Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by redthrowaway » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 4:39 AM UTC

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #66

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…

well, that and vast swathes of historical sections and articles are whig history echo chambers.

You might feel that way, and certainly there are others who take issue with the general tone of Wikipedia. My advice is simple: try to fix it if you think it's a problem. Wikipedia is generally democratic, but not entirely. it's not majority rules. Come up with convincing arguments and get yourself taken seriously.

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

#82

Post by uriel » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 6:20 AM UTC

xenophanes wrote: post #31

slig wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the editing history is archived, right?

Some stuff is never written because people know it would be deleted. Other stuff becomes harder to find (do deleted articles come up on searches..?)

> Some stuff is never written because people know it would be deleted.

Or simply, knowing that it is likely to be deleted puts you off from contributing at all. I know that is one of the main reasons I have almost completely stopped contributing to Wikipedia.

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

#83

Post by mortenjorck » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 6:29 AM UTC

clemesha wrote: post #65

Why are people so consistently negative about Wikipedia? Just looking at the top comments here, and other places around the internet - I think it's far too common. Let's be more positive. Wikipedia is amazing - congrats to them for successfully achieving their fund-raising goals.

I think there's a tendency toward cynicism with Wikipedia precisely because it's an amazing idea that, in many ways, has been beautifully delivered on – but that where it falls short, it can be maddeningly frustrating.

It's not all that different from other bureaucracies. Like the bureaucracies responsible for administration in other spheres, the practical result is more than serviceable. Your city council, despite its backroom deals, manages to keep your town livable. Your insurance company, despite its shrewd actuarial restrictions, generally has your back. Wikipedia, despite its policy of deletionism, is a great first resource for a vast variety of subjects.

Every bureaucracy could do with a lot of improvement, and Wikipedia's no different. But we're still much better off with it and its imperfections than we'd be without it.

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

#84

Post by StavrosK » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 6:38 AM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #62

tptacek wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tens of great arguments you could have made against deletionism, why make a bullshit one? You know it's not about the disk space --- though presumably not all of the 16 people who modded you up know that as well.

I'm guessing at _least_ 15 out of those 16 people knew that deletionism has nothing to do with the cost of disk space. It was more a vote of frustration over the overreaching that occurs when seminal figures like _why have their Wikipedia Page deleted. There are _shades_ of notability, and I agree that someone has to make a call: Not: o How many times have I sneezed today. Barely: o The Ties of my Local Anchorman Not…

You have hit my motives for the comment on the head, thank you for the elaboration for those who might mistake my intent.

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

#85

Post by nitrogen » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 6:39 AM UTC

kprobst wrote: post #34

checoivan wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or raising for the future instead of waiting for the imminent to happen, running out of money, and act in desperation.

That would be a good idea, but they seem to do the same thing every year.

Why change what works?

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

#86

Post by btilly » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 6:41 AM UTC

JusticeJones wrote: post #27

sgt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to disagree due to future uncertainties. While Google may seem like the ultimate do-no-evil company at this moment, what will happen in 15, or even 30 years? If Google eventually "turns", it may lead to fragmentation of the Wikipedia project, and consequently a lack of focus. To me, Wikimedia (the foundation) seems like the type of foundation that will always keep a clear focus and maintain the core values of…

I'd hardly call Google the 'ultimate do-no-evil' company after they signed that anti-net-neutrality pact with Verizon last summer.

Funny, when Google and Verizon agree on a framework for net neutrality, everyone thinks they are being evil.

When the FTC issues a ruling that looks almost exactly the same, everyone lauds them for their forward thinking stance.

Can you explain what, exactly, you thought was so horrible about what Google and Verizon did?

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

#87

Post by Untitled » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 6:45 AM UTC

clemesha wrote: post #65

Why are people so consistently negative about Wikipedia? Just looking at the top comments here, and other places around the internet - I think it's far too common. Let's be more positive. Wikipedia is amazing - congrats to them for successfully achieving their fund-raising goals.

> Why are people so consistently negative about Wikipedia?

I am not negative about Wikipedia, but about its management. The add campaign was distasteful and I suspect just an ego trip for Jimmy Wales.

The real Wikipedia is the thousands of faceless people who write the articles.

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

#88

Post by thailandstartup » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 7:42 AM UTC

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.

It was much more intrusive than it could have been. Also, the claim of 'Urgent' was not credible. Maybe they've managed to engage with their 500,000 sponsors. They've also shown they're willing to degrade the quality of the site to raise funds. That's no different to advertising for the casual user.

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

#89

Post by philipn » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 7:50 AM UTC

solipsist wrote: post #74

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.

Most people being commenters on HN? Or the 500,000 people who have donated to Wikipedia?

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

#90

Post by cookiecaper » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 7:59 AM UTC

clemesha wrote: post #65

Why are people so consistently negative about Wikipedia? Just looking at the top comments here, and other places around the internet - I think it's far too common. Let's be more positive. Wikipedia is amazing - congrats to them for successfully achieving their fund-raising goals.

I don't trust Wales to run the organization effectively. I think that things are just going to get worse for Wikimedia as they get more money. My opinion on Wales is not high generally and Wikipedia has implemented some policies that I find rather undesirable in the recent years. Wikipedia has also done little to really actively improve the encyclopedia; they make all the wrong organizational changes, which in general tend to further stupid political bickering and turf wars, and these are the biggest problems to successful Wikipedia editing. Good governance would move to minimize these so that editing remains (or now, becomes) reasonable for people who don't have time to sit around for six hours a day and justify every change they make over and over again until the other guys get sick of it.

What it comes down to is that Wikipedia is really one great big edit war, though they'll never admit it.