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

231–240 of 252 posts

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

#231

Post by account42 »

autoexec wrote: post #229
akolbe wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dark_mode_(gadget) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dark_mode

I did find that, and I'm glad they have something, but I'd prefer not to sign up for or need to be logged into an account. I'd also rather not have to audit/edit an extension. Ideally they'd have a URL for it, like https://dm.en.wikipedia.org I'm guessing I'll end up either using an extension or writing something up in Greasemonkey. There might even already be a userscript out there I can use.

Ideally they made their site responsive and respected the prefers-color-scheme CSS media query. Having people share m.wikipedia.org links is annoying enough and there is no reason for it at all.

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

#232

Post by account42 »

ryan_lane wrote: post #109
karencarits wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about twice the salary of the Nordic prime ministers (not combined though) as another point of reference

The executives don't live in Norway, they live in the bay area; hence my (relevant) particular point of reference.

In that case, maybe they should only ask for donations from people in the bay area.

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

#234

Post by polski-g »

akolbe wrote: post #8
yupper32 wrote: post #3

Sure but pointing out $350k executive salaries as somehow lavish is strange. That seems low for an executive at one of the most important (or at least, most viewed) websites on the planet.

I guess you have to compare it to the salary of the donors who feel compelled by these heart-wrenching fundraising messages to donate. Here is a senior with $18 to his name promising to donate as soon as his social security check arrives: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising/Archive_6#S... The Wikimedia Foundation has also just been fundraising in India and South Africa, again asking people there to donat…

Wikipedia should not beg for donations. They should sell ads.

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

#235

Post by Qub3d »

akolbe wrote: post #224
Macha wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've built several GUI editors, and a more forum like discussion experience ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Flow/Bac_%C3%A0... ) which the community on larger wikis has pretty forcefully rejected

Gee, Flow was awful. :) The little "Reply" button they've made now is cool, but as Kunal Mehta (User:Legoktm) pointed out the other day, they knew even then that was all that was required: "Back in 2014, we had a very clear list of how to fix talk pages. Yet the mw:Talk pages project only started in 2019." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... Which reminds me: 3 of the 6 community candidate…

That is a fascinating thing to me - I have noticed that a lot of people arguing that the WMF is out of control and needs to cool it are editors.

It really feels like there is a fundamental disconnect between project contributors and the team making decisions at the foundation level. Of course, I expect to some degree that there will be disagreements, and that is why a foundation needs to exist, but the last couple of years its seemed a lot like people are just being stonewalled.

Ultimately, the communications gap is by far the most concerning part of it for me, even to the point where I would suggest the donation campaign is a symptom rather than the cause.

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

#236

Post by yupper32 »

akolbe wrote: post #158
yupper32 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$11mil / 169 = ~$65k / employee. So average pay at Internet Archive is barely over the median salary in the US? That's not good. Salary costs don't need to be looked at as something to aggressively push down. You can treat your employees well while still being a non-profit. (Though I'm not claiming wikipedia treats their employees well, I have no idea.)

Well, ask yourself which org needs donations more urgently. (Last I looked the Internet Archive were being sued for lending scans of books – books they had physically bought – to one user at a time online.)

Please focus on one thing at a time. I think you're starting to come around to the idea that maybe Wikipedia has an appropriate amount of funding and is spending an appropriate amount of money?

You can just keep moving the goal posts every time you get proven wrong.

Also, you were complaining about Wikipedia being in the US/SF, when the Internet Archive is also in SF.

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

#237

Post by samsquire »

esyir wrote: post #192
samsquire wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this kind of thinking is negative and an example of the free rider problem. Wikipedia provides a good service for the money it charges you. It doesn't charge you anything. The thing about free things is that they aren't really free, someone is paying for it and the people doing the work to keep Wikipedia online are the best skilled and placed and experienced to decide these kind of spending decisions, not peo…

For a charitable/non-profit organization, providing them with funding way above their needs is counterproductive. As seen with Wikipedia, in the presence of excess money, costs proceed to grow uncoupled to the progression of their core mission. As charity funding is effectively a closed system, excessive contribution to Wikipedia is to the detriment of other charities, with minimal net benefit.

I think their needs are genuine, if we want more of Wikipedia and more of Wikipedia services, it requires investment.

If you think one charity is more deserving your money than Wikipedia, then you are free to decide that with your resources.

You decide how to spend your money and Wikipedia decides how to spend theirs.

Resource allocation is not a solved problem and it is inherently political.

If you're working in the field, you have a perspective of what resources you need to do the job properly and it's always higher than what people outside the field believe.

Were the situations reversed (you were Wikipedia), would you believe what you do today?

If you could do it cheaper, why aren't you?

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

#238

Post by samsquire »

Spooky23 wrote: post #146
samsquire wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this kind of thinking is negative and an example of the free rider problem. Wikipedia provides a good service for the money it charges you. It doesn't charge you anything. The thing about free things is that they aren't really free, someone is paying for it and the people doing the work to keep Wikipedia online are the best skilled and placed and experienced to decide these kind of spending decisions, not peo…

Charitable giving is important to me personally, and I have a relatively limited budget to donate. I get a lot of utility from Wikipedia, but is my marginal dollar helping the mission or paying for dinner at a conference? Perhaps I’d be better off donating to an open source foundation for that part of the charity portfolio, which may actually have more impact on Wikipedia! I think this org doesn’t communicate what it…

The problem is a social one, if everyone expects everybody else to do something about a problem, it never gets done.

"I thought you were doing it"

If you want to give, then give and I recommend giving to charity, the world needs lasting regular investment.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, someone is ultimately paying. If everybody assumes everybody else will pay for it and nobody is willing to add funds, then that service shall pass away.

Look at any social good and the investment it receives and the state of repair of those same services.

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

#239

Post by akolbe »

Qub3d wrote: post #235
akolbe wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gee, Flow was awful. :) The little "Reply" button they've made now is cool, but as Kunal Mehta (User:Legoktm) pointed out the other day, they knew even then that was all that was required: "Back in 2014, we had a very clear list of how to fix talk pages. Yet the mw:Talk pages project only started in 2019." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... Which reminds me: 3 of the 6 community candidate…

That is a fascinating thing to me - I have noticed that a lot of people arguing that the WMF is out of control and needs to cool it are editors . It really feels like there is a fundamental disconnect between project contributors and the team making decisions at the foundation level. Of course, I expect to some degree that there will be disagreements, and that is why a foundation needs to exist, but the last couple o…

The culture war aspect of it, sure. On the one hand you have people coming into the Wikimedia C-suite who have had little to no affinity with the "encyclopedia" part of Wikipedia at all in their professional lives – people coming from pure tech, political, government or NGO backgrounds who wouldn't dream of volunteering their time on Wikipedia. They often stay only a year or two and are replaced by others like them. So the culture of the places they come from defines them much more than the culture of Wikipedia as built over twenty years.

They bring management consultants' jargon that alienates volunteers because to them it sounds phony. They want to do things top-down, because that is what they are used to, and what they feel they have to do make "their mark" which will look good on their CV when they move on in a couple of years' time to another job that hopefully pays them more. Meanwhile, the volunteers are there year after year, observing fads coming and going while often not getting the services they would actually like.

Above all, there is a such a growth in talk fests and bureaucracy. Grand plans and strategies are developed over years ("By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us") and then everything moves at a glacial pace. "Strategy started 7 years ago and yet we still havent even reached the implementation of anything" said one long-time volunteer on the mailing list the other day who felt like the WMF is actually moving things backwards:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list...

Even editors usually loyal to the Foundation – former board members – are beginning to voice gentle complaints. "Bureaucracy is defeating us":

https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list...

Their pleas are falling on deaf ears.

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

#240

Post by z0r »

samsquire wrote: post #237
esyir wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a charitable/non-profit organization, providing them with funding way above their needs is counterproductive. As seen with Wikipedia, in the presence of excess money, costs proceed to grow uncoupled to the progression of their core mission. As charity funding is effectively a closed system, excessive contribution to Wikipedia is to the detriment of other charities, with minimal net benefit.

I think their needs are genuine, if we want more of Wikipedia and more of Wikipedia services, it requires investment. If you think one charity is more deserving your money than Wikipedia, then you are free to decide that with your resources. You decide how to spend your money and Wikipedia decides how to spend theirs. Resource allocation is not a solved problem and it is inherently political. If you're working in the…

Are you really suggesting it's not possible for an organization to misallocate funds, or that it is not possible to determine if an organization is misallocating funds without running the same organization or a substitutable replacement organization?

Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia) can be the best in its class without the Wikimedia foundation being beyond criticism. 99% of what makes Wikipedia great was already there a decade ago, with exponentially less cost.

Post reply on HN