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

Wikipedia is not short on cash

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 500 posts

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#61

Post by andrewstuart »

Is this the same person who every now and then appears on HN utterly outraged by Wikipedia's fundraising?

I donate to Wikipedia.

And I am glad they have lots of money. I do not feel outraged about it, I feel happy about it.

I do not feel outraged that they use whatever persuasive tactics that they use - this is necessary in the modern world.

Wikipedia is a great service, it should be valued. They should not always be living close to the edge of going out of business. How they spend their funds raised is their business.

This anti Wikipedia person is really annoying and I wish they would stop their crusade.

EDIT: it seems the outraged guy is a right wing Murdoch journalist. Enough said, it all adds up. I still remember how Murdoch ran a successful campaign here in Australia to sink the planned national fibre to the home broadband network - 10 years down the track we never got our national fibre network. These guys hate tech, especially free information services like Wikipedia and national broadcasters like the ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation - Murdoch wants to own it all and hates free.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#62

Post by akolbe »

pastage wrote: post #45
akolbe wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that they make it sound like they are struggling to have enough money to keep Wikipedia running when they are actually wealthier than ever before. The whole premise of Wikipedia (or aspiration, at least, and yes, not always fulfilled ...) is that people should have information so they can't be manipulated. It kind of sucks to see the very organisation hosting the site do the opposite, don't you think?

Wikimedia is vital to Wikipedia, they have little money and pay their exec too little for what they do. IMHO.

Then they should tell donors and prospective donors what they do. As ever, all the content is written by unpaid volunteers (or people paid by others), but still the Wikimedia Foundation's spending doubles every few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial...

What's it for? Tell donors what they are funding.

And somehow the priorities are wrong. The Wikimedia Foundation has annual 8-figure surpluses, but volunteers are writing open letters to complain that the Foundation fails to update and maintain critical aspects of the software:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Think_big_-_open_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Coo...

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

What the WMF does produce, however, is reams and reams of words about "strategy", "leadership", "codes of conduct" etc.

And millions of dollars are given away to progressive organisations that have nothing to do with Wikipedia:

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

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#63

Post by preommr »

mgamache wrote: post #42

It’s not just they are flush with cash. It’s they are funding and fanning the culture war despite claiming to be a neutral party. Some of their funds are being routed to political entities that are not neutral. Edit: here’s a link to a thread about what I mean: https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579776106034757633?s=46&...

This is meaningless without stating the context of what you consider violation of neutrality.

True neturality is basically an impossible target.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#65

Post by Macha »

pastage wrote: post #45
akolbe wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that they make it sound like they are struggling to have enough money to keep Wikipedia running when they are actually wealthier than ever before. The whole premise of Wikipedia (or aspiration, at least, and yes, not always fulfilled ...) is that people should have information so they can't be manipulated. It kind of sucks to see the very organisation hosting the site do the opposite, don't you think?

Wikimedia is vital to Wikipedia, they have little money and pay their exec too little for what they do. IMHO.

Just because some wikimedia activities (primarily legal compliance, financial management, contractual work for hosting) are vital to wikipedia does not mean others are (arbiter of other charities, social causes, events, etc). And by budget spend and headcount allocation, there's far more of the latter yet they portray it as if it's the former that is at risk

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#66

Post by eric4smith »

Brah…

What’s the problem? Wikipedia will always be free to use.

Some people will always support it, others won’t. Life will go on.

This is exactly like trying to cancel someone on YouTube. Just don’t watch the channel.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#67

Post by imgabe »

rippercushions wrote: post #21

Eh. If you don't want to donate, don't, but I don't quite get the outrage here. The Wikimedia Foundation is still small as far as charities go and is visibly making Wikipedia better: the new UI is a breath of fresh air, and given the insane complexity of MediaWiki markup, the visual editor is a piece of unimaginable technical wizardry. Wiktionary is an unheralded gem and even Wikidata is starting to be genuinely usef…

It’s deceptive. People give money thinking they are supporting one thing, and it gets used for something else.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#68

Post by Macha »

_glsb wrote: post #55
akolbe wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that they make it sound like they are struggling to have enough money to keep Wikipedia running when they are actually wealthier than ever before. The whole premise of Wikipedia (or aspiration, at least, and yes, not always fulfilled ...) is that people should have information so they can't be manipulated. It kind of sucks to see the very organisation hosting the site do the opposite, don't you think?

They don't though. The banner has a whiny tone, but never do they say that they are struggling to keep the site up.

Oh please, the mentions of having to seek alternative funding models like subscriptions and ads are clearly meant to raise the image of a site on the brink of unsustainability to potential donors

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#69

Post by omnicognate »

_glsb wrote: post #55
akolbe wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that they make it sound like they are struggling to have enough money to keep Wikipedia running when they are actually wealthier than ever before. The whole premise of Wikipedia (or aspiration, at least, and yes, not always fulfilled ...) is that people should have information so they can't be manipulated. It kind of sucks to see the very organisation hosting the site do the opposite, don't you think?

They don't though. The banner has a whiny tone, but never do they say that they are struggling to keep the site up.

Read the screenshot: "... humbly ask you to defend Wikipedia's independence", "if you donate... Wikipedia could keep thriving for years".

The question as to whether this is manipulative isn't "is there are any clear statement of fact that is unambiguously a lie even in the most charitable possible interpretation?", it's "will this make ill-informed readers think their donations are necessary for Wikipedia's survival, and is this impression created deliberately?"

I think that's a very obvious "yes and yes".

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#70

Post by [deleted] »

mgamache wrote: post #42

It’s not just they are flush with cash. It’s they are funding and fanning the culture war despite claiming to be a neutral party. Some of their funds are being routed to political entities that are not neutral. Edit: here’s a link to a thread about what I mean: https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579776106034757633?s=46&...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN