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

361–370 of 500 posts

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#361

Post by jevgeni »

Macha wrote: post #68
_glsb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure. And if you accept those images or not is your thing. Their banners are super annoying at only 2% conversion rate. What will it be without those banners?

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#362

Post by _glsb »

sokoloff wrote: post #358
jevgeni wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's in a whiny tone. The fact that it will go down is your interpretation. An alternative interpretation could be "98% of people get asymmetric value out of Wikipedia, please make it less asymmetric". In fact, if they stop begging, what percentage of their users will contribute? Will it remain at 2%?

What else would "We ask you, humbly, to help...We're a non-profit that depends on donations to stay online" mean if not to raise the possibility to go down is present?

That they are a non-profit funded by donations, maybe? Just a wild guess. /s

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#363

Post by walls »

rany_ wrote: post #31
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…

I don't get the outrage either. It's almost like people want Wikipedia to be barely scrapping by which isn't good. Having some money in your reserves is fine.

I'd rather Wikipedia not turn into another Mozilla.

Not having a ton of extra money is a good way to prevent that kind of bloat.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#364

Post by catchnear4321 »

JohnFen wrote: post #274
criley2 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is loser logic. It's possible to play by self-imposed self-hindering rules, sure, but your competitors probably aren't. In business, you play the game that exists, not the game you want to exist. Politics is how you do the "game you want to exist" part.

This line of thinking is how we get dystopia.

*got

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#365

Post by insane_dreamer »

akolbe wrote: post #28
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…

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?

I haven't seen those banners and the pushy appears from Jimmy Wales in a long time.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#366

Post by lillecarl »

JohnFen wrote: post #274
criley2 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is loser logic. It's possible to play by self-imposed self-hindering rules, sure, but your competitors probably aren't. In business, you play the game that exists, not the game you want to exist. Politics is how you do the "game you want to exist" part.

This line of thinking is how we get dystopia.

Sounds like he read the acts of Purdue Pharma and DuPont as a manual for how to operate a business.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#367

Post by Macha »

shadowgovt wrote: post #354
Macha wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the place donors get sent, nor the content of the ads shown to potential donors. The ads are screenshotted in the linked article and they lead here: https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Landi... Yes, users can go elsewhere to find the information. The records are on file in the metaphorical filing cabinet downstairs. But if the messaging you're putting front and center contradicts said r…

"Elsewhere" in this case is the FAQ link at the bottom of the donation page. If a person has questions, that's what an FAQ is for. Calls to action are kept intentionally short because the research on human psychology is clear: every additional sentence beyond the first few decreases the odds of a conversion (that's adspeak for "closing the deal").

Yes, this is also why it lies, lying to make the situation seem more ominous also increases the odds of a conversion.

But effectiveness doesn't imply ethicality, so "but it's effective" is not a defense against criticism of ethics.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#368

Post by agumonkey »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #324
agumonkey wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My reluctance to donating again to wikipedia lies almost entirely on the subtext of their communication. There's a dissonance between the class of the project, the alleged finances, the in-your-face popups (some years it was half the page).

I mean I'd be more amenable if they had a less in-your-face donation option running year round.

I have the same idea. A tiny pastel margin block would make me donate easily. A simple 1 or 2 clicks process and that's it.

I don't know how much experience they have, maybe stats say that subtle UX don't generate enough donations, while massive hated popups still bring massively more money. I hope so..

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#369

Post by seneca »

threatofrain wrote: post #97
cwillu wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine to pursue projects outside the core mandate, but don't do it with money you were given under the pretense that the core mandate was at risk.

Agreed. I'd appreciate it if there were a way to restrict the usage of donations to the causes I care about within the foundation.

That's essentially pointless though. They may earmark your $10 for the core mission, but that just means another $10 that wasn't specified doesn't have to be used for the core, and gets used for their political initiatives. It's entirely semantics and doesn't change behavior at all unless an overwhelming majority earmark their donations the same way.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#370

Post by insane_dreamer »

Considering the contributions that Wikipedia has made / continues to make to the availability of human knowledge (despite all of its lacks/failings, and they certainly exist!), I don't really have a problem with their Foundation no longer operating on a shoestring. At least it doesn't have billionaire CEO / shareholders or VCs looking for their 10x~100x return, and in that sense it's still far ahead of 99% of the "look how we're going to change the world" new tech companies chasing dollars out there.

Wikipedia's refusal to go ad-based and rake in Billions (while polluting the space) is the gold standard.

Post reply on HN