51–60 of 76 posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER (2016, updated through 2020)
You can agree or disagree with the conclusions, and agree or disagree on the value of WMF's non-wikipedia projects, but the facts are not in dispute (annual revenue, expenses, net assets are all from WMF published figures).
Previously:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21699011
This is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I'm curious what folks think: I don't like Wikipedia. I think it's done more harm than good, I think the editing process is biased, skews to the political left or right (depending on the article), Wikipedia also generally skews secular and humanist (because that's the nature of most contributors). References constantly 404, but that's not even the main problem: refere…
On the one hand, I don’t think Wikipedia has made people like me smarter. Maybe the opposite: for all the diversity of opinion I think there’s way more outright BS on Wikipedia than in, say, Brittanica.
On the other hand, I can imagine lots of people don’t have easy access to more “authoritative” sources. And I’ve certainly learned a little bit about a lot of things there.
In the middle, I guess, Wikipedia is a good place to start learning about something, but a terrible place to finish.
As to financing it, I’ve always held the unpopular position that they should run ads. It would be the perfect place to try privacy-respecting advertising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
. Is the non profit to gate people from editing if arbitrary diversity requirements aren't met? The best part about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, anyone can run it, and nobody can lock up its content (for whatever reason). Look no further to Mozilla to see what happens when a non profit fails to meet it's mandate and is stuck with "peacocks" (folks who prioritize status or signaling > substance) instead of pr…
> The best part about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, anyone can run it, and nobody can lock up its content (for whatever reason). This is true in the same sense that anyone can track down and fix bugs in the Linux kernel. Now, I have certainly done so, but I've done it as an employee for a big and profitable company who had plenty of time to spend on it. Wikipedia is similar - it is superficially open to every…
Which in practise also requires skill and effort. Even importing the xml dump file into a mysql database in reasonable time requires special skill when we are talking data in the 100 gb range before decompressing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it is going to a management class fighting over project funding for new initiatives Why are they fighting to fund new initiatives when Jimmy has to beg for donations just to keep the lights on? I want my money to go towards keeping current Wikipedia's lights on, not funding the next big idea some manager has.
They don't have to beg for donations to keep the lights on. That's kind of the problem. They are vastly overfunded for running wikipedia and mostly squander any additional income they receive on non-Wikipedia projects. This is very well documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER They get more and more in donations every year and continue to ramp up their spending, mostly not on Wikipedia (neither operat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it is going to a management class fighting over project funding for new initiatives Why are they fighting to fund new initiatives when Jimmy has to beg for donations just to keep the lights on? I want my money to go towards keeping current Wikipedia's lights on, not funding the next big idea some manager has.
They don't have to beg for donations to keep the lights on. That's kind of the problem. They are vastly overfunded for running wikipedia and mostly squander any additional income they receive on non-Wikipedia projects. This is very well documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER They get more and more in donations every year and continue to ramp up their spending, mostly not on Wikipedia (neither operat…
"About a year ago, you donated $15 to keep Wikipedia online for hundreds of millions of readers. I'm surprised by and deeply grateful for your continued support. You are part of the 2% of readers who donated to support Wikipedia. We need your help again this year ... most people will ignore this message. We have no choice but to turn to you: please renew your gift to ensure that Wikipedia remains independent, ad-free, and thriving another year."
I read that as "please donate or we might have to use ads to keep lights on if you don't"
I've donated thousands of dollars to Wikimedia over the years. Before I retired, I took frequent advantage of my company's policy for matching donations, doubling the amount I gave. After retirement, I set my "Amazon Smile" donations to go there. Maybe I'm bragging, but I just want to show I actually care about the topic. I know children's cancer and other horrible things pull on more heart strings, but Wikipedia mak…
And that the foundation's software initiatives have been largely innefective at getting more/better content? [0]
(I've also donated to Wikimedia in the past and contributed to Wikipedia itself)
[0] https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9qqds7Z3Ykd9Kdeay/...
This is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I'm curious what folks think: I don't like Wikipedia. I think it's done more harm than good, I think the editing process is biased, skews to the political left or right (depending on the article), Wikipedia also generally skews secular and humanist (because that's the nature of most contributors). References constantly 404, but that's not even the main problem: refere…
Really? Technical subjects tend to be some of the worst on wikipedia. Articles on say undergrad math topics tend to be very poor introductions to a topic.
> Because there's a new phenomenon where one reads the Wiki page of a complex topic (say, something like Free Will) and 5 minutes later, the reader thinks they're a bonafide expert on a topic that has puzzled humanity for millennia
I don't think this is a new thing. Encyclopedia articles are by nature introductory. Didn't the same thing happen with britanica back in the day. This seems less an argument against wikipedia and more an argument against letting lay people have access to educational resources at all.
> I really wish Encyclopaedia Britannica put more efforts into their own knowledge base, but I get it: high-quality vetted content is hard to do.
But is Britannica actually high quality? When people do comparisons, britannica doesnt usually come out as being significantly better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Compa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What were the problems with the "lila era management" in your opinion? The article made it sound like there were just some well intentioned decisions received poorly, that led to that person being sacked. But there's often a festering hoard of management issues beneath what's apparent to outsiders like us, and I'm wondering if that was the case here.
Ultimately there was a lack of confidence in Lila's leadership. The how & why doesn't matter if you can't effectively lead people. See also https://www.mollywhite.net/wikimedia-timeline/
On the contrary, how could any CEO lead an organisation that is dysfunctionally structured in the first place?
I'm not commenting on Lila, of whom I know nothing. Rather, I'm looking at the structure of WMF and the Wikipedia product and seeing disconnects and ambiguities.
Wikipedia's value comes from its content, which is provided by contributors who are not paid.
Wikipedia's budget goes to WMF staff, and capex approved by... I don't know whom. But who directs the effort of staff? This is where the org's structure appears to have resulted in years of frustration and dysfunction for all concerned.
How is WMF's strategic direction determined?
What is the role of the founder and public face, Jimmy Wales?
What is the role of the WMF CEO?
What is the role of the Funds Dissemination Committee?
What is the role and influence of large doners?
How are conflicts resolved between these levels of stakeholders?
Those are the key questions that I would want to understand before considering whether I would donate to WMF.
I've just started by reading the below articles. If anyone can add to this list, including with personal observations by insiders, I'd be grateful.
Wikipedia Foundation exec: Yes, we've been wasting your money
https://www.theregister.com/2013/10/08/wikipedia_foundation_...
Wikimedia timeline of events, 2014–2016
https://www.mollywhite.net/wikimedia-timeline/
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-02-10/Special report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
I've donated thousands of dollars to Wikimedia over the years. Before I retired, I took frequent advantage of my company's policy for matching donations, doubling the amount I gave. After retirement, I set my "Amazon Smile" donations to go there. Maybe I'm bragging, but I just want to show I actually care about the topic. I know children's cancer and other horrible things pull on more heart strings, but Wikipedia mak…
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collaboration/Flow_sati...
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_ren...
3. Wikipedia Reward Board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward_board
This is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I'm curious what folks think: I don't like Wikipedia. I think it's done more harm than good, I think the editing process is biased, skews to the political left or right (depending on the article), Wikipedia also generally skews secular and humanist (because that's the nature of most contributors). References constantly 404, but that's not even the main problem: refere…
> The only articles that are high quality tend to be very technical ones Really? Technical subjects tend to be some of the worst on wikipedia. Articles on say undergrad math topics tend to be very poor introductions to a topic. > Because there's a new phenomenon where one reads the Wiki page of a complex topic (say, something like Free Will) and 5 minutes later, the reader thinks they're a bonafide expert on a topic…
True, that's why I said very technical. The ones on advanced math are pretty good (for example, technical logic/metalogic articles have impressed me). The ones on undergrad math tend to be edited by.. undergrads ;)