11 ms·

Great article, thanks for doing what you do ;)

Markoff 9y ago
you mean making huge profits from donations? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/?utm_term=.e8fbc81a9606 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12...
- godzillabrennus 9y ago
  They provide a valuable service, it's better to see them thrive than be close to failure.
  - Markoff 9y ago
    they don't provide anything, they use outdated software provided by volunteer, their content is managed by volunteers for free and pretty much only expenses they have to run Wikipedia are servers but they still have 300 people in payroll
    - strathmeyer 9y ago
      It must be real tough to run a smear job here.
      - pwdisswordfish 9y ago
        With HN being such an echo chamber, indeed it is.
        Markoff 9y ago
        yeah, I thought Reddit is echo chamber, but judging by comments here I am reconsidering my opinion and find people on Reddit more reasonable and open minded
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- losteric 9y ago
  Did you read that article? Their reserve of 1.5 years of operational funding seems prudent. That $MM donation stream is a pittance considering their scale - orders of magnitude larger than most VC-funded startups.
  - Markoff 9y ago
    i read they have 300 employees who create zero content on Wikipedia which is created by volunteers for free
    - F_r_k 9y ago
      Who supervises the servers ? Who creates Wikipedia ? Who defends Wikipedia legally ?
    - a3_nm 9y ago
      Speaking as a Wikipedia "volunteer" (or rather "editor"), I think it is in fact a very good idea that the Foundation takes no editorial responsibilities (except reacting to legal challenges via so-called "office actions"). It means that editors don't have to worry about legal, sysadmin, PR, etc.; and conversely WMF is not directly responsible for Wikipedia content. Believe me, it would be silly for WMF to be involved in all editorial disputes about what should or shouldn't be on Wikipedia, how things should be formatted, etc., in all languages. Basically, the foundation is managing the playground where the editors can build an encyclopedia (along with other projects, e.g., Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, etc.), and then mostly leaves the community alone (with some exceptions, not all of which were well-perceived). Given the scale of Wikimedia projects, I don't think 300 employees is excessive (it's very little when looking at other sites in the Alexa rankings except Reddit), and it's great that the expenses can be supported by donations so WMF doesn't have to depend on other people than readers. I don't see why I would mind that WMF staff gets a salary and editors don't -- editing Wikipedia is not my full-time job, but running it is theirs. (In fact, to the extent that editing Wikipedia is part of my job as a public researcher, I already get a salary from my institution...) It's easier to manage Wikipedia content with volunteers (where most processes don't depend on one single person and where there are little firm deadlines) but to have paid staff to manage operations (if the website goes down you want someone to have a look immediately). OK, it would be conceivable that the foundation could offer grants to pay some full-time editors, or redistribute money as small gifts, or as a lottery, or something, but it raises a lot of complicated questions (I don't know whether the topic has been discussed before) and I'm not sure it would be worth the effort. Another important point is that the WMF is not a company but a nonprofit, so it is reasonably transparent, and many people in the staff are chosen through elections. It's not like individuals are getting large dividends from donations to the WMF. I my opinion, the most important point to keep in mind is that WMF asks for volunteer work, but the outcome of that work is shared on fair terms with the public. If I want, I can just grab their entire database https://dumps.wikimedia.org/ https://dumps.wikimedia.org/ and software https://www.mediawiki.org/ https://www.mediawiki.org/ and start hosting a mirror with the data, and I have both the technical possibility and the legal right to do it. So WMF is not like companies who ask for volunteer work and then keep it behind closed doors (e.g., the volunteer Google Maps editors, or the historical CDDB example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB#History).
- justicezyx 9y ago
  Come on, FB makes way more money on an user by building social echo chamber and ads... Wiki give user knowledge, probably one of the highest quality sources...
  - Markoff 9y ago
    FB is not asking me for donations and FB pay to people working for them unlike Wikipedia parasiting on work of volunteers pretending to be non profit organization so 300 people can enjoy doing nothing for good salary
    - avh02 9y ago
      With FB you're the product, your data is milked and sold. Have fun with your "free" social network. What a poor example of what you consider the viable alternative.
      - Markoff 9y ago
        learn to read, I was just responding to someone who mentioned FB, never said anything about being alternative to wikipedia, you are writing to wrong person
        sctb 9y ago
        You've been breaking the guidelines all over the place in this thread. Please don't do this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - singold 9y ago
      Does FB pay people who create content there? Afaik they don't. I'm that sense I prefer YouTube that at least shares ad revenue with creators.
    - quickben 9y ago
      No, FB forever locks one into a tiny little echo chamber, so one never learn anything else besides what one clicked on and what they can sell. But am I to judge. There are encyclopedias and yellow press, and happiness is very subjective.
- omginternets 9y ago
  Are profits in and of themselves evil now?
- jacquesm 9y ago
  I have a hard time choosing what's the best thing to come out of the internet: WikiPedia or the Khan Academy. If you're so intent on smearing WikiPedia it would probably help you if you studied it for a bit before spouting off a bunch of nonsense in this thread. I get it: you don't like WikiPedia because they ask you for a donation. Note that you're under no obligation whatsoever to donate and that the content is yours for the taking. As compared to say owning the Encyclopedia Britannica, which took on average a tree (or two) to print and was outdated the day you received it. On top of that it took up a huge shelf and cost as much as a car.
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    I agree on their impact but disagree on best ons: it's Google. They let people reliably get the content they needed. Later made great email system, cheap alternatives to Microsoft, a browser, and so on. If I need Wikipedia article, Google will put the right one on top plus other sources right below it. Google is awesome.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      No, Google is large. But without Google Wikipedia would still be around, without content sites Google wouldn't exist. And as for email: I'd much rather have the federated system we used to have rather than the few big players that are dominating the market (I'll never give up running my own email server), cheap alternatives to Microsoft already existed (OpenOffice), and an advertising company producing a browser is just plain wrong. Google is terrible, but we'll just have to live with it.
      - nickpsecurity 9y ago
        Your response surprises me because you're old enough to have tried to find information before major search engines for WWW existed. The process involved mostly word-of-mouth, finding obscure sources, books, consultants, academic journals, associations, and so on. As Internet grew, we got that over dial-up lines with shitty search engines. Eventually, with early Web, I had to painfully grab all this content you talk about with a handful of search engines whose strengths and weaknesses varied. Most lay people thought they sucked with many using the older methods as often as search. Then, there was Google. Initially, it was just another tool in my meta-search toolbox. It grew to index massive number of content sites, its engine filtered bullshit a bit better, its presentation was efficient/clean, and its front-page results were better than the competition. Got to the point that lay people adopted it massively with most of them talking about how it improved their productivity, learning, and entertainment. They supplanted that on video side with YouTube. I continued to use Google to find info I needed before and during build of Wikipedia. It found the Wikipedia articles along with others that may or may not be better. Many people told me they also do what I do: just Google the topic if you're interested in a Wikipedia article since it will be on or near the top anyway. The productivity and discovery benefits of Google were huge. They just went up with its massive market share and investments. So many people benefit from it for finding content now that they literally tell people to "Google" something instead of search for it. Wikipedia could disappear and I could find all that information through Google. Actually, Google plus Wayback Machine if I'm being totally honest. Content pages can disappear but the archive can keep them. So, Google plus Wayback Machine were most amazing things to me with one giving me everything I need to know plus other preserving everything I need or might want to know. You think that's terrible but I say it's awesome. The problems you mention come from the market's and voters' preference rather than Google's excellence at search. Market chose to go to surveillance model. They punish most who try to free us from it. The voters chose to put corrupt people in office who would pass or strengthen IP laws benefiting the bribing few over the many. They chose temporary safety over liberty later. Different choices could've led to a very different Google (or replacement). I blame the demand side since they seem to always pull that shit.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  They don't make any profit from anything. Profit is a concept from commercial entities, and has no meaning when applied to the Wikimedia Foundation

you mean making huge profits from donations? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/?utm_term=.e8fbc81a9606 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12...

godzillabrennus 9y ago
They provide a valuable service, it's better to see them thrive than be close to failure.
- Markoff 9y ago
  they don't provide anything, they use outdated software provided by volunteer, their content is managed by volunteers for free and pretty much only expenses they have to run Wikipedia are servers but they still have 300 people in payroll
  - strathmeyer 9y ago
    It must be real tough to run a smear job here.
    - pwdisswordfish 9y ago
      With HN being such an echo chamber, indeed it is.
      - Markoff 9y ago
        yeah, I thought Reddit is echo chamber, but judging by comments here I am reconsidering my opinion and find people on Reddit more reasonable and open minded
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
losteric 9y ago
Did you read that article? Their reserve of 1.5 years of operational funding seems prudent. That $MM donation stream is a pittance considering their scale - orders of magnitude larger than most VC-funded startups.
- Markoff 9y ago
  i read they have 300 employees who create zero content on Wikipedia which is created by volunteers for free
  - F_r_k 9y ago
    Who supervises the servers ? Who creates Wikipedia ? Who defends Wikipedia legally ?
  - a3_nm 9y ago
    Speaking as a Wikipedia "volunteer" (or rather "editor"), I think it is in fact a very good idea that the Foundation takes no editorial responsibilities (except reacting to legal challenges via so-called "office actions"). It means that editors don't have to worry about legal, sysadmin, PR, etc.; and conversely WMF is not directly responsible for Wikipedia content. Believe me, it would be silly for WMF to be involved in all editorial disputes about what should or shouldn't be on Wikipedia, how things should be formatted, etc., in all languages. Basically, the foundation is managing the playground where the editors can build an encyclopedia (along with other projects, e.g., Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, etc.), and then mostly leaves the community alone (with some exceptions, not all of which were well-perceived). Given the scale of Wikimedia projects, I don't think 300 employees is excessive (it's very little when looking at other sites in the Alexa rankings except Reddit), and it's great that the expenses can be supported by donations so WMF doesn't have to depend on other people than readers. I don't see why I would mind that WMF staff gets a salary and editors don't -- editing Wikipedia is not my full-time job, but running it is theirs. (In fact, to the extent that editing Wikipedia is part of my job as a public researcher, I already get a salary from my institution...) It's easier to manage Wikipedia content with volunteers (where most processes don't depend on one single person and where there are little firm deadlines) but to have paid staff to manage operations (if the website goes down you want someone to have a look immediately). OK, it would be conceivable that the foundation could offer grants to pay some full-time editors, or redistribute money as small gifts, or as a lottery, or something, but it raises a lot of complicated questions (I don't know whether the topic has been discussed before) and I'm not sure it would be worth the effort. Another important point is that the WMF is not a company but a nonprofit, so it is reasonably transparent, and many people in the staff are chosen through elections. It's not like individuals are getting large dividends from donations to the WMF. I my opinion, the most important point to keep in mind is that WMF asks for volunteer work, but the outcome of that work is shared on fair terms with the public. If I want, I can just grab their entire database https://dumps.wikimedia.org/ https://dumps.wikimedia.org/ and software https://www.mediawiki.org/ https://www.mediawiki.org/ and start hosting a mirror with the data, and I have both the technical possibility and the legal right to do it. So WMF is not like companies who ask for volunteer work and then keep it behind closed doors (e.g., the volunteer Google Maps editors, or the historical CDDB example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB#History).
justicezyx 9y ago
Come on, FB makes way more money on an user by building social echo chamber and ads... Wiki give user knowledge, probably one of the highest quality sources...
- Markoff 9y ago
  FB is not asking me for donations and FB pay to people working for them unlike Wikipedia parasiting on work of volunteers pretending to be non profit organization so 300 people can enjoy doing nothing for good salary
  - avh02 9y ago
    With FB you're the product, your data is milked and sold. Have fun with your "free" social network. What a poor example of what you consider the viable alternative.
    - Markoff 9y ago
      learn to read, I was just responding to someone who mentioned FB, never said anything about being alternative to wikipedia, you are writing to wrong person
      - sctb 9y ago
        You've been breaking the guidelines all over the place in this thread. Please don't do this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - singold 9y ago
    Does FB pay people who create content there? Afaik they don't. I'm that sense I prefer YouTube that at least shares ad revenue with creators.
  - quickben 9y ago
    No, FB forever locks one into a tiny little echo chamber, so one never learn anything else besides what one clicked on and what they can sell. But am I to judge. There are encyclopedias and yellow press, and happiness is very subjective.
omginternets 9y ago
Are profits in and of themselves evil now?
jacquesm 9y ago
I have a hard time choosing what's the best thing to come out of the internet: WikiPedia or the Khan Academy. If you're so intent on smearing WikiPedia it would probably help you if you studied it for a bit before spouting off a bunch of nonsense in this thread. I get it: you don't like WikiPedia because they ask you for a donation. Note that you're under no obligation whatsoever to donate and that the content is yours for the taking. As compared to say owning the Encyclopedia Britannica, which took on average a tree (or two) to print and was outdated the day you received it. On top of that it took up a huge shelf and cost as much as a car.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  I agree on their impact but disagree on best ons: it's Google. They let people reliably get the content they needed. Later made great email system, cheap alternatives to Microsoft, a browser, and so on. If I need Wikipedia article, Google will put the right one on top plus other sources right below it. Google is awesome.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    No, Google is large. But without Google Wikipedia would still be around, without content sites Google wouldn't exist. And as for email: I'd much rather have the federated system we used to have rather than the few big players that are dominating the market (I'll never give up running my own email server), cheap alternatives to Microsoft already existed (OpenOffice), and an advertising company producing a browser is just plain wrong. Google is terrible, but we'll just have to live with it.
    - nickpsecurity 9y ago
      Your response surprises me because you're old enough to have tried to find information before major search engines for WWW existed. The process involved mostly word-of-mouth, finding obscure sources, books, consultants, academic journals, associations, and so on. As Internet grew, we got that over dial-up lines with shitty search engines. Eventually, with early Web, I had to painfully grab all this content you talk about with a handful of search engines whose strengths and weaknesses varied. Most lay people thought they sucked with many using the older methods as often as search. Then, there was Google. Initially, it was just another tool in my meta-search toolbox. It grew to index massive number of content sites, its engine filtered bullshit a bit better, its presentation was efficient/clean, and its front-page results were better than the competition. Got to the point that lay people adopted it massively with most of them talking about how it improved their productivity, learning, and entertainment. They supplanted that on video side with YouTube. I continued to use Google to find info I needed before and during build of Wikipedia. It found the Wikipedia articles along with others that may or may not be better. Many people told me they also do what I do: just Google the topic if you're interested in a Wikipedia article since it will be on or near the top anyway. The productivity and discovery benefits of Google were huge. They just went up with its massive market share and investments. So many people benefit from it for finding content now that they literally tell people to "Google" something instead of search for it. Wikipedia could disappear and I could find all that information through Google. Actually, Google plus Wayback Machine if I'm being totally honest. Content pages can disappear but the archive can keep them. So, Google plus Wayback Machine were most amazing things to me with one giving me everything I need to know plus other preserving everything I need or might want to know. You think that's terrible but I say it's awesome. The problems you mention come from the market's and voters' preference rather than Google's excellence at search. Market chose to go to surveillance model. They punish most who try to free us from it. The voters chose to put corrupt people in office who would pass or strengthen IP laws benefiting the bribing few over the many. They chose temporary safety over liberty later. Different choices could've led to a very different Google (or replacement). I blame the demand side since they seem to always pull that shit.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jimnotgym 9y ago
They don't make any profit from anything. Profit is a concept from commercial entities, and has no meaning when applied to the Wikimedia Foundation