Wikipedia is not short on cash

Post by klelatti » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 12:02 PM UTC

andrewstuart wrote: post #61

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…

Post by Arkhaine_kupo » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 12:06 PM UTC

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #47

The advantage of a community supported encyclopedia should be a reasonable degree of impartiality, openness and academic freedom. Wikipedia has departed a good distance from this ideal and should support itself as other media does... through advertising or subscriptions. The case is best found in the OP link comments, but here's one I found that well summarizes: "You do have to filter out some stuff unfortunately – b…

Post by akolbe » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 12:07 PM UTC

KennyBlanken wrote: post #138

weberer wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the videos they discuss issues in science like objectivity (they're against it) and bias (they're in favour). Its a shame so much money is being funneled to these groups since that's exactly the opposite goal of most donators to Wikipedia.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you didn't verify, even slightly, anything that tweet-thread author said. Either that, or like the author, you agree with their claim that grant money going to journalists who are people of color is 'furthering the inescapable American culture war.' Jeez, how dare those black people engage in journalism that isn't about white culture. They're declaring war on American (whi…

Post by nerdponx » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 12:10 PM UTC

Mindwipe wrote: post #39

akolbe wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very good choice, because the Internet Archive is financially far less secure than the Wikimedia Foundation and provides a vital service, by archiving Wikipedia sources before they go offline. This makes sure you can still see in five years' time what someone has cited in an article. They also pay their executives far less.

> A very good choice, because the Internet Archive is financially far less secure than the Wikimedia Foundation That's at least in part because the IA board are idiots however.

Post by shadowgovt » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 12:11 PM UTC

cxr wrote: post #123

shadowgovt wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An organization that has the goodwill of the hacker community has to perpetually walk the line on the edge of pauper to maintain its virtue, lest it be seen as selling out and no longer worthy of the goodwill of the hacker community. It's a bit of a self-defeating attitude. Hackers love scrappy upstarts. Succeed too hard and you cease to be a scrappy upstart.

If they were running ads that said, "Hey we sort of have the money we need to keep doing this for a while, but you can give us some more money if you want to help", then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Wikipedia's current ads are both misleading and more intrusive than ever. 550 employees is huge, especially for an organization that doesn't even pay those employees to create and edit the content on the site…