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

Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

diff.wikimedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 252 posts

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#221

Post by jjk166 »

oldev wrote: post #197
wpietri wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an important question. Sometimes I see rejection of actual good material,so it happens. Often it's well-meaning noobs running afoul of either the essential complexity (encyclopedias are hard) or the incidental complexity (Wikipedia's a bit of a beast). And sometimes it's people who are sure that THEY ARE RIGHT and HOW DARE THOSE PEOPLE. So we always need to look at specific incidents.

If you are a deployment engineer/Windows desktop dev, check out the article on installers. [1] Most of those are obsolete, small and pretty much useless. The one we've been using for 15 years is not listed. Check out the article history. Every time someone tries to update it and add modern, actually useful tools, someone else comes from the woodwork and deletes it. Some of the deletionists don't know what a repackage…

There was extensive discussion on the talk page about criteria for inclusion and one of those criteria is that only software that has a dedicated wikipedia page or with citations showing notability should be included on the list. It doesn't matter that you know something belongs on a list, you need to show that it belongs on the list.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#222

Post by Swenrekcah »

bitstan wrote: post #201
buran77 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at least somewhat helpful information is infinitely better than having nothing at all Maybe, at least as long as we still have a good ratio between reliable and unreliable info (whatever that ratio may be). But as long as someone can piggy-back on this reputation, and most people simply take all that info for granted, the effect of a disingenuous Wiki article is far higher than your average FB "fake news". It's tha…

> the effect of a disingenuous Wiki article is far higher than your average FB "fake news" Wikipedia doesn't profit by weaponizing misinformation. That's FB's business model. All those people who stormed the capital. You think they were FB users or Wiki users? The thought of them diligently reading encyclopedia entries and becoming radicalized has me cackling.

Well, they could have been reading conservapedia

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#223

Post by wpietri »

jjk166 wrote: post #221
oldev wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a deployment engineer/Windows desktop dev, check out the article on installers. [1] Most of those are obsolete, small and pretty much useless. The one we've been using for 15 years is not listed. Check out the article history. Every time someone tries to update it and add modern, actually useful tools, someone else comes from the woodwork and deletes it. Some of the deletionists don't know what a repackage…

There was extensive discussion on the talk page about criteria for inclusion and one of those criteria is that only software that has a dedicated wikipedia page or with citations showing notability should be included on the list. It doesn't matter that you know something belongs on a list, you need to show that it belongs on the list.

Which I'm sure is a reaction to self-promoters trying to edit the page in hopes of boosting their thing to prominence. People who don't edit Wikipedia have no idea how much of a problem spamming attempts are. This can easily lead to beleaguered editors who are inclined to stomp on anything that looks like it might possibly be spam. That's a terrible experience for well-meaning first-time contributors and I'd love to see it improve. But I get how they end up that way.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#224

Post by smsm42 »

8bitsrule wrote: post #214
smsm42 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really bother to contribute to any prominent pages on main Wikis, because in my experience it almost always required fighting with people with huge egos following arcane rules and procedures which they certainly took a lot of time to design and develop but which don't seem like productive use of my time, especially when people who designed them are going to fight me on every step. There are some younger and l…

> I don't really bother to contribute to any prominent pages That's one of the secrets for being left alone. Improving jealously-guarded pages - or bio pages that are overseen by PR folk - is like walking on thin ice. Stay away from politics and celebs. There are lots (millions!) of pages in hundreds of topics that have been rated as high-importance and need lots of TLC ... and don't attract turf-guarders. There are…

The thing is, I'd like to help, but I'm not dedicated that much as to mount a multi-year siege campaign to fix some error in Wikipedia, even if I know it's wrong. Life is short, TODO list is ever-growing and I have only so much attention to be spent on fighting petty bureaucrats. I just know Wikipedia is not to be trusted in any controversial subject, because the advertised idea of finding truth by consensus is false in practice - it's pushing the point of whoever knows the arcane bureaucracy best and is most obsessed and out-games everybody. The factual truth plays very small role in these games.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#225

Post by jokethrowaway »

sph wrote: post #115
nickpp wrote: post #80

Wikipedia may have been an amazing idea in the beginning. Then it got taken over by a bunch of entrenched editors more interested in their own power than the accuracy of the pages' information. Today I can see mistakes and inaccurate info in every niche I am familiar with. Because of that, I cannot trust it on subjects I know nothing about. I tried contributing and fixing but nothing got through. Even worse, the leve…

> Wikipedia may have been an amazing idea in the beginning. > I would gladly pay for an encyclopedia written by actual experts. While you're entitled to your opinion, this is a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side". I'm not a fan of the Wikipedia internal politics, but as a user, Wikipedia is one of the best showcases of the Internet and in my opinion the greatest collaboration project in human hist…

I used to be big on OSS and free for all (maybe because I'm an incredible cheapskate) but I changed my mind. Every service provided for free is maintained by someone working for free.

After being on the maintainer side, working my ** off and not getting anything but more work without recognition or even a "thank you", I can't say I'm happy or positive towards OSS or services that can't sustain themselves. The human cost can't be ignored.

At the same time, working for free is rarely conducive of high quality, even when good engineers are behind it. Even when the quality is good, you can't expect maintenance.

Most of the OSS I use is either unmaintaned, of questionable quality or fake OSS maintained by business to attract/retain developers. There are famous exceptions in OSS (eg. Linux) driven by a few exceptional (and well off) individuals, but that's not the majority of the community. Students doing CV building are another segment of people doing OSS and hoping to get paid in recognition.

If it wasn't for the low level OSS got us used to, it would be easier to have a market of small independent developers selling software and maintaining it.

The same goes for wiki.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#226

Post by warent »

rossdavidh wrote: post #187

I can easily imagine ways that wikipedia could be better, but the reality is that compared to any other online resource, it is the best. I wish it were less political sometimes, but when I look at any other online resource, they are way more polarized. Periodically I read something (usually in HN) about wikipedia controversy, and I admit to some trepidation about their ability to stay objective as they have become so…

The fact that wikipedia works at all is nothing short of a miracle!

There are some inventions where I'm like "Ahh, if only I had thought of that" and wikipedia is NOT one of those. I'm totally confident that even if I had thought of it there's no way I'd believe for 1 second that it would work.

Wikipedia is a wonder of the world.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#227

Post by wpietri »

oldev wrote: post #197
wpietri wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an important question. Sometimes I see rejection of actual good material,so it happens. Often it's well-meaning noobs running afoul of either the essential complexity (encyclopedias are hard) or the incidental complexity (Wikipedia's a bit of a beast). And sometimes it's people who are sure that THEY ARE RIGHT and HOW DARE THOSE PEOPLE. So we always need to look at specific incidents.

If you are a deployment engineer/Windows desktop dev, check out the article on installers. [1] Most of those are obsolete, small and pretty much useless. The one we've been using for 15 years is not listed. Check out the article history. Every time someone tries to update it and add modern, actually useful tools, someone else comes from the woodwork and deletes it. Some of the deletionists don't know what a repackage…

I looked at the last year or so of edits and didn't see anything obviously problematic. What edits specifically concern you?

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#228

Post by 8bitsrule »

smsm42 wrote: post #224
8bitsrule wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really bother to contribute to any prominent pages That's one of the secrets for being left alone. Improving jealously-guarded pages - or bio pages that are overseen by PR folk - is like walking on thin ice. Stay away from politics and celebs. There are lots (millions!) of pages in hundreds of topics that have been rated as high-importance and need lots of TLC ... and don't attract turf-guarders. There are…

The thing is, I'd like to help, but I'm not dedicated that much as to mount a multi-year siege campaign to fix some error in Wikipedia, even if I know it's wrong. Life is short, TODO list is ever-growing and I have only so much attention to be spent on fighting petty bureaucrats. I just know Wikipedia is not to be trusted in any controversial subject, because the advertised idea of finding truth by consensus is false…

That last bit was intended to be humor, smsm42. Although it can be fun.

I totally understand not having the time. I research a lot, and WP's very helpful. So I like to pay back, and if it takes me an hour to discover something, I might add that. Takes a minute. Stick a cite next to a couple of sentences, 99.8% solid. (Unless they have a secretary keeping an eye on their bio. ;-)

Look, anything you have time to improve ... 5 minutes ... can be helpful. I gave several examples. Adding a bit here and there is unlikely to attract 'petty bureaucrats'. They exist, but so do bees. I might hear from someone twice a year, and one of them will be a thanks. It's not like it was 10 years ago.

Anybody who complains, easy to look at their qualifications. Logged in or anonymous? How many edits lately? Sound reason for revert? If not revert back ... and walk away. If so, then: that's collaboration for ya.

When it comes to controversy, WP can be a best bet, in the citations. MANY eyes look those pages over.

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#229

Post by [deleted] »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #225
sph wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wikipedia may have been an amazing idea in the beginning. > I would gladly pay for an encyclopedia written by actual experts. While you're entitled to your opinion, this is a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side". I'm not a fan of the Wikipedia internal politics, but as a user, Wikipedia is one of the best showcases of the Internet and in my opinion the greatest collaboration project in human hist…

I used to be big on OSS and free for all (maybe because I'm an incredible cheapskate) but I changed my mind. Every service provided for free is maintained by someone working for free. After being on the maintainer side, working my ** off and not getting anything but more work without recognition or even a "thank you", I can't say I'm happy or positive towards OSS or services that can't sustain themselves. The human c…

[deleted]

Re: Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation

#230

Post by hibbelig »

mikro2nd wrote: post #184
exolymph wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the actual reason is conflict with the board, or being fed up / burned out with running the operation.

Or perhaps "just" the wisdom to understand that organisations need a change in leadership from time to time, and that such change is best made (as stated) at a time when the organisation is strong and the pressures low. Every leader eventually runs out of steam. My own opinion is that leaders ought to pre-announce their resignation date on the day they take the job in the first place, and that date should be not more…

There are a lot of family owned small and medium businesses. Their leaders do it their whole lives long. I like that.
Post reply on HN