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

Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

wikimediafoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#111

Post by mercer »

51lver wrote: post #64
spac wrote: post #38

Contrarily to the negative sentiment expressed so far in the comments, I find branding an important question: If a foundation does good work, you’d want the foundation to receive more money to do more good work. For example, Wikipedia would benefit from many more tech investments, for example in the excellent wiki data and wikimedia research initiatives; or think of wiki vandalism and fake news. It’s well known in th…

I would much prefer them to stay small, tight, and focused.

If only the Mozilla Foundation had a similar preference...

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#112

Post by [deleted] »

vanderZwan wrote: post #75
Retra wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it wouldn't be a charity donation. Giving money to successful projects is better done as an investment (or maybe purchase.)

I see no logical reason why being successful as a project implies that investing with a profit motive is the best option for guaranteeing continued success.

[deleted]

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#113

Post by Retra »

vanderZwan wrote: post #75
Retra wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it wouldn't be a charity donation. Giving money to successful projects is better done as an investment (or maybe purchase.)

I see no logical reason why being successful as a project implies that investing with a profit motive is the best option for guaranteeing continued success.

It isn't best option to guarantee success. It just means you're lower on the list of need-based funding allocations.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#114

Post by [deleted] »

a-nikolaev wrote: post #87
8ytecoder wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to say that I don't mind and I'm happy to donate whatever I donate every year. But then went and looked up information on their budget - it's quite surprising that they spend as much as they do and it's not very clear on how they spend it and also plans on how they are going to contain the spend. I don't mind Wikimedia having a fat balance sheet and at least a few years worth of reserve but the growth of…

Exactly. Their annual spendings grow exponentially, roughly matching the donations amounts. It cannot be operations costs. More like irresponsible foolish management.

[deleted]

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#115

Post by ggchappell »

hug wrote: post #61
currymj wrote: post #51

What is the appeal of getting them to cut costs down to nothing? It seems weird to me that people resent a budget of $70 million/year for the most useful website in existence. What would you rather the money be spent on?

The problem, in all this, is not getting Wikipedia 's expenses down to nothing. I use Wikipedia all the time, and I love it. It's an incredibly useful site and should be funded well enough to keep running indefinitely, and even have room for improvement. On the other hand, if I choose to donate money to Wikmedia, 80% of it goes to other places, like their "content" sites, which consists of this bunch of mediocrity: W…

I must disagree with you about Wiktionary. It's great.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#116

Post by scarmig »

titanix2 wrote: post #96
c0l0 wrote: post #9

The thing that depresses me the most about Wiki[mp]edia is that the US$ 100 that I donated to them a few years ago (presumably,) predominantly went into creating material like this. Given how incredibly well-funded Wikimedia is, their yearly extort^Wdonation-drive with 50%+ viewport-sized banners plastered all over Wikipedia, claiming that the encyclopedia you're viewing is in dire need of your money to barely sustai…

Seeing the graph (not for the first time) it's look like the foundation is run with this government worker's mentality of "if the annual budget is not totally spend by the end of exercice we will got less dotation next year". It's like they're blowing money for the sake of blowing it.

That's not unique to governments or non-profits.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#117

Post by ivalm »

mprev wrote: post #98
ivalm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, instead your personal data is sold to fund Google Wave, Buzz, or some unrelated venture. Would you prefer wikimedia shift into selling user data and putting advertisements? If not, then donate.

That’s a false dichotomy. Another option is to allow donations that are ring fenced for the project or projects I care about.

I would strongly argue that ring fencing is a very bad idea. We want to give opportunity for successful orgs to try new things and fail. This is why companies use some of their profits to try new things (such as Google Wave, but also such as Gmail). Wikimedia foundation, since it does not generate much revenue outside of donations, must necessarily use donations to try new things, even if they turn out to be failures/not needed.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#118

Post by andrewshadura »

DC-3 wrote: post #80
hug wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem, in all this, is not getting Wikipedia 's expenses down to nothing. I use Wikipedia all the time, and I love it. It's an incredibly useful site and should be funded well enough to keep running indefinitely, and even have room for improvement. On the other hand, if I choose to donate money to Wikmedia, 80% of it goes to other places, like their "content" sites, which consists of this bunch of mediocrity: W…

Anecdote warning - I have been studying Old English this year and have found Wiktionary invaluable.

Similarly, I find it invaluable when studying Hungarian and German.

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#119

Post by zapzupnz »

evandev wrote: post #6
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #2

Wikipedia is well known as an encyclopedia . Changing that name to encompass a project which is quite different will be detrimental.

They are talking about changing the company's name behind Wikipedia to have the same name as the product.

Indeed, no more different than the company Google having the search engine also called Google. (yes, I know it's technically called Google Search, but no, for all practical uses, it isn't)

Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

#120

Post by lixtra »

jonnydubowsky wrote: post #57
lixtra wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they don’t advertise in the banners that they spend the money in such a way. I may have a partial match in goals with Wikipedia. If 20% of the money goes to goals I support and 80% goes to goals I do not support or that are even contrary to my goals, how much should I give? I decided for me to donate to projects that better serve my goals.

You raise a valid concern. How will you know If wikimedia's branding interests ultimately help them to deliver more of the goals you relate to? The means they take to improve their messaging may ultimately help them to coordinate resources more effectively and deliver more of what you support. Would the ends justify the means in that case?

I would be okay if they used 20% of my donation to venture for goals that I don’t know yet I will possibly support in the future. That also applies to messaging. But as said the rate is more 80%.
Post reply on HN