Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

25 Years of Wikipedia

wikipedia25.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 498 posts

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#31

Post by cm2012 »

amiga386 wrote: post #7
cm2012 wrote: post #2

This is cute, but kind of an example of Wikipedia's off-mission bloat. It irks me that they constantly fundraise when most of it is not needed for Wikipedia proper, but rather used for initiatives people know less about and may not fund if they knew.

I don't begrudge them the odd party, anniversary, meetup. And some of their subprojects are a great idea and could go much further -- it'd be fantastic to have a Wikipedia atlas, for example. The WikiMiniAtlas on geolocated articles is nice but it could be so much better. But as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER it's a huge concern that they're blowing money pretty much at the rate they get it, when they sh…

Thank you for this link, I was looking for something with that data in a clean format for some time!

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#32

Post by amrocha »

FiveOhThree wrote: post #24

I can't be the only one who feels that Wikipedia's quality has really started to go downhill over the past 5 or so years. I've noticed more and more articles which read as ridiculously partisan, usually around subjects with any link to politics or current events. That's probably linked to the increasing polarisation in the US, but I get the impression that the sites neutrality policies have gradually been chipped awa…

It’s more likely that you became more radicalized so what used to read as neutral seems partisan now.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#33

Post by tonymet »

jyscao wrote: post #29

Wikipedia is overall excellent, and it has certainly brought enormous value to me throughout the years. But it is noticeably biased on any topic that has political implications.

History and many fields of science also have political implications, and you’ll find just as much editorial slant there, too

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#35

Post by zxcvasd »

amrocha wrote: post #32
FiveOhThree wrote: post #24

I can't be the only one who feels that Wikipedia's quality has really started to go downhill over the past 5 or so years. I've noticed more and more articles which read as ridiculously partisan, usually around subjects with any link to politics or current events. That's probably linked to the increasing polarisation in the US, but I get the impression that the sites neutrality policies have gradually been chipped awa…

It’s more likely that you became more radicalized so what used to read as neutral seems partisan now.

[dead]

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#36

Post by [deleted] »

arrowsmith wrote: post #20
throawayonthe wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i feel like that's a bit silly, the other projects are listed on the donation page ( https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ ) and tbh you are unlikely to be donating to the wikimedia foundation without being aware of (at least some of?) the rest

I promise you that 99% of normal people have no idea what the Wikimedia foundation is and think that they're just donating to "fund Wikipedia".

[deleted]

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#37

Post by jdauriemma »

FiveOhThree wrote: post #24

I can't be the only one who feels that Wikipedia's quality has really started to go downhill over the past 5 or so years. I've noticed more and more articles which read as ridiculously partisan, usually around subjects with any link to politics or current events. That's probably linked to the increasing polarisation in the US, but I get the impression that the sites neutrality policies have gradually been chipped awa…

Example?

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#38

Post by mr_mitm »

amiga386 wrote: post #19

https://wikipedia25.org/en/the-first-day > Founder Jimbo Wales on a challenge overcome Aren't you forgetting someone, Jimmy? Your co-founder Larry Sanger, perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger Let's check one of the citations from the History of Wikipedia page: https://www.mid-day.com/lifestyle/health-and-fitness/article... > It was Larry Sanger who chanced upon the critical concept of combining the thr…

It's a very touchy subject for Wales. It caused him to walk out of an interview after 48 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uswRbWyt_pg

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#39

Post by gibspaulding »

FiveOhThree wrote: post #24

I can't be the only one who feels that Wikipedia's quality has really started to go downhill over the past 5 or so years. I've noticed more and more articles which read as ridiculously partisan, usually around subjects with any link to politics or current events. That's probably linked to the increasing polarisation in the US, but I get the impression that the sites neutrality policies have gradually been chipped awa…

Friendly reminder that we all have the power to improve this! Become an editor and If you come across a problematic article, you can make improvements, or even just flag it as needing work. I know this is not a small ask, and can feel discouraging if you see more issues than you have time to address or your edits are not accepted, but when you consider the relatively small number of editors and the huge number of readers (not to mention AI’s being built on it) it is likely one of the more significant differences you can make towards improving the greater problem polarization.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#40

Post by adventured »

p-e-w wrote: post #28
altilunium wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder whether the emergence of a single, true Wikipedia competitor would actually put an end to this never-ending fundraising criticism (since people could simply donate to the competitor as a form of protest)

Projects like Wikipedia never have meaningful competition, because the social dynamics invariably converge to a single platform eating everything else.

Wikipedia is already dead, they just don't know it yet. They'll get Stackoverflowed.

The LLMs have already guaranteed their zombie end. The HN crowd will be comically delusional about it right up to the point where Wikimedia struggles to keep the lights on and has to fire 90% of its staff. There is no scenario where that outcome is avoided (some prominent billionaire will step in with a check as they get really desperate, but it won't change anything fundamental, likely a Sergey Brin type figure).

The LLMs will do to Wikipedia, what Wikipedia & Co. did to the physical encyclopedia business.

You don't have to entirely wipe out Wikipedia's traffic base to collapse Wikimedia. They have no financial strength what-so-ever, they burn everything they intake. Their de facto collapse will be extremely rapid and is coming soon. Watch for the rumbles in 2026-2027.

Post reply on HN