351–360 of 417 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Maybe in the 80s, these days they don't have the balance right.
Just take a look at this graph. The salaries have been bloating whilst hosting expenses are flat and plummeting as a proportion of all expenses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#/media/Fi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#/media/Fi... Net assets are sitting at ~$240M about 10x what they were a decade ago. Yet they roll out a sob-story banner on every page insinuating that they mi…
They are clearly not politically neutral, unfortunately, whether by accident or design. And I say this as someone who has been a supporter for years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
During which, Wikipedia and it's prominent editors have become increasingly biased in their reporting of events. Instead of being a neutral "just the facts", we get editorialization about all kinds of things that just further entrench our two camps. Word choice, framing, referenced articles, things left unsaid, etc.
I’m not sure how you’d like people to evaluate this claim without some examples. Yes, some people will try to nitpick, but many readers here will engage in good faith. What’s an example of a heavily editorialized article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right_pipeline
For an exercise, try mentally replacing terms like "alt-right movement" with "woke movement", "alt-right pipeline" with "woke pipeline" etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure how you’d like people to evaluate this claim without some examples. Yes, some people will try to nitpick, but many readers here will engage in good faith. What’s an example of a heavily editorialized article?
This article is quite heavily biased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right_pipeline For an exercise, try mentally replacing terms like "alt-right movement" with "woke movement", "alt-right pipeline" with "woke pipeline" etc.
There could also be an article about a "woke pipeline" if that's a concept label people are taking about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Basically any change you make it insta-reverted by some bot or over-zealous power-crazed editor. You sound like someone who was pushing a particular point of view about politics, which is precisely the kind of edits that are set up for organ rejection given Wikipedia's strict stance on neutrality, sourcing, and the fact that politics are naturally contentious / prone to edit warring. There are between 1.5 and 2 mil…
Sure there is a lot of spam but there is also a lot of political pressure to influence politically controversial articles. This rather old video was an eye opener for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY
They mention the topic of the Gaza flotilla raid in the video. If you read the actual article on this topic, it's pretty balanced, and mentions in the introduction that Israel was condemned by the UN Human Rights Council and their use of force was called excessive and unreasonable. Hardly a Zionist propaganda piece.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They obviously don't need 250 to 300 people. They need a few server admins and software developers, but no thinly veiled activists.
What are their engineers working on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article is quite heavily biased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right_pipeline For an exercise, try mentally replacing terms like "alt-right movement" with "woke movement", "alt-right pipeline" with "woke pipeline" etc.
Gave it a skim. What specifically is biased about it? Even ideas that are wrong need to have articles about those labels. There could also be an article about a "woke pipeline" if that's a concept label people are taking about.
They aren't the ones bringing the value. It's the volunteers, which don't get a penny. They have received enough money to sustain Wikipedia almost indefinitely, I have no idea why they are still begging for money. I haven't heard of a single thing that's good excuse for that money in years. And a corollary would be saying that GitHub deserve money because otherwise there would be no open source. Wikipedia's code and…
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…