21–30 of 133 posts
I really don't like this. The foundation already has many multiples more money than it needs to cover its core goal: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais... This can, at best, be useless, at worst, corrupt its mission to serve corporations. There used to be an expression "don't fix what ain't broke." I feel like this old maxim is now completely ignored.
Why would an organization limit the amount of money they have?
Google is their first customer, and they're giving IA free access. And what they're buying let's them >detect vandalism or important updates at the article level. So it gives them a better ability to control a Wikipedia page's content? Ostensibly both want the unlimited retreivals, but this entire program seems suspicious.
Read it again, it gives them quicker notification that an article has been vandalized/changed in an important way by normal editors, it doesn't give them any special control over any page's content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it’s unnecessary and brings outside influences that could corrupt it’s stated goals
You can be corrupt without having a lot of money. There are countless examples of such. I applaud the their moves. The more money they have, the more likely they are to exist in perpetuity. Needlessly limiting their revenue isn’t going to solve anything.
And you can be corrupt without money, true. But corrupt people tend to avoid organisations that don't have a lot of money, they all try to work where the money is. And the do-gooders that are the other group of people likely to push into an org like Wikimedia tend to be particularly defenseless against the first kind.
I really don't like this. The foundation already has many multiples more money than it needs to cover its core goal: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais... This can, at best, be useless, at worst, corrupt its mission to serve corporations. There used to be an expression "don't fix what ain't broke." I feel like this old maxim is now completely ignored.
Rather than fixing the issue with moderation and editing biases creeping into Wikipedia, they seem to be focussing on being more profligate with their money.
So now, if a Google related Wikipedia article has something added to it that Google doesn’t like, they can suggest to Wikimedia they might not renew their contract unless things are “made right” Google is just one example of this. Any company now has a pathway to do so. I think this is terrible incentives, and destroys the goal of having an Encyclopedia free from interference where only truth can come through
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Goals can be expanded to infinity And thus diluting and losing sight of their original goals. This isn't a corporation driven inherently by eternal desire for more profit.
Sure, but goals change as the world does.
Google is their first customer, and they're giving IA free access. And what they're buying let's them >detect vandalism or important updates at the article level. So it gives them a better ability to control a Wikipedia page's content? Ostensibly both want the unlimited retreivals, but this entire program seems suspicious.
Read it again, it gives them quicker notification that an article has been vandalized/changed in an important way by normal editors, it doesn't give them any special control over any page's content.
I really don't like this. The foundation already has many multiples more money than it needs to cover its core goal: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais... This can, at best, be useless, at worst, corrupt its mission to serve corporations. There used to be an expression "don't fix what ain't broke." I feel like this old maxim is now completely ignored.
It's a wiki with open licensed content and a bloated stack that could easily be hosted on pared down infra and staffing.
Fork it and remove the largesse.
What's that pithy "law" about eventually any organization existing simply to perpetuate itself and serve the insiders who work there, rather than further its mission? Ironically what came to mind is Cunningham's Law which is the wrong one... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law