Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation • Hacker News Board

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#131

Post by r00fus » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 10:24 PM UTC

nickpp wrote: post #126

sph wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wikipedia may have been an amazing idea in the beginning. > I would gladly pay for an encyclopedia written by actual experts. While you're entitled to your opinion, this is a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side". I'm not a fan of the Wikipedia internal politics, but as a user, Wikipedia is one of the best showcases of the Internet and in my opinion the greatest collaboration project in human hist…

Honestly I feel where you’re coming from, I used to think exactly like you. But I slowly came to my current sad realization. Right now I do believe that free wrong info is actually more damaging than paid correct info. But I am open to and wish for a third option or a solution which is more inclusive and less "for the privileged".

What examples do you have of this? I also feel Wikipedia is a success, but I'd like any data points of failures as well.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#132

Post by pwinnski » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 10:25 PM UTC

Igelau wrote: post #50

iso8859-1 wrote: post #2

I didn't know my Wikipedia donations funded parties in Accra, Berlin and Chandigarh. I think that should be been in the fundraising statement.

I mean, if you really want to see the schedule for WikiIndaba 2017 that took place in Accra, here you go. http://2017.wikiindaba.net/index.php/Programme Try not to tear the armrests off your chair in rattles of indignation.

Why does this make you feel indignant? It seems like a very typical three-day conference schedule.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#133

Post by triceratops » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 10:29 PM UTC

etc-hosts wrote: post #128

triceratops wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do they spend so little on internet hosting? They're one of the top 10 websites in the world. Are servers and bandwidth really that cheap? It's not like it's all text either - they serve images, audio, and video too. Anyone know if someone donates hosting resources to them? I simply cannot imagine serving that much traffic on < $3m.

It's because a large portion of traffic to Wikipedia, that is a response to google serving a search request with results involving Wikipedia, is served to the client with a Knowledge Graph box. A large portion of viewers ingest the text of the Knowledge Graph box and don't click through to a page served by Wikipedia's servers.

Wikipedia counts that as "their" traffic? I'd find that surprising.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#134

Post by Igelau » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 10:36 PM UTC

pwinnski wrote: post #132

Igelau wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if you really want to see the schedule for WikiIndaba 2017 that took place in Accra, here you go. http://2017.wikiindaba.net/index.php/Programme Try not to tear the armrests off your chair in rattles of indignation.

Why does this make you feel indignant? It seems like a very typical three-day conference schedule.

> Why does this make you feel indignant?

It doesn't. That was the point.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#135

Post by kemayo » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 10:37 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #133

etc-hosts wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because a large portion of traffic to Wikipedia, that is a response to google serving a search request with results involving Wikipedia, is served to the client with a Knowledge Graph box. A large portion of viewers ingest the text of the Knowledge Graph box and don't click through to a page served by Wikipedia's servers.

Wikipedia counts that as "their" traffic? I'd find that surprising.

I think that what etc-hosts is saying is that it's traffic to Wikipedia-information that isn't reflected as traffic that Wikimedia has to pay for.

I.e. that it has siphoned off a whole bunch of pageloads that otherwise would have cost money.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#136

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 10:37 PM UTC

pwinnski wrote: post #132

Igelau wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if you really want to see the schedule for WikiIndaba 2017 that took place in Accra, here you go. http://2017.wikiindaba.net/index.php/Programme Try not to tear the armrests off your chair in rattles of indignation.

Why does this make you feel indignant? It seems like a very typical three-day conference schedule.

[deleted]

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#137

Post by redis_mlc » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 10:50 PM UTC

> the launch of our Universal Code of Conduct ... are all milestone moments of solidity and strength.

ffs. Our grandparents fought and won world wars, but today a Universal Code of Conduct is a "milestone moment of solidity and strength."

This is how Rome fell, with navel-gazing.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#138

Post by kemayo » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 10:52 PM UTC

doc_gunthrop wrote: post #119

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No law of physics says they must continue pouring tens of millions into outreach programs if all revenue ceases. Hosting wikipedia is their one true cost and is relatively tiny compared to everything else they spend money on.

Hosting wikipedia accounts for roughly 2% of their total expenses. I've been donating annually, but it would be nice to have the option for the entirety of my donations go only to running wikipedia and none of it going to wikimedia's discretionary spending.

I do think it's hard to draw the line there, just because "running wikipedia" is kinda fuzzy and could mean different things to different people.

There's pure hosting costs (servers and bandwidth), then there's staff to maintain those servers, staff to handle legal issues around a large community-contributed project, staff to do moderation and other community-relations work, staff to improve the mediawiki software that wikipedia runs on, staff to manage administrative stuff for those other staff, etc.

There's room to debate which of these are necessary to "run wikipedia", and how much of each of them is needed, but it's a lot more complicated than just keeping the servers turned on. (And if you do think that the Foundation could be just-paying-for-hosting, you're implicitly hoping that some people are going to be donating their skilled-work for maintenance.)

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#139

Post by kemayo » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

etc-hosts wrote: post #129

xyzzyz wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s okay, if they go bankrupt, someone more competent could take over, and easily run Wikipedia on less than a tenth of their current budget. Look at their financials: Wikimedia Foundation is part jobs program, part grift.

Lots of people reading these comments believe that every cent not spent on frontend or backend engineers at Wikipedia is wasted in someway. I don't agree.

Reading it, I think some people feel that any money not spent on the pure hosting costs is wasted, which seems even more extreme to me.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#140

Post by dlubarov » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

pwinnski wrote: post #130

alisonkisk wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's been convincing the world that an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone on the Internet is a credible and neutral source of information. This is not wikimedia's job at all. The public can decide if they trust the content.

Are you suggesting that in the face of existing encyclopedia companies, generations of people who had always used print encyclopedias, and the general public still figuring out what the internet is all about, Wikimedia should be restrained from answering criticisms or making a case for their value? That seems... odd.

Eh, Wikipedia is 20 years old, and has been a top 20 site for the past 15 years. At this point, they don't have much serious competition. Britannica stopped printing physical encyclopedias in 2012.

The WMF can certainly make their case and answer criticisms, but there are cost-efficient ways of doing that. I don't see much value in funding parties, conferences, etc. for a product that has already dominated in most markets.