11–20 of 133 posts
>detect vandalism or important updates at the article level.
So it gives them a better ability to control a Wikipedia page's content?
Ostensibly both want the unlimited retreivals, but this entire program seems suspicious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it’s unnecessary and brings outside influences that could corrupt it’s stated goals
You can be corrupt without having a lot of money. There are countless examples of such. I applaud the their moves. The more money they have, the more likely they are to exist in perpetuity. Needlessly limiting their revenue isn’t going to solve anything.
But they've done exactly that since day 1 by refusing to show any ads.
I really don't like this. The foundation already has many multiples more money than it needs to cover its core goal: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais... This can, at best, be useless, at worst, corrupt its mission to serve corporations. There used to be an expression "don't fix what ain't broke." I feel like this old maxim is now completely ignored.
Why would an organization limit the amount of money they have?
[1]: https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/docs/snapshot/ [2]: https://dumps.wikimedia.org/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it’s unnecessary and brings outside influences that could corrupt it’s stated goals
You can be corrupt without having a lot of money. There are countless examples of such. I applaud the their moves. The more money they have, the more likely they are to exist in perpetuity. Needlessly limiting their revenue isn’t going to solve anything.
They’ll definitely see short term profit gains. But they’re losing sight of their original goals and risk losing their long term market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would an organization limit the amount of money they have?
Because it’s unnecessary and brings outside influences that could corrupt it’s stated goals
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can be corrupt without having a lot of money. There are countless examples of such. I applaud the their moves. The more money they have, the more likely they are to exist in perpetuity. Needlessly limiting their revenue isn’t going to solve anything.
>Needlessly limiting their revenue isn’t going to solve anything. But they've done exactly that since day 1 by refusing to show any ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's a bit worse than that though. Why does an organisation that has more than enough money to achieve its current and long term goals, appeal to their site visitors that they really need more money? The ads are in my opinion dishonest and emotionally manipulative, and have actively put me off supporting Wikimedia as a foundation.
Goals can be expanded to infinity, uncertainty and inflation is always a thing, thus the need to diversify revenue streams to ensure survival and sustainability.
And thus diluting and losing sight of their original goals. This isn't a corporation driven inherently by eternal desire for more profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Goals can be expanded to infinity, uncertainty and inflation is always a thing, thus the need to diversify revenue streams to ensure survival and sustainability.
>Goals can be expanded to infinity And thus diluting and losing sight of their original goals. This isn't a corporation driven inherently by eternal desire for more profit.
This seems like a good idea for both the WMF and the open internet.
(Contrary to what seem to be a lot of early knee-jerk negative responses in this thread - I suspect I'm seeing a bit of "early-thread contrarian dynamic")
Google is their first customer, and they're giving IA free access. And what they're buying let's them >detect vandalism or important updates at the article level. So it gives them a better ability to control a Wikipedia page's content? Ostensibly both want the unlimited retreivals, but this entire program seems suspicious.