7 ms·

I'm really sad you feel that way. Wikipedia also asks for contributions and donations, does that feel like exploitation to you? No it doesn't, cause there's a

by nglgzz 9y ago

I'm really sad you feel that way. Wikipedia also asks for contributions and donations, does that feel like exploitation to you? No it doesn't, cause there's a massive amount of work that goes in projects like these and there's costs too. Costs that donations don't always pay. Would you prefer a huge banner while you're browsing asking you to donate and telling you that if we don't meet a certain quota we're shutting down the website, or would you prefer having an additional feature that you may or may not want to pay for? I don't know you, but I'd definitely go for the second one.

andrepd 9y ago
Wikipedia is entirely free, and asks for donations to cover its costs. It does not lock any features to paying users only. There is a world of a difference. For this to be the case, on a website made by user contributions no less, is even more upsetting. And yes, I prefer an unreservedly free website with banners reminding you to donate to a website that makes money off locking certain features to paying costumers only.
- nglgzz 9y ago
  It's not about locking features to paying users only. It's about making new features that have enough value to you that you want to pay to use them. Take the example from the white paper (paid help from experts), I don't get how you'd feel exploited that way, since it's not even related to contributions.
  - y4mi 9y ago
    not the parent, but wouldn't contribute on a website that a) gets its content solely from its users and b) locks features away behind a paywall especially if it's for learning. But to each his own and you cannot please everyone. Don't feel discouraged and keep going. The product looks pretty good. ( your simile with wikipedia breaks apart on the b btw, thats why nobody minds it there )
    - nikivi 9y ago
      This is just an idea. As we are still not sure what the best way to support this project financially is. The other option would be to use advertisements but we feel that would actually not help with our goals of providing the best resources available as sponsored content does not necessarily mean the best. For now, the only support we get is through Patreon but that currently does not cover the costs for the servers let alone justify the time commitment it takes to support the website with new features and improvements.
      - nileshtrivedi 9y ago
        So, make it a business. Don't try to be a business AND ask for voluntary contributions at the same time.
    - nglgzz 9y ago
      You wouldn't contribute even if the locked features were unrelated to what you'd be contributing to?
      - echelon 9y ago
        Absolutely not. Why would I offer to build someone else's castle without reward? I'll gladly contribute to something everyone owns and has rights to, but under no circumstances will I do this for complete strangers that seek to capitalize upon my efforts. I only do that in exchange for a salary.
        nikivi 9y ago
        Would you then also not contribute to Reddit? You are also contributing content to their website that they then use to serve other people ads. There is also Reddit Gold that you can buy to unlock some perks. The idea is the same for this website. Although we don't want to serve other people ads as we think there are better business models than that.
        9y ago
- z0r 9y ago
  This is not related to your main point, but arguably Wikipedia is raising millions of dollars under false pretenses (that is, they run scare ads insisting that money is needed to keep the servers running) while the Wikimedia Foundation spends most of it on projects users don't know about and wouldn't want to fund. I think if the fundraising was more transparent more people would never donate to them again. It's been a number of years since my last donation and I won't be giving to them again until I'm sure the money will be used responsibly.
  - foota 9y ago
    I don't know, taking a look at their 15-16 annual plan it looks fairly reasonable to me.
  - sigi45 9y ago
    Donation to wikipedia is still something i do regularly. I believe in wikipedia and in the people running it.
TheCowboy 9y ago
You're talking at your customers and/or unpaid contributors here instead of talking with them. The content you're asking people to create requires a massive amount of work. Pretending it is same social/economic contract as Wikipedia is just going to turn people off if you do add a premium version. You are better off being direct and transparent about your funding model if you want people to help. What features would be premium and why is that acceptable? The about page looks like you plan on being a non-profit organization, is that the goal?
- nikivi 9y ago
  Our goal is to create a completely Open Source website where we share both the code that runs the website and also all the data that was created and curated with it. In the white paper it mentions that the 'premium' features will in no way block any curated content. The 'premium' features will simply be extra things that we will build like the mentioned `Experts` that you can get direct help from. Again this is just an idea and in no way final. We wish the project was fully sustained through donations and we currently run no advertisements or anything in which we in some way profit from so in this way we are indeed a non-profit organisation. However we do want to find a way where we can support maintaining the website by paying for the costs of the servers and the developer time that goes into making this project as amazing as it can be. We are open to ideas on how we can make this better for everyone. Everything is Open Source and MIT licensed.
  - mcny 9y ago
    > The 'premium' features will simply be extra things that we will build like the mentioned `Experts` that you can get direct help from. Sounds like the 'premium' features are completely unrelated to this project. I think it will make life easier for you if you completely removed them and spun them off to a different project. (I anal btw)
    - nikivi 9y ago
      I actually agree with you there. And I think this is the way we will do it. So our current ways people can support us are through donations and that is it. Is there anything else do you think we can do aside from advertisements which we want to avoid?
nileshtrivedi 9y ago
When I donate to Wikipedia, I get the assurance that the work produced will be available to the public at large and not locked behind paywalls. Superficially, that's true here too. But I don't want to contribute to projects that are building walled gardens - even indirectly. I would rather contribute to others.

by nglgzz 9y ago

andrepd 9y ago

Wikipedia is entirely free, and asks for donations to cover its costs. It does not lock any features to paying users only. There is a world of a difference. For this to be the case, on a website made by user contributions no less, is even more upsetting. And yes, I prefer an unreservedly free website with banners reminding you to donate to a website that makes money off locking certain features to paying costumers only.

nglgzz 9y ago
It's not about locking features to paying users only. It's about making new features that have enough value to you that you want to pay to use them. Take the example from the white paper (paid help from experts), I don't get how you'd feel exploited that way, since it's not even related to contributions.
- y4mi 9y ago
  not the parent, but wouldn't contribute on a website that a) gets its content solely from its users and b) locks features away behind a paywall especially if it's for learning. But to each his own and you cannot please everyone. Don't feel discouraged and keep going. The product looks pretty good. ( your simile with wikipedia breaks apart on the b btw, thats why nobody minds it there )
  - nikivi 9y ago
    This is just an idea. As we are still not sure what the best way to support this project financially is. The other option would be to use advertisements but we feel that would actually not help with our goals of providing the best resources available as sponsored content does not necessarily mean the best. For now, the only support we get is through Patreon but that currently does not cover the costs for the servers let alone justify the time commitment it takes to support the website with new features and improvements.
    - nileshtrivedi 9y ago
      So, make it a business. Don't try to be a business AND ask for voluntary contributions at the same time.
  - nglgzz 9y ago
    You wouldn't contribute even if the locked features were unrelated to what you'd be contributing to?
    - echelon 9y ago
      Absolutely not. Why would I offer to build someone else's castle without reward? I'll gladly contribute to something everyone owns and has rights to, but under no circumstances will I do this for complete strangers that seek to capitalize upon my efforts. I only do that in exchange for a salary.
      - nikivi 9y ago
        Would you then also not contribute to Reddit? You are also contributing content to their website that they then use to serve other people ads. There is also Reddit Gold that you can buy to unlock some perks. The idea is the same for this website. Although we don't want to serve other people ads as we think there are better business models than that.
        9y ago
z0r 9y ago
This is not related to your main point, but arguably Wikipedia is raising millions of dollars under false pretenses (that is, they run scare ads insisting that money is needed to keep the servers running) while the Wikimedia Foundation spends most of it on projects users don't know about and wouldn't want to fund. I think if the fundraising was more transparent more people would never donate to them again. It's been a number of years since my last donation and I won't be giving to them again until I'm sure the money will be used responsibly.
- foota 9y ago
  I don't know, taking a look at their 15-16 annual plan it looks fairly reasonable to me.
- sigi45 9y ago
  Donation to wikipedia is still something i do regularly. I believe in wikipedia and in the people running it.

TheCowboy 9y ago

You're talking at your customers and/or unpaid contributors here instead of talking with them. The content you're asking people to create requires a massive amount of work. Pretending it is same social/economic contract as Wikipedia is just going to turn people off if you do add a premium version. You are better off being direct and transparent about your funding model if you want people to help. What features would be premium and why is that acceptable? The about page looks like you plan on being a non-profit organization, is that the goal?

nikivi 9y ago
Our goal is to create a completely Open Source website where we share both the code that runs the website and also all the data that was created and curated with it. In the white paper it mentions that the 'premium' features will in no way block any curated content. The 'premium' features will simply be extra things that we will build like the mentioned `Experts` that you can get direct help from. Again this is just an idea and in no way final. We wish the project was fully sustained through donations and we currently run no advertisements or anything in which we in some way profit from so in this way we are indeed a non-profit organisation. However we do want to find a way where we can support maintaining the website by paying for the costs of the servers and the developer time that goes into making this project as amazing as it can be. We are open to ideas on how we can make this better for everyone. Everything is Open Source and MIT licensed.
- mcny 9y ago
  > The 'premium' features will simply be extra things that we will build like the mentioned `Experts` that you can get direct help from. Sounds like the 'premium' features are completely unrelated to this project. I think it will make life easier for you if you completely removed them and spun them off to a different project. (I anal btw)
  - nikivi 9y ago
    I actually agree with you there. And I think this is the way we will do it. So our current ways people can support us are through donations and that is it. Is there anything else do you think we can do aside from advertisements which we want to avoid?

nileshtrivedi 9y ago

When I donate to Wikipedia, I get the assurance that the work produced will be available to the public at large and not locked behind paywalls. Superficially, that's true here too. But I don't want to contribute to projects that are building walled gardens - even indirectly. I would rather contribute to others.