261–270 of 464 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, as a non profit the other 55% or so (approximately 95m) goes to salaries? That's interesting considering how much work is performed by volunteers.
How so? I imagine there are many things involved with Wikipedia that volunteer editors don't do.
How is it not conflict of interest when Google's AI summary (which is sometimes hilariously wrong) takes a click away from websites that pay for ads? Specially if it was trained on those websites
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look up their latest annual report ( https://wikimediafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/W... ) you can see that they're allocating ~1.7% of their expenses towards hosting. I doubt that they're getting "hugged to death" by AI scrapers.
People cite this figure a lot, but its a little misleading because when you own your own servers a lot of the expenses that are typically hosting actually fall under a different category. If you use AWS, the people hired to manage the servers is part of the price tag. When you own your own you have to actually hire those people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we need Wikipedia competitors. Wikipedia is a victim of it's own success, it was excellent at avoiding bias for quite awhile and the vast majority of articles are extremely well written. However it's massive popularity and dominance have also led to, well this guy put it best: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_...
Elon Musk is launching Grokipedia this week as a competition to Wikipedia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.
Well, any writes are reverted within seconds by the gatekeepers, but sure, ok.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just as a start, other sources of reference, including encylopedias, dictionaries This just seems like healthy competition. I thought we were talking about a situation where Wikipedia’s use of other encyclopedias is an instrument of their demise. > Maybe there's a little bias there Paradoxically, I suspect you’d be pleasantly surprised about how tough this article is on itself. A lot of attention is given to bias i…
> "It is much harder to elicit such a response regarding Wikipedia in my experience" You're sincerely claiming that people can't think of times they've seen vandalism on Wikipedia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Wikimedia Foundation is unlikely to last for 1000 years as an organisation because it doesn't exist within a social / economic system that will last for 1000 years. The US government is already actively plotting against it. Sure, they can try hopping from one country to another, but it won't be sustainable for that long. It's not even certain if Wikipedia itself can exist for such a long period, given fragility o…
> The US government is already actively plotting against it. If we're going to take the actions of a couple of low level dope legislatures as, "the US government" and a toothless investigation as "actively plotting against", sure.
Investments can fail, such as bank deposits (bank collapses), shares (company goes bankrupt), government bonds (government defaults), commodities (price fluctuations as they go in or out of favour.)
Theft can also occur, including by corrupt insiders (sometimes even legally, just by inflating their salaries to ridiculous levels.)
The chance of remaining intact for 1000 years seems very low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.
Have you actually tried editing wikipedia? It's extremely difficult to get anything approved. You have to provide multiple credible sources for things or else the mods just revert/delete your page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were any on these topics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#L...
What percentage of Wikipedia does that cover? The entire world's knowledge has some controversial topics? Oh my! Burn it! Burn it all!! The librarians of Alexandria would have killed for Wikipedia. It's easily our greatest digital achievement. This is a hill on which I would happily fight to my metaphorical death, here and now. If you disagree, let's discuss please.