverted away, doesn't it remain in the edit history forever?

I believe there are ways to hide portions of the edit history as well - they usually don't bother to do this if it's only part of a larger article, but if necessary, it can be done.

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#72

Post by [deleted] »

chaosmachine wrote: post #4
Ryan_IRL wrote: post #2

I'm aware it is temporary, but I'm surely not the only one thinking that banner is more annoying than the occasional ad would have been.

They could definitely make a killing with just a single AdSense block at the bottom of every article. Maybe even just the top 1000 articles. Instead, we get places like Answers.com mass-duplicating Wikipedia content and slapping big image ads on it.

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#73

Post by bdonlan »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #41
ck2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! So they spent nearly $9M in salaries vs $2M for bandwidth, $1M in travel expenses, $2M in office rent/furniture/meetings https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikime... 2010 Wikipedia Spending, in USD, in thousands 8,972 Salaries and wages 1,837 Internet hosting 3,270 Capital expenditures 483 Donation processing fees, charitable registrations 2,274 External contractors 864 Travel for staff, Bo…

This data is concerning to me, here's why: First, most of the value of wikipedia comes from random users. Second, we've seen a pattern of Wales and wikipedia administration not understanding where the value of wikipedia comes from. Third, we've seen a pattern of policies and practices that are actively hostile to the users and usages that are wikipedia's bedrock (deletionism, edit wars, unnecessarily tight permission…

> And then we have wikipedia's budget priorities, which indicate that Wales et al seem to value creating cushy jobs for people who don't add much to wikipedia much more than just keeping the site running for as long as possible, by a ratio of around 10:1 (roughly).

I won't comment on your other points, but - Wikipedia is a non-profit. They can't just hang on to cash, they have to spend it somehow, and in a way in line with their charter. If they've already spent enough on servers, bandwidth, hosting, etc, where else will that go but to salaries? If you look at their financial reports (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-1...) you'll see their donations exceeded their planned amounts significantly, so they're hiring more people to balance that out.

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#74

Post by solipsist »

If someone was asked, "Would your rather use a website that has ads or one that has no ads?", they would most likely choose the latter. However, Wikipedia has shown the world something that no one would have expected; it seems as if most people would rather have the ads given the circumstances.

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#75

Post by neilk »

kprobst wrote: post #28

I wasn't aware that not meeting that goal would result in slapping ads on articles. Also, Wikipedia itself was fully funded a while ago through next year, the foundation was trying to raise money for other projects and programs that aren't the encyclopedia itself.

> I wasn't aware that not meeting that goal would result in slapping ads on articles.

Yeah, RWW says that in a couple of places, but I don't know why. I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation has ever implied that. (Disclaimer: I work there.) The slogan/hashtag was #keepitfree, but I don't think that implies a number.

Anyway, if there had been a shortfall in community donations, the WMF would just have readjusted its budget, or sought more big-donor money. Ads on Wikipedia are not even a remote possibility.

But we prefer to get everything from the readership in small donations. Big donations expose the projects to charges of bias, or require us to jump through various hoops that don't directly benefit the community. We'd rather be working for the community 100% of the time, rather than balancing the concerns of the community and people with deep pockets.

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#76

Post by redthrowaway »

tokenadult wrote: post #69
redthrowaway wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been editing for a couple years now. The vast majority of articles beyond stub class are great. The ones that get brought up on AN/I or ArbCom or MedCab are generally on subjects that people hold very strong opinions on. For example, the first article I became very involved with was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Ar... . When I came to that article, it was in the middle of an edit war…

We will never make Wikipedia perfect, although I have some ideas for making it more so. I'd love to hear ideas about making Wikipedia better. I'd especially like ideas about how to encourage new editors with good sources (that is, access to libraries or better specialized databases) on technical but controversial subjects to participate more. I left this thread for a few hours, following links to the annual reports a…

As far as encouraging new experts to edit, I like the current Wikipedia Ambassador program. What I'd really like, however, is Final Revision. On an article-by-article basis, propose articles for final rev in the same way they are proposed for FA class. This would involve a thorough review, hopefully be experts in the field, to weed out inaccuracies. Then, the article would be fully protected indefinitely. Proposed changes could be submitted, but the idea would be to consider it a final product. By moving through many of the articles that would be suitable for this process, we could focus the community's energy on improving articles that needed it. I think we've written most of what needs to be written. With the exception of dynamic subjects, we should be archiving those articles which are done.

As far as encouraging new editors, we need to stop the manic approach to vandal fighting. Vandalism is a problem, sure, but there are far more people who are driven away by hasty reverts and unfriendly warnings.

As far as admins are concerned, it really needs to be no big deal. Perhaps an admin review noticeboard, to look at questionable admin actions, and a clear demoppping process. Other than that, promote editors pseudo-randomly. I think by throwing mops at editors without requiring RfA, we could eliminate a lot of the politicking that goes on. If you need more admins, promote more. We know that the statistically optimum way of promoting people within an organization is to do so randomly, and I think Wikipedia would be a great testbed to try that theory out.

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#77

Post by rospaya »

kprobst wrote: post #28

I wasn't aware that not meeting that goal would result in slapping ads on articles. Also, Wikipedia itself was fully funded a while ago through next year, the foundation was trying to raise money for other projects and programs that aren't the encyclopedia itself.

> the foundation was trying to raise money for other projects and programs that aren't the encyclopedia itself.

Any info on that?

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#78

Post by tokenadult »

redthrowaway wrote: post #76
tokenadult wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We will never make Wikipedia perfect, although I have some ideas for making it more so. I'd love to hear ideas about making Wikipedia better. I'd especially like ideas about how to encourage new editors with good sources (that is, access to libraries or better specialized databases) on technical but controversial subjects to participate more. I left this thread for a few hours, following links to the annual reports a…

As far as encouraging new experts to edit, I like the current Wikipedia Ambassador program. What I'd really like, however, is Final Revision. On an article-by-article basis, propose articles for final rev in the same way they are proposed for FA class. This would involve a thorough review, hopefully be experts in the field, to weed out inaccuracies. Then, the article would be fully protected indefinitely. Proposed ch…

We know that the statistically optimum way of promoting people within an organization is to do so randomly,

We do? What is the citation for that conclusion?

and I think Wikipedia would be a great testbed to try that theory out.

You don't think Wikipedia is already trying out promoting people randomly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/20...

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#79

Post by InclinedPlane »

bdonlan wrote: post #73
InclinedPlane wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This data is concerning to me, here's why: First, most of the value of wikipedia comes from random users. Second, we've seen a pattern of Wales and wikipedia administration not understanding where the value of wikipedia comes from. Third, we've seen a pattern of policies and practices that are actively hostile to the users and usages that are wikipedia's bedrock (deletionism, edit wars, unnecessarily tight permission…

> And then we have wikipedia's budget priorities, which indicate that Wales et al seem to value creating cushy jobs for people who don't add much to wikipedia much more than just keeping the site running for as long as possible, by a ratio of around 10:1 (roughly). I won't comment on your other points, but - Wikipedia is a non-profit. They can't just hang on to cash, they have to spend it somehow, and in a way in lin…

They could do what every other similar organization has done in the past, create a trust fund to keep the organization running into the foreseeable future without having to routinely solicit donations. Whether or not their charter is set up correctly to allow that today is immaterial, they can found on a new charter if necessary.

If you asked people what the benefit of donating to the wikimedia foundation was I'm sure at least 9 out of 10 would respond "to keep wikipedia running". Indeed, that is the context of all of the appeals for donations.

What value does hiring more staff provide? Specifically, what value higher than the long-term continued operation of wikipedia does it provide?

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#80

Post by redthrowaway »

tokenadult wrote: post #78
redthrowaway wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as encouraging new experts to edit, I like the current Wikipedia Ambassador program. What I'd really like, however, is Final Revision. On an article-by-article basis, propose articles for final rev in the same way they are proposed for FA class. This would involve a thorough review, hopefully be experts in the field, to weed out inaccuracies. Then, the article would be fully protected indefinitely. Proposed ch…

We know that the statistically optimum way of promoting people within an organization is to do so randomly, We do? What is the citation for that conclusion? and I think Wikipedia would be a great testbed to try that theory out. You don't think Wikipedia is already trying out promoting people randomly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/20...

>We do? What is the citation for that conclusion?

Bah. It's around here somewhere. They did a study, and found that promoting people randomly within a corporation led to better outcomes than any other strategy. I'm sure someone could find the citation.

As far as promoting people randomly, no, they're not doing that. I'm not sure what Essjay has to do with your point; he was a guy who claimed to have real life expertise as a way of gaining prominence on Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting Wikipedia currently promotes based on claimed qualifications; I'm suggesting they promote x editors with ~3k+ edits and ~1 year (numbers are very maleable) to adminship at random, doing away with the RfA process.

Post reply on HN