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

391–400 of 500 posts

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#391

Post by akolbe »

Silverback_VII wrote: post #199
akolbe wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

"The Wikimedia Foundation defines racial equity as shifting away from Eurocentricity, White-male-imperialist-patriarchal supremacy, superiority, power and privilege..." from the knowledge equity fund page. what the heck

The funny thing is that the Wikimedia Foundation is trying to get volunteers in Africa and India to edit and contribute content for free – content which then feeds the search engines and voice assistants of trillion-dollar US companies who do their damnedest not to pay tax in the countries in which they operate.

Yeah, let's get away from imperialism and patriarchalism ...

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#392

Post by Blikkentrekker »

lupire wrote: post #127
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to donate, but no longer do, not for this, but because I'm tired about the Anglocentric, U.S.A.-centric style on Wikipedia with little efforts to fix it, as well as other neutrality issues. When they flung some banner about soliciting more female contributors in my face which reeked of Americana it was the last straw. I've seen some articles at least add “English-language criticism" by now instead of simply “c…

To be clear, your complaints are: 1. Wikipedia is biased toward Anglo perspectives. 2. Wikipedia is trying to recruit contributors with a broader range of perspectives. This doesn't seem like a problem with WMF.

They're not trying to recruit contributors outside of the Anglocentric perspective; they're not in any way trying to mitigate that problem.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#393

Post by Arkhaine_kupo »

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #275
Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Is there a neutral historian version of world events? 2) Who chooses which facts show up, or how do we know if certain critical facts are missing? 3) In what way are they strayed far away from it?

>3) In what way are they strayed far away from it? By introducing political bias into the selection and presentation of information. If I check pages on feminism or even radical feminism, I wouldn't see any information on how some prominent early feminist figures advocated mass genocide of men. Most of the pages are generally shown benign. If I check a few pages on prominent manosphere subcultures, I don't have to sc…

> If I check pages on feminism or even radical feminism, I wouldn't see any information on how some prominent early feminist figures advocated mass genocide of men.

So you think they missed critical information, which related to my second point, who gets to decide. Currently is unpaid moderators, so wikimedia can hardly be blamed for it. no?

> I'm fairly certain spreading a few more words on the bloodlust of early feminists would shine a fairly different light on the movement without changing the ideology of the majority.

But that seems to be intentionally deciding what people should believe. If you think that the ideology of early feminists is irrelevant to the larger movement but might help to turn people to your side, you're not keeping wikipedia unbiased, youre just biasing it more no?

> Yet any kind of filth is practically at the front for anything related to the countercultures.

What countercultures?

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#394

Post by Chris2048 »

lupire wrote: post #127
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to donate, but no longer do, not for this, but because I'm tired about the Anglocentric, U.S.A.-centric style on Wikipedia with little efforts to fix it, as well as other neutrality issues. When they flung some banner about soliciting more female contributors in my face which reeked of Americana it was the last straw. I've seen some articles at least add “English-language criticism" by now instead of simply “c…

To be clear, your complaints are: 1. Wikipedia is biased toward Anglo perspectives. 2. Wikipedia is trying to recruit contributors with a broader range of perspectives. This doesn't seem like a problem with WMF.

How did "female contributors" become "contributors with a broader range of perspectives"?

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#395

Post by Blikkentrekker »

Ensorceled wrote: post #60
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to donate, but no longer do, not for this, but because I'm tired about the Anglocentric, U.S.A.-centric style on Wikipedia with little efforts to fix it, as well as other neutrality issues. When they flung some banner about soliciting more female contributors in my face which reeked of Americana it was the last straw. I've seen some articles at least add “English-language criticism" by now instead of simply “c…

> When they flung some banner about soliciting more female contributors in my face which reeked of Americana it was the last straw. What was this ad that was so objectionable?

Mostly because I'm tired of these U.S.A. “diversity” efforts which come down to “more persons from the U.S.A.” overlooking most of the world.

That they apparently think gender defines perspectives more than ethnicity and cultural background is the problem. Apparently they can make an effort towards gender but not toward the issue that plagues English-Language Wikipedia that only English-language sources are used in the end, often even about subjects that are fundamentally not in English such as the critical response of non-English media, being phrased as though it's a global consensus.

Again, I've seen some places where his has recently improved, but it's annoying to, say, see on Wikipedia that for instance “criticism was mixed” on a French film that was overwhelmingly positively received in France because English-language criticism was more negative due to cultural differences.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#396

Post by bensonn »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #287
bensonn wrote: post #280

Wikipedia/Wikimedia is worth hundreds of dollars per year to me. I occasionally throw $20 at them. It is a steal. I never asked myself if they have too much money or if they are using it "correctly". The main donation page doesn't seem bad to me. Nowhere do they claim they are struggling or may go under. In fact, they say "thriving" and that a small donation will keep it thriving for years to come. To those upset wit…

> very high standards Maybe in the pure STEM subsections but anything to do with humanities is highly subjective and biased. Even in the hard sciences I find that Wikipedia is a just good starting point: scan the references for the real material. It helps if you have access to real libraries, both physical and digital. Personally I stopped donating to them when I discovered how difficult it was to correct errors in l…

Wikipedia being a starting point is one of my favorite things about it. I really like that all their sources are cited and linked to. It always amazes me that news organizations don't cite their sources or have links to the original source.

On that same note, could that be why your family history gets rolled back? No doubt it would be frustrating to have a change you know is real get rolled back but it would make sense from an objective editorial standpoint. That said, I get why you wouldn't want to donate. I personally come from a long line of nobodies (and am proudly carrying on that tradition) so I will never have this problem!

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#397

Post by Arkhaine_kupo »

pelasaco wrote: post #307
BlargMcLarg wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>3) In what way are they strayed far away from it? By introducing political bias into the selection and presentation of information. If I check pages on feminism or even radical feminism, I wouldn't see any information on how some prominent early feminist figures advocated mass genocide of men. Most of the pages are generally shown benign. If I check a few pages on prominent manosphere subcultures, I don't have to sc…

The Human page, is quite neutral too (/s): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Gender

Whats wrong with that blurb? The only bit missing a citation is "most societies have men over women", and that seems fairly unproblematic

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#398

Post by Blikkentrekker »

spookie wrote: post #207
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to donate, but no longer do, not for this, but because I'm tired about the Anglocentric, U.S.A.-centric style on Wikipedia with little efforts to fix it, as well as other neutrality issues. When they flung some banner about soliciting more female contributors in my face which reeked of Americana it was the last straw. I've seen some articles at least add “English-language criticism" by now instead of simply “c…

It's kind of sad of anglo-centric their pages are for some countries and historical events. I'm European, and even I can see some bias in there.

Indeed, that's a common issue too with historical events.

But even scientific things. I can't read Mandarin, but I've been told many times that many subjects on many linguistic concepts on the Chinese Wikipedia look very different and that seemingly English-language linguistics and Chinese-language linguistics can come to very different conclusions from the same data. That of course is troubling in and of itself, but it should be featured proportionally.

From what I understand, among English-language communication, the Altaic language hypothesis has essentially completely bee discredited, but many linguists in Asia apparently still consider it plausible. — I don't have the expertise to judge who is wrong and who is right here, but English-language Wikipedia should either give those voices a proportional weight, or, at least note that it is discredited among English-language linguists, as right now it arouses the impression that it's globally discredited.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#399

Post by Ensorceled »

soundnote wrote: post #304
happymellon wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't remember it, but I was assuming that they felt like it was still requesting white Americans.

The thing with those sorts of requests is that a lot of the push for diversity is literally skin deep - they want people who look different, but think the same. They're not trying to say "hey, we'd like more electrical engineers, nurses, priests, political conservatives, etc." to contribute. People with actually different experiences and backgrounds, somewhat the way how the ideal model of science is set up - individ…

> They want (woke) social liberals who look different, and at least in America wokeness is just about the most white woman thing you can do.

You do know that any traction you are getting with these arguments goes out the window when you start using terms like "woke".

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#400

Post by mgamache »

e12e wrote: post #377
mgamache wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case far-left mean groups that are opposed to objectivity and support adding bias to science. This is the 2+2=5 crowd. They can believe whatever they want, but this is not science and is born out of neo-Marxist ideology.

Where can I read more about this neo-Marxist ideology, that apparently borrows from Marx (certainly pro-science) to somehow become anti-science?

Wait you think Marx was pro science? He denied the supernatural, but like all ideologies reality is secondary to dogmatism. Don't forget he was routed in Hegel.

See Lysenkoism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Marx's ideas were refined by Antonio Gramsci who offered social Hegemony as a means to achieve the utopia. To the extent that science is a sense-making part of society it must be taken over by pro-marxist/communist forces. It's the only way to assure the success of marxism.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.93001...

Post reply on HN