311–320 of 417 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The BBC is not neutral. They are the mouthpiece of the UK government.
Hardly. They're pro-immigration, anti-Brexit, anti-any cuts anywhere for anything. They're the voice of the Guardian-reading middle classes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly. They're pro-immigration, anti-Brexit, anti-any cuts anywhere for anything. They're the voice of the Guardian-reading middle classes.
This thread nicely illustrates the BBC's long balancing act. From a (BBC) radio sitcom from the 80s: > [interviewer to Director General of BBC] Director General, everyone seems to hate you. How would you respond? > [DG] Well, I think that shows we have the balance about right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." ― Desmond Tutu
Random quotes add nothing to the conversation and won't convince anyone that didn't already agree with what it says.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, Wikimedia has about 250-300 employees and what they pay their CEO is about what Facebook and Google pay a senior SWE. They seem to run pretty lean to me. Firing everyone and moving to a cheap country doesn't seem feasible, and they already are apparently moving a lot of their hiring to Germany. I don't really see what's outrageous here? > Obviously it's become a gravy train . Oh come on - their CEO manages 25…
To be honest, this more highlights how far out of step tech salaries are with...well everyone else.
But tech salaries are just based on supply and demand. If there were more good coders in supply, salaries would go down.
So what exactly does "out of step" mean? Everybody's free to try to learn how to code and get those salaries.
And so it's not clear what Wikimedia is doing wrong with salaries, if it's paying what's required to get programmers of the needed ability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand. What job could someone take after leaving that post that you think would be neutral? Work for google? Become a bricklayer?
I can think of very few jobs less neutral than Atlantic Council and U.S. Department of State. You don’t get invited to those boards without prior connections to some of the least neutral people on the planet.
Do you think it should be essential to someone who works at Wikipedia? Even after they leave? Why exactly? Make the argument if you want to persuade. I think I speak for a lot of people in saying that such a claim is overly strict.
Have you reviewed various forms of moral relativism recently? If not, I think the ideas will be fruitful.
There is an idea that I’ve stolen from Robert Kane (a philosopher) that I want to share any chance I get: a quest for knowledge means starting with an open mind — but it does not mean stopping there. Neutrality can help you weigh ideas more objectively. But the process of weighing them will show that some ideas are better than others. Therefore, neutrality as an end state of knowledge or ethics is not a wise goal. Foolish neutrality is unethical.
"I think that's also not sustainable to just expect that rich people who don't need to care for their bread in the morning can just come and work for us." - Nataliia Tymkiv Call me crazy, but $623,286 USD will buy a LOT of bread. "Putting food on the table for your family" phrases start to become almost comical when they're made by people earning good portions of a million per year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, this more highlights how far out of step tech salaries are with...well everyone else.
You seem to be implying there's something "wrong" with it. But tech salaries are just based on supply and demand. If there were more good coders in supply, salaries would go down. So what exactly does "out of step" mean? Everybody's free to try to learn how to code and get those salaries. And so it's not clear what Wikimedia is doing wrong with salaries, if it's paying what's required to get programmers of the needed…
Supply & demand is an explanation, not an excuse, and it is a problem that can be fixed (if there's political will).
I’ve been an editor on Wikipedia for nearly 15 years. I reckon I’ve easily contributed tens of thousands of dollars worth of value during this time. To be clear, I don’t expect/want any compensation (I firmly believe in the free knowledge for all mission), but I’d be lying if I said it doesn’t sting to see others profit handsomely off of my hard work.
I can understand that. It grates against some notions of fairness. In any case, others being paid doesn’t diminish your contributions. You know that you’ve helped and benefited others. (Wikipedia redefined my view of networks!) Quantifying your impact may be challenging, and this is frankly one of the best things about volunteering. Doing something for the process, not e.g. for some downstream effects that are not un…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
As that video demonstrates (a Capuchin who was happy to perform a simple task in order to get a piece of cucumber goes crazy when another monkey is introduced who gets a grape for the same task) this notion of fairness is so basic, it is pre-human. According to the video, it's even been replicated with dogs and birds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, this more highlights how far out of step tech salaries are with...well everyone else.
You seem to be implying there's something "wrong" with it. But tech salaries are just based on supply and demand. If there were more good coders in supply, salaries would go down. So what exactly does "out of step" mean? Everybody's free to try to learn how to code and get those salaries. And so it's not clear what Wikimedia is doing wrong with salaries, if it's paying what's required to get programmers of the needed…