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

431–440 of 500 posts

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#431

Post by RockRobotRock »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #335
denton-scratch wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of right wingers believe that most news sources are grossly misleading or lying Not just right-wingers. With few exceptions, Wikipedia "reliable sources" are mostly mainstream media, which most lefties regard as locked-down, neo-liberal propaganda cannons.

"the mainstream media" is a right-wing dogwhistle; their own media outlets is mainstream: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_C...

Hahaha, no, it really isn't. Please stop muddying the waters with this bullshit

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#432

Post by mint2 »

mint2 wrote: post #403
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 a free service with no advertising and people don’t like that it asked them for money a few weeks out of the year. If they listen to the radio NPR pledge drives must irritate them to the point of flames coming out their ears. Or if they read free newspapers like the guardian online they must loath it as much as Wikipedia, or more because it doesn’t just do ask a few weeks out of the year. No one is forced to use…

Just to add one more point of context, nearly every commercial service does a ton of advocating and donating to causes that is not related to their core business.

I have no choice but to provide some Cell phone and internet providers money to do those things because paying them is necessarily to function in society.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#433

Post by skyyler »

mgamache wrote: post #400
e12e wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-marxi…

Using Lysenko as evidence that Marx was anti-science is kinda weird.

Stalin had thousands of Lysenko's critics imprisoned, I dunno how Marx would feel about that, but I have a feeling it wouldn't be particularly positive.

What does Hegel have to do with anything here? Adam Smith was also "routed in Hegel"...

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#434

Post by eurleif »

skyyler wrote: post #433
mgamache wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-marxi…

Using Lysenko as evidence that Marx was anti-science is kinda weird. Stalin had thousands of Lysenko's critics imprisoned, I dunno how Marx would feel about that, but I have a feeling it wouldn't be particularly positive. What does Hegel have to do with anything here? Adam Smith was also "routed in Hegel"...

>Adam Smith was also "routed in Hegel"...

Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations when Hegel was 5 years old, and died when Hegel was 19, and hadn't published anything yet.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#435

Post by dlubarov »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #139
Karunamon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No doubt they have had to scale significantly. … But have they had to scale to a degree commensurate with the amount of money they are spending? Absolutely not. The "Wikipedia has cancer" article makes that point handily.

How do you know? If you've run the numbers from their financial statements, I'm keen to see your analysis.

The 21-22 annual plan [1] just shows "Technical Infrastructure" as 23.8% of "Programmatic", which is 76% of the budget, so 23.8% * 76% = 18%, or $27m.

"Technical Infrastructure" includes "all the engineering and technology" though. I'm not sure if a breakdown which includes server costs is available? I remember it being a pretty small piece of previous budgets.

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Wikimedi...

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#436

Post by commandlinefan »

phpisthebest wrote: post #52
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…

In some ways Charity Navigator is like the BBB, and people need to take those ratings with a grain of salt. What is not said here, but I think it was started this article there was a break-down on Twitter [2] recently where someone broke down the grants Wikimedia Foundation gives to other charities, A lot of Wikimedia has become advocacy for social issues not the spread of free information. Some of those Social issue…

> for social issues not the spread of free information

In most cases, openly opposed to the spread of free information.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#437

Post by hbrn »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #176
phpisthebest wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want Wikimedia, and Wikipedia to be a Neutral historian of world data and events, to preserve facts and promote the free access of those facts to everyone in the world. They have strayed far far far far far from that goal

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?

> Is there a neutral historian version of world events?

Just because there's no truly neutral version doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for neutrality. There are clearly anti-neutral approaches which we should always try to eliminate.

> Who chooses which facts show up, or how do we know if certain critical facts are missing?

Wikipedia already has a pretty good policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#438

Post by socialismisok »

md2020 wrote: post #412
socialismisok wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Two comments above there was a comment about Democrats. The response was they are leftist.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#439

Post by viridian »

shadowgovt wrote: post #169
cxr wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If they were running ads like that, they wouldn't make any money. The psychology of fundraising is extremely well researched.

They can keep lying and misleading people if they want, and they will get money from people who are okay with being lied to and misled. If they want the money and respect of people who place an incredibly high value on truth (like myself), then they need to tell the truth.

I will sooner give $20 to someone begging who tells me that he intends on spending it on booze, than I would a well meaning non-profit who attempts to snow me with rhetoric honed on manipulating millions of other people before me.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#440

Post by commandlinefan »

preommr wrote: post #63
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.

> True neturality is basically an impossible target

That's probably true, but Wikipedia isn't even pretending to try.

Post reply on HN