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

411–420 of 500 posts

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#411

Post by jasonlotito »

Macha wrote: post #338
jasonlotito wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/ How is this misleading? They provide an incredibly large amount of information. And more information can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Disputes

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…

Your opinions are wrong.

Be careful, if you argue that your opinions are not wrong, you'll be admitting your comment here is wrong.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#412

Post by md2020 »

socialismisok wrote: post #313
soundnote wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are leftists. The woke ideology has a clear geneaology to Marx. Of course, they are not economic class focused leftists by any stretch of the imagination - bourgeoisie champagne socialists who've re-engineered the Marxian thinking style to focus on social identities, which makes it really easy to purport to care for the oppressed. It's very high quality champagne socialism. But it's still leftist in origin and i…

Democrats are not a left party. They are squarely center, maybe even center right. As someone who is a communist, the Dems have nothing to do with Marx, and they are about as capitalist as they come.

Nobody said the causes the foundation is funneling money to are Democrat causes, though. They’re something entirely different.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#413

Post by i_like_apis »

stewx wrote: post #204
i_like_apis wrote: post #196

I give money to Wikipedia occasionally and will gladly continue, thanks. Wikimedia makes the world a much better world place. They should have the funds to do whatever they want. You’re mad at them for some reason because they have 400 mil? That’s not even half a billion. I want a world where the Wikimedia foundation is a multi-billion dollar entity.

> Wikimedia makes the world a much better world place. They should have the funds to do whatever they want. No doubt the world is better off with Wikipedia and Wikimedia, but the attitude that "they can do no wrong" is extremely dangerous. Any powerful organization, especially ones bringing in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from the public, must be subjected to scrutiny and criticism. It is unhealthy not to…

Sure. But I’m pleased with what I see.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#414

Post by Blikkentrekker »

Ensorceled wrote: post #402
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Wikipedia definitely has a gender problem. And a racial problem. And numerous cultural problems. That they decided to highlight the gender problem first doesn't mean that Wikipedia thinks the other problems are ok as is. Someone having different priorities for fixing problems is not necessarily your enemy.

It is my perspective that gender and race are completely insignificant compared to culture and it annoys me how often Anglo-Saxons think otherwise, probably because of never really having interacted with a foreign culture.

In the end, from my perspective, Anglo-Saxons from whatever gender or color tend to think very much alike and very different from persons from entirely different countries. The country one is born in influences one's perspectives far more than one's gender or skin color, how could it not really?

That they prioritize such minutiæ over bigger problems is something I found a slap in the face, or rather, a reminder of the issue that they're probably barely aware of it and don't realize how different the perspective of other culture can be.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#415

Post by ohCh6zos »

tchaffee wrote: post #192

This is a hit piece by someone who hates Wikipedia. It should be ignored. If and when someone with far less bias writes an article on Wikimedia finances, I might be interested.

Is it true or false that Wikipedia re-donates money while claiming to be in danger of shutting down? If the claim is true the source doesn't matter.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#416

Post by cxr »

shadowgovt wrote: post #309
cxr wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is plenty of evidence[...] that whatever they're doing now works better than what they were doing in the past. You just moved the goalposts. (In this case, moved them such that your "argument" is just restating the substance of the complaint.) Wikimedia is bringing in a lot more money doing this sort of thing. That's well understood—by all, i.e., those on both sides of the issue. Your job is not to defend the…

I thought "any" would be understood to be rhetorical exaggeration; my apologies. My actual position I've posited is an org loses support of the hacker community when it becomes successful even if nothing about what it's doing fundamentally changes. If their ads are different now, it's because they refined their approach; the goal was always to get people to give them money to be used as they saw fit.

Sure, a classic motte-and-bailey. I'm familiar.

Feel free to provide an actual argument against any one of the following:

- Wikipedia is not short on cash

- The current ads are misleading and intrusive

- The ads of years past were successful despite not being this misleading or intrusive

- The point you're trying to raise, when you're not being mercurial about it (the point about "support of the hacker community" for causes "on the edge of pauper") is, even if we assume it to be true, has no place in this discussion, in light of the circumstances (i.e. what's true about the subject we're discussing—and what isn't true, either)

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#417

Post by shadowgovt »

cxr wrote: post #416
shadowgovt wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought "any" would be understood to be rhetorical exaggeration; my apologies. My actual position I've posited is an org loses support of the hacker community when it becomes successful even if nothing about what it's doing fundamentally changes. If their ads are different now, it's because they refined their approach; the goal was always to get people to give them money to be used as they saw fit.

Sure, a classic motte-and-bailey. I'm familiar. Feel free to provide an actual argument against any one of the following: - Wikipedia is not short on cash - The current ads are misleading and intrusive - The ads of years past were successful despite not being this misleading or intrusive - The point you're trying to raise, when you're not being mercurial about it (the point about "support of the hacker community" for…

Sure. If you don't want to discuss hacker bias against success via using the tools that are demonstrated successful because they're not "virtuous" tools, I can't force you. It's the only piece of this I'm interested in though.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#418

Post by criley2 »

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.

And yet, the western capitalistic system that is built on private businesses acting in their own self interest, regulated by governments of the people enforcing social good, have created the least violent, least disease-ridden, most luxurious and incredible experience for humanity in history (or at least since civilization).

Frankly, calling it dystopic that businesses play by the laws as written is ridiculous. Change the laws instead of expecting businesses to self-regulate out of the goodness of their hearts. Why is that dystopic?

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#420

Post by criley2 »

lillecarl wrote: post #366
JohnFen wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Since we're on the ycombinator chat -- do you think ycombinator disagrees? Do you think businesses incubated here are taught about "ethical and moral advertising at all costs" or taught about "finding market fit and scaling fast at all costs", even using aggressively successful a/b tested etc marketing that many would find distasteful?
Post reply on HN