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

Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 252 posts

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#161

Post by themitigating »

LegitShady wrote: post #128
kemayo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's still a tricky comparison because the WMF is (reductively) a tech company, and tech sector salaries remain pretty high. For a lot of roles they need to fill, they're competing with other tech companies for those employees, not just other nonprofits. A salary that's fantastic by average-nonprofit standards might be vastly underpaying someone who's deciding between a job at the WMF or Google.

WMF is not a tech company, and their value is not in their tech. Their value is in their user created and populated content .

So youtube isn't a tech company?

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#163

Post by akolbe »

dbingham wrote: post #9

This is an extremely misleading take. Wikipedia had a really good year in 20-21, their most recent financial report. They took in $162 million, against an $111 million operating budget, and came out of the year with $240 million in assets.[1] So they had about half a year's surplus, and wound up with ~2 years worth of savings. And yes, that's a simplification, a good chunk of those assets are necessary to continue op…

Thanks for the edit.

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#164

Post by rad88 »

Eleison23 wrote: post #132

I think there's a disconnect in what people believe is the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. The WMF is an ideologically-driven movement. It is much more than simply a benevolent public service. The WMF has social-justice based goals in the world, and the public-facing Wikipedia projects are simply the friendly face of this movement. They're building an endowment to keep the movement alive, not merely to keep the…

What are you talking about?

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#165

Post by dyeuegdudjd »

leokennis wrote: post #118

I might be too simple of a person, but I donate €10 per year to Wikipedia which is nothing. In return, I get immediate access to a veritable wealth of accurate and up to date knowledge on more or less everything. It’s such an amazingly great deal that I honestly think, who the F cares that they could have spent that money in a slightly more optimized way? Who cares that Jimmy Wales drives a BMW instead of a Volkswage…

I don't see what's wrong with the outrage considering it's fleecing people's good will. Once upon a time when Wikipedia was the only service of its kind maybe there was more reason to ignore this kind of behavior but YouTube does more to bring knowledge to people these days so I think it's fair to have some kind of bar for behavior

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#166

Post by [deleted] »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #155
zozbot234 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Redesigning the article editing UI is pretty darn important when the only thing that ensures the site stays up to date is attracting new editors to work on it. Nobody wants a dead Wikipedia with hopelessly obsolete and misleading information, even though it would be incredibly cheap to host. And the Wikipedia partner projects are just as important as Wikipedia itself to the broader ecosystem of open content and open…

I think the barriers for new editors are cultural rather than technical.

[deleted]

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#167

Post by throwlejos »

ever expanding spending for a site that, while big, probably has the same traffic patterns (for mostly static content while at that) year by year, and with no visible software improvements in the past few years (so they are not spending a fortune in developers) leads me to think that it’s just political money being channeled through them.

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#168

Post by akolbe »

themitigating wrote: post #150
akolbe wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, Wikipedia is the loser, because you are rewarding a management mindset that thinks manipulating the public for financial gain is okay. Wikipedia is the most widely read reference source on the planet. Wouldn't you rather it was stewarded by an organisation that was honest with the public? There are other losers. This man, guilt-tripped into donating to Wikipedia when all he has is $18 to his name is a loser…

What "treat" are you referring to? Employees need to be compensated for a company to be competitive. Speaking of manipulative your augment takes a complex situation and turns it into "poor people using the last of their money to pay for US employees extra benefits"

Treats mentioned here ...

https://wantremote.com/company_for_remote_job/wikimedia-foun...

... include "reimbursement for mind, body and soul activities such as fitness memberships, massages, cooking classes and much more"

This is a fine thing I'm sure, but I wouldn't want it to be paid for by Indian or African donors worried Wikipedia will disappear, or start charging a subscription, if they don't donate.

So fundraising appeals in the developing world in particular should be dialed right down:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...

Re: Once again so many people are led to think Wikipedia is broke and must be saved

#170

Post by jefftk »

DrBenCarson wrote: post #122
jefftk wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it doesn't contribute to Wikipedia remaining online.

If we agree that a poorly designed experience will become obsolete over time, then how does this expenditure not increase Wiki’s chances of staying online?

The experience isn't and wasn't poorly designed, though. It could surely be improved, but we're incredibly far from "Wikipedia dies through neglect" territory.
Post reply on HN