Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't less page views also mean less donations?
Possible, but Google's also donating to Wikipedia itself: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-milli...
Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
291–299 of 299 posts
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to object to this. Wikimedia as of their audited 2019 financial statements ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim... ) already has ~$53m in short term investments, leaving ~$101m in "cash and cash equivalents", which notably often includes Treasury bonds, CDs, etc, anyways. So they are likely already investing all of their cash into safe, low-yield investments already. Even if they were…
On the flip side, the website hosting only costs $2.3 million annually [0] and the content creators work for free. Even if the Wikimedia Foundation could not survive like that, a lean Wikipedia operation clearly could. [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim...
Hosting costs for Wikipedia are "only" $2.3m, but imagine the legal expense they have, fighting likely millions of takedown requests, malicious lawsuits, complying with local laws and regulations in China, Russia, etc, paying a team of top software engineers to handle running a top-visited site (that by the way, has almost no downtime), a security threat model that includes nation-state actors, and the responsibility that if they fail (by being hacked, or sued, or DDOSd, or whatever), they will have let humanity's library be harmed.
I just can't understand how any casual bystander can complain about Wikipedia or their funding/organizational model. If you don't like it, just don't donate money.
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. But you can still use old.reddit.com. The content is still there, it's just not accessible. So my process has been to search for 'keyword + reddit', click the best search result, then manually type in 'old' in place of 'www' in the url.
That sounds tedious. You should at least be able to skip that last step with one of the various browser extensions to redirect to old.reddit.com automatically, e.g. this thing for Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/old-reddit-redirec...
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the flip side, the website hosting only costs $2.3 million annually [0] and the content creators work for free. Even if the Wikimedia Foundation could not survive like that, a lean Wikipedia operation clearly could. [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim...
I disagree. There is no such thing as a "lean" site that is as popular as Wikipedia (top 5-10 US depending on the day). I believe they are likely the leanest website in the Alexa top 30. The only site that I see that is leaner in the top rankings is Craigslist, currently at #38 in America, and Craigslist is a famously, fantastically, uniquely lean site (in some people's opinions, even to a fault). Hosting costs for W…
Wikimedia Foundation is not fighting any takedown requests. Wikimedia Foundation had exactly ten DMCA requests last year[1]. That’s a bit short of “millions” you believe it does. It does not comply with any local regulations in China or Russia, or elsewhere, because it does not operate in China or Russia (or really anywhere outside US, except caching servers in NL and Singapore). Wikipedia is actually completely blocked in China, and the fact that you did not know that signals your utter unfamiliarity with the realities of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation.
> paying a team of top software engineers to handle running a top-visited site (that by the way, has almost no downtime),
It was already a top visited site when its development team consisted of a single person, Brion Vibber. There have been very little significant development since then, and if there had been zero development since then, you’d probably not even notice.
Now, to be sure, at this scale, it needs some full time round the clock reliability engineers, but you can easily see that their headcount keeps growing, but their site and infrastructure is mostly unchanged.
[1] - https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:DMCA_2019
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#295People saying that this is a good thing because they save on server cost. You are right about that part. But the problem is that the search snippet with wiki powered data is a Google Product. When users consume this data, they become Google customers, not Wikipedia users. Even my little website has seen a 30% drop in traffic, but I appear in much more snippets. Those users get their information and never visit my blo…
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#296I skimmed the article. People search google; it gives a paragraph from Wikipedia. That answers their question, and they go on their way; this has reduced the number of people that click on the link to see Wikipedia. I fail to see the problem. Wikipedia doesn't show ads, and isn't run for profit. If people get the tidbit of info they needed, they've been served. If they didn't click on Wikipedia to get it, that means…
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#297> ...zero-click results have cost Wikipedia’s English language subdomain tens of millions of organic visits. > ...Google was able to steal over 550 million clicks from Wikipedia in six months... "Cost"? "Steal"?! This would make sense if Wikipedia were ad-supported. But Google saves Wikipedia money by requiring less servers to support traffic. And Wikipedia is open content , you literally can't steal from it -- being…
It was actually kind of cool
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. There is no such thing as a "lean" site that is as popular as Wikipedia (top 5-10 US depending on the day). I believe they are likely the leanest website in the Alexa top 30. The only site that I see that is leaner in the top rankings is Craigslist, currently at #38 in America, and Craigslist is a famously, fantastically, uniquely lean site (in some people's opinions, even to a fault). Hosting costs for W…
> but imagine the legal expense they have, fighting likely millions of takedown requests, malicious lawsuits, complying with local laws and regulations in China, Russia Wikimedia Foundation is not fighting any takedown requests. Wikimedia Foundation had exactly ten DMCA requests last year[1]. That’s a bit short of “millions” you believe it does. It does not comply with any local regulations in China or Russia, or els…
The second member of the development team was hired in 2006 [0].
In these ~14 years, quite a few things happened.
Three projects joined the Wikimedia galaxy: Wikiversity in 2006, Wikivoyage adopted in 2012, and frickin’ Wikidata [1] in 2012 − which has deeply reshaped many aspects of the other projects, particularly Wikipedias and Commons.
On the multimedia side of things, we got InstantCommons in 2008 [3], thumbnailing infrastructure changes in 2013, various file format support (TIFF in 2010, FLAC and WAV in 2013, WebM, 3D formats in 2018 [4]) new upload wizard in 2011 [5]. The Graph extension [6] and Wikimedia Maps [7] in 2015. Structured Data on Commons in 2019 [8]. New default skin (Vector) in 2010 [9]. Unified login in 2008 [10]. 2013 brought OAuth [11], Echo notifications [12], Lua scripting [13], VisualEditor [14]. iOS and Android apps [15]. The Wikimedia Cloud Services starting 2012 [2].
(And in terms of size: article count went from ~5M to ~50M [16] ; Commons went from 1M files to 50M files [17])
And that’s just what I’m putting together in a few minutes (Besides my own memory, I’m indebted to [18], a curated timeline up until 2013).
Of course, these may or may not justify the staff size in your book ; but I’d say discounting all of that (and the rest) as “very little significant development” is a bit pushing it. :-)
(And fairly sure that “you’d probably notice” if Wikipedia was still using good’old Monobook skin ;-þ).
[0] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Additional_... [1] https://www.wikidata.org/ [2] https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/ [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/InstantCommons [4] https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2018/02/20/three-dimens... [5] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload_Wizard [6] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Graph [7] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Maps [8] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data [9] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vector [10] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login [11] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:OAuth [12] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Echo_(Notifications) [13] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lua [14] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor [15] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps [16] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias/Table [17] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Milestones [18] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gpaumier/wikipedia-infogra...
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds kind of like a newsgroup, with every client also being a server. I think torrents can be dynamically updated now.[1][2] Maybe we already have the tools we need, we just haven’t put all the pieces together yet. [1] https://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0039.html [2] https://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0046.html
That's right. We need to start thinking decentralized. Instead of using DNS to find a server and HTTP to get the content from it, we should switch to a decentralized lookup of the data itself, sourced from wherever the network can serve it. I don't mind getting one wiki page from Peter and another from Paul.
Web3Torrent adds etherium micropayments to WebTorrent