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

491–500 of 500 posts

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#491

Post by musicale »

magicalhippo wrote: post #40
akolbe wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Indeed, it's highly manipulative. Wikimedia does way more than "just" Wikipedia, and the majority of the money goes to these other activities. Now, I'm not saying that's bad, some of those activities might be well worth it. But the banners I've seen have invariably been about the imminent demise of Wikipedia. Not that they got lots of other side projects they want funded.

> Indeed, it's highly manipulative

Charities seem to do do that sort of thing to raise money, probably because it works and also because the current activities are already funded.

When donations are sought after a disaster the implication is that the money is going to directly help the victims, but the reality is that it will fund other efforts, possibly including helping the victims of a future disaster.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#493

Post by Arkhaine_kupo »

pelasaco wrote: post #488
Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Typically? Nope. What? How is it not typical to have general men and women roles in different societies? Those roles aren't always the same but the existance of such roles is more than typical is almost ubiquitous. > Many societies recognise a third gender? Nope. Is the problem there the word "many"? There is a citation with the number of societies they found that have such a mention. They do say the most common is…

"Human societies typically exhibit gender identities".. Nope, as the linked page explains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity , it started in the 60s, but until 2015, nobody heard of that. "Non-binary" didn't exist until recently. I'm not judging it, but it's for sure not typical. But to write that it is typical, is a farce. It's atypical, but exists and should be respected. > Is the problem there the word…

> Nope, as the linked page explains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity, it started in the 60s

You probably should read it a bit better then. The existance of the term gernder identity and the existance of gender identities are not the same thing. The word "sex" came slightly later than the first time humans reproduced.

> "Non-binary" didn't exist until recently.

no gender identity existed until recently, but thats because identity is a late 18th century concept. Historically people didn't think of themselves as individuals so they did not separate into identities.

The existance of people who did not "belong" to their prescribed sex, has a long history though. From the non binary page on wikipedia you can see someoone called "not a man or a woman" in the us in the 1700s.

> Yup, the right is "few". Few countries recognize it. From 195, 16.

Thats not what the quote said, the quote said many societes recognise a third gender. It doesn't say current existing nations. if you followed the citation you would have found the book the quote came from where it lists examples:

>> The existence of a third sex or gender enables us to understand how Byzantine palace eunuchs and Indian hijras met the criteria of special social roles that necessitated practices such as self-castration, and how intimate and forbidden desires were expressed among the Dutch Sodomites in the early modern period, the Sapphists of eighteenth-century England, or the so-called hermaphrodite-homosexuals of nineteenth-century Europe and America.

The book I am assuming cites even more historical examples in different ancient and modern societies of non conforming binary roles in society. Enough examples that the author feels warranted to claim there are "many" in the wikipedia summary of the book.

You are claiming wikipedia is biased because they used the word "many" in a concept you feel there isn't enough examples to warrant it. Is that what it boils down to? Your feelings about quantitative adjectives? Thats a loose definition of "agenda pushing" dont you think?

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#494

Post by katamarimambo »

fallingknife wrote: post #456
katamarimambo wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitively donated to some BLM org which may or may not be this one, and i'll keep doing it

Wait so you would keep donating even if you know they are thieves?

I believe them more than i believe you

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#495

Post by katamarimambo »

fallingknife wrote: post #456
katamarimambo wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitively donated to some BLM org which may or may not be this one, and i'll keep doing it

Wait so you would keep donating even if you know they are thieves?

Just checked here: The BLM org I donated was not this one you linked, but i'm seeking this one specifically to make a new donation, just because your bad faith argument.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#496

Post by kordlessagain »

LightG wrote: post #348
kordlessagain wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is possible to raise interest in something without lying about it. Whether you will fully understand it or not is up to you.

I agree. It is possible. But this feels like a case of 'the exceptions prove the rule'.

We are what we are not.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#498

Post by Mindwipe »

shkkmo wrote: post #191
Mindwipe wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Without specific criticism, this comment is just name calling and is inappropriate for HN.

I think the Internet Archive's insane legal strategy and wishful thinking with their Covid lending library is more than well known enough without me spelling it out explicitly.

Re: Wikipedia is not short on cash

#499

Post by ohCh6zos »

tchaffee wrote: post #429
ohCh6zos wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it true or false that the author is heavily biased against Wikipedia? If the claim is true, then no one has an obligation to respond to one-sided accusations made in bad faith with zero intention to report on any details that would paint Wikipedia in a favorable light. I would be just as uninterested in an article from Wikimedia themselves on how great they are. I already said what I would be interested in: factua…

But that's simply not true. An article from wikipedia refuting their re-donation with proof would go a long way regardless of their own pro-self bias.

Likewise even more evidence of their re-gifting from a source that hates them has value.

Post reply on HN