Live data from Hacker News

Jimmy Wales’ Final Email

cyounkins.medium.com

41–50 of 217 posts

Re: Jimmy Wales’ Final Email

#42
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With NPR, does the aggressiveness match the need?

NPR has become a race baiting mouthpiece, sadly. The quality of the overall programming has sharply declined over the last 10 years. No more driveway moments for me.

I agree with this. I'm on "the left", but I don't need a media outlet confirming my biases or stroking my ego. I was originally drawn to NPR precisely because it seemed like a relatively neutral news source (still discernibly left-of-center, but not aggressively so) and because it frequently exposed me to other perspectives; however, it seems to have been dragged into the swamp of "activist journalism" just like everyone else.

Re: Jimmy Wales’ Final Email

#43
post #20

Infrastructure isn’t free. Happy to donate to Wikipedia on a yearly basis. And the emails are only once a year.

Wikimedia spends like 95% of their money on stuff that isn’t Wikipedia. They’re a classic bloated NGO, where they have some initial mission they can do efficiently but they keep asking for money way down the diminishing returns curve.

>they have some initial mission they can do efficiently

Because the initial mission is still, by and large, done by volunteers and unpaid editors.

Wikimedia is a bloated leech

Re: Jimmy Wales’ Final Email

#45

Infrastructure isn’t free. Happy to donate to Wikipedia on a yearly basis. And the emails are only once a year.

Are other people only having a single email per year?

This year I've had three (two in September, both from donate@wikimedia.org, and one from jimmy@wikipedia.org in October saying 'We've had enough').

Re: Jimmy Wales’ Final Email

#46
post #7

Wikipedia is far and away the most valuable project the world has ever seen and this guy is complaining about donation emails?

> Wikipedia is far and away the most valuable project the world has ever seen

[citation needed]

Re: Jimmy Wales’ Final Email

#50
post #37

I have always found Wikipedias begging for money weird. Even if they chose to be driven by donations, I'd have imagined one the biggest website on the internet has better, more effective ways of raising money. Is it really that bad for non-profits on the internet?

What did you have in mind as those better and more effective ways?

I would guess that's the crux of their efforts now. That is, like it or not, it works. As long as it's effective there's no incentive for them to change.
Post reply on HN