4 ms·

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 am

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?
    - mcny 9y ago
      Thank you for keeping an open mind. I don't think people will mind static ads but it shouldn't be a priority. Once you have enough eyeballs, I think you'll be saying no to the ad offers. I think of ads as fairweather friends. If you don't have visitors, they don't even need to kick you out. You'll get a $0.00 payout every month. So, I agree with you. Avoid ads for now. I think a static ad that's basically a tracked link to a sponsor isn't a bad idea and if there's no jacascript involved and it is just a link, I doubt there will be any backlash. I think someone like linode or digital ocean or heroku would be a good fit as an advertiser? I don't know how these things work. I do know that the money won't be free. You can't please everyone. I'd say when in doubt, listen to your contributors and donors. Thoughts?
    - nileshtrivedi 9y ago
      I believe you're still missing the point. If you're going to create a business while controlling the underlying non-profit community, it creates a conflict of interest. You are misaligning your incentives. You stand to benefit if the non-profit website directly or indirectly drives users to your business. If "personal help/mentoring by experts" is the business, then the website is incentivized to put out confusing/contradicting content, so that users NEED expert help. It's okay if you still want to take the same path. But it does feel like exploitation to me. I feel much better contributing to Firefox than to Chromium - for example.

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?
  - mcny 9y ago
    Thank you for keeping an open mind. I don't think people will mind static ads but it shouldn't be a priority. Once you have enough eyeballs, I think you'll be saying no to the ad offers. I think of ads as fairweather friends. If you don't have visitors, they don't even need to kick you out. You'll get a $0.00 payout every month. So, I agree with you. Avoid ads for now. I think a static ad that's basically a tracked link to a sponsor isn't a bad idea and if there's no jacascript involved and it is just a link, I doubt there will be any backlash. I think someone like linode or digital ocean or heroku would be a good fit as an advertiser? I don't know how these things work. I do know that the money won't be free. You can't please everyone. I'd say when in doubt, listen to your contributors and donors. Thoughts?
  - nileshtrivedi 9y ago
    I believe you're still missing the point. If you're going to create a business while controlling the underlying non-profit community, it creates a conflict of interest. You are misaligning your incentives. You stand to benefit if the non-profit website directly or indirectly drives users to your business. If "personal help/mentoring by experts" is the business, then the website is incentivized to put out confusing/contradicting content, so that users NEED expert help. It's okay if you still want to take the same path. But it does feel like exploitation to me. I feel much better contributing to Firefox than to Chromium - for example.