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

Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

diff.wikimedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 252 posts

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#191

Post by ethbr0 »

bzbarsky wrote: post #188
iNic wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course Wikipedia has some unique problems due to its fundamental structure, but on the whole it is roughly as accurate as other Encyclopedias [1]. But not every study agrees [2]. See also [3]. It seems to be also be field dependent, and I have to say that personally, as a mathematician, I have never seen anything wrong in any article about mathematics. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a [2] https://www.re…

I don't know that I've ever seen anything strictly _wrong_ in an article about mathematics, but I've certainly seen articles giving equations without defining what any of the variables are and using using very field-specific notation without defining or referencing it, making them impossible to read unless you know enough about the topic to reverse-engineer what they're talking about. And I'm not talking something li…

Will definitely second math articles (some, not all) having a "X is the result of X'ing" circular definition antipattern coursing through them.

But I suppose that's an epistemological question, as to whether an article is a definition or an educational method.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#192

Post by ptero »

bzbarsky wrote: post #188
iNic wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course Wikipedia has some unique problems due to its fundamental structure, but on the whole it is roughly as accurate as other Encyclopedias [1]. But not every study agrees [2]. See also [3]. It seems to be also be field dependent, and I have to say that personally, as a mathematician, I have never seen anything wrong in any article about mathematics. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a [2] https://www.re…

I don't know that I've ever seen anything strictly _wrong_ in an article about mathematics, but I've certainly seen articles giving equations without defining what any of the variables are and using using very field-specific notation without defining or referencing it, making them impossible to read unless you know enough about the topic to reverse-engineer what they're talking about. And I'm not talking something li…

Can you point to a few examples just to make sure we are talking about the same thing? I use wikipedia for math, physics and engineering topics frequently and generally do not have too much trouble understanding it, possibly with a few cross-referenced articles.

I have seen occasional weird writing, but this is usually either some esoteric subject or just an initial writeup on a narrow topic -- that is, an inexperienced author trying to fill a void, not someone staking out territory or looking for recognition. Just my experience.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#193

Post by fastball »

Clewza313 wrote: post #165
fastball wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most large orgs don't beg for my money after I've already given them my time for free though.

Wikimedia is free for its users and doesn't do ads, you need to pay the server bills and find development somehow.

Right, it is not like most large orgs. So the excuse "most large orgs throw parties" is not a good one, imo.

Though tbh "other orgs do it" is never a good argument, but it is especially bad here.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#194

Post by unethical_ban »

fastball wrote: post #160
foolmeonce wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are these parties without alcohol? I hope so, because we wouldn't want to exclude the muslim world, right? What? They aren't a fraternity, so I don't think drinking is mandatory. If you look at any large organization it has these kinds of frivolous events. Among other things, they let the leadership get a sense of the social environment and how it reacts to some of their ideas with less filtering. I personally don'…

Most large orgs don't beg for my money after I've already given them my time for free though.

Should they have put logic into their banner ads and email to exempt any logged-in user who ever made an edit?

If you have a new point to make, it's best to make it as a top level comment rather than trying to prop yourself up as opposing a point someone never made.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#195

Post by mikepurvis »

Macha wrote: post #157
mikepurvis wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it? Mozilla has cut or spun-off basically everything other than Firefox.

The most prominent project on mozilla.org at time of writing is Mozilla VPN. Pocket also gets substantial screen space dedicated: https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/

Fair, though I would argue that those services are much more closely tied to the core experience of Firefox (and in particular the promise of safer, more private internet access) than something like Sunbird ever was.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#196

Post by fartcannon »

Veen wrote: post #183
seanhunter wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would gladly pay for an encyclopedia written by actual experts, I see a tremendous value in something like that, but alas the market was killed by the free Wikipedia. There are definitely pros and cons. My wife is a professional musician and teacher so at home we have a copy of the "New Grove" encyclopedia of music, which is the industry standard "proper encyclopedia" for music. Each article is written by a speci…

That's true, but including the very latest research isn't really what encyclopedias are for—there are other places for that.

Yes, like Wikipedia.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#197

Post by oldev »

wpietri wrote: post #190
andrepd wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time the post title contains "wikipedia" out come the same complaints. I say what I always say: can you please point out a specific incident where you saw wrong information, tried to correct it, and were overturned?

It's an important question. Sometimes I see rejection of actual good material,so it happens. Often it's well-meaning noobs running afoul of either the essential complexity (encyclopedias are hard) or the incidental complexity (Wikipedia's a bit of a beast). And sometimes it's people who are sure that THEY ARE RIGHT and HOW DARE THOSE PEOPLE. So we always need to look at specific incidents.

If you are a deployment engineer/Windows desktop dev, check out the article on installers. [1] Most of those are obsolete, small and pretty much useless. The one we've been using for 15 years is not listed. Check out the article history. Every time someone tries to update it and add modern, actually useful tools, someone else comes from the woodwork and deletes it. Some of the deletionists don't know what a repackager is.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_installation_software#...

Just an example, in my area of expertise. Some of the rejected edits were mine.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#198

Post by Loic »

nickpp wrote: post #80

Wikipedia may have been an amazing idea in the beginning. Then it got taken over by a bunch of entrenched editors more interested in their own power than the accuracy of the pages' information. Today I can see mistakes and inaccurate info in every niche I am familiar with. Because of that, I cannot trust it on subjects I know nothing about. I tried contributing and fixing but nothing got through. Even worse, the leve…

As a chemical engineer, I must say that I was never disappointed with the content of the Wikipedia pages. Of course, as I have spent 3h/day for the past 15 years improving fluid phase equilibria calculations for the chemical industry, I see where the articles have limits for this stuff, but what is available is sound.

I would be interested in knowing your field of expertise where you find errors.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#199

Post by Clewza313 »

fastball wrote: post #193
Clewza313 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikimedia is free for its users and doesn't do ads, you need to pay the server bills and find development somehow.

Right, it is not like most large orgs. So the excuse "most large orgs throw parties" is not a good one, imo. Though tbh "other orgs do it" is never a good argument, but it is especially bad here.

I've attended a bunch of Wikimedia/Wikimania conferences. These are held on a shoestring budget, and any drinking and dancing is on participants' own dime.

WMF's per-employee T&E cost is apparently $7k/year. Working in sales at a company you've heard of, I've flown single flights and attended single dinners that cost more than that.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#200

Post by ckoerner »

dlubarov wrote: post #140
pwinnski wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

Most markets? That’s a very privileged view. Research by the WMF in 2019 shows incredibly low rates of awareness in large parts of the world. I doubly you will read it, nor to I seek to argue this with you, but here are the findings: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_Readers/Awareness#Awaren...
Post reply on HN