3 ms·

Maybe a bit off-topic, but I don't think we should use the word "cancer" that way.

by skdotdan 9y ago

jmcdiesel 9y ago
Why? its a valid analogy.
- watwut 9y ago
  It is inflammatory tactic to make those who already agree with you clap - but it won't convince those who disagree. It turns rational argument into attention seeking.
- skdotdan 9y ago
  Okay, maybe it's just me.
  - allengeorge 9y ago
    Nope - not just you. I opened it thinking it'd be about how the WMF was preying on other organizations, but what I got was...very different.
    - jmcdiesel 9y ago
      Cancer isnt a predator... why would you expect that?
- VLM 9y ago
  Its imprecise in that I expected to see a story about the deletionist problem. They are why I refuse to donate, I know I'm not alone. Its interesting that expenses are out of control, but isn't what I expected. It is slightly above clickbait titles "top ten reasons you'll never believe ..." but not much better.
- gjm11 9y ago
  It really isn't. What makes cancer special isn't just that it grows. It's that it grows and thereby kills its host: it consumes the resources the host needs to live, or blocks tubes that need to stay open, or squashes things that are damaged by squashing, or whatever. None of that seems applicable here. Wikipedia is getting more and more donation money, and spending it. That's only cancerous if it's spending the money on things that harm it, or if somehow this process is diverting resources away from things Wikipedia actually needs. There's no sign of any of that, so far as I can see, and to tell a scary story the article makes predictions of hypothetical future doom. If those predictions come true then OK, we can say that Wikipedia has cancer (or maybe some other ailment that's a better analogy). For now, so far as I can see the analogy just isn't there unless you take "cancer" to mean absolutely anything that grows. I don't think that's a helpful way to use the term.
lawik 9y ago
I could agree if it were used as an insult but now it is quite clearly a descriptive analogy on the danger of unrestrained growth.

Maybe a bit off-topic, but I don't think we should use the word "cancer" that way.

jmcdiesel 9y ago

Why? its a valid analogy.

watwut 9y ago
It is inflammatory tactic to make those who already agree with you clap - but it won't convince those who disagree. It turns rational argument into attention seeking.
skdotdan 9y ago
Okay, maybe it's just me.
- allengeorge 9y ago
  Nope - not just you. I opened it thinking it'd be about how the WMF was preying on other organizations, but what I got was...very different.
  - jmcdiesel 9y ago
    Cancer isnt a predator... why would you expect that?
VLM 9y ago
Its imprecise in that I expected to see a story about the deletionist problem. They are why I refuse to donate, I know I'm not alone. Its interesting that expenses are out of control, but isn't what I expected. It is slightly above clickbait titles "top ten reasons you'll never believe ..." but not much better.
gjm11 9y ago
It really isn't. What makes cancer special isn't just that it grows. It's that it grows and thereby kills its host: it consumes the resources the host needs to live, or blocks tubes that need to stay open, or squashes things that are damaged by squashing, or whatever. None of that seems applicable here. Wikipedia is getting more and more donation money, and spending it. That's only cancerous if it's spending the money on things that harm it, or if somehow this process is diverting resources away from things Wikipedia actually needs. There's no sign of any of that, so far as I can see, and to tell a scary story the article makes predictions of hypothetical future doom. If those predictions come true then OK, we can say that Wikipedia has cancer (or maybe some other ailment that's a better analogy). For now, so far as I can see the analogy just isn't there unless you take "cancer" to mean absolutely anything that grows. I don't think that's a helpful way to use the term.

lawik 9y ago

I could agree if it were used as an insult but now it is quite clearly a descriptive analogy on the danger of unrestrained growth.