3 ms·

I'm not pro-Wikimedia here (see other comment), but you're not being fair exactly; I'd go as far as to say your comment is wrong in everything except that the b

by kick 6y ago

I'm not pro-Wikimedia here (see other comment), but you're not being fair exactly; I'd go as far as to say your comment is wrong in everything except that the banner is obtrusive and that your funds would be better directed at the IA. The scale and scope of Wikimedia has been constantly expanding, and outside of a few terrible bets, it's generally been for the better. It hasn't been recklessly overspending and it's definitely not "providing relatively the same service."

Out_of_Characte 6y ago
A year ago I read a very well written article linked trough HN that broke down wikipedia's total est traffic and active data and made several cost analysis that aired on the side of caution. It didn't match wikimedia's allocation at all. However I cannot for the life of me find the article on ddg or google. It comes down to this, Wikipedia being mostly text based means that the size of their library isn't as big as you'd think. Compressed, their english articles amount to 16GB. You can download the entire thing on your laptop and see for yourself, its all there. even adding all history and languages on top, you're not exactly reaching petabytes just yet. most of their costs come from traffic. but the website is still text. I tried finding good bandwidth estimates but dont have time. I want to give wikipedia the benefit of doubt but they are just wastefull. Last point I want to make, Internet Archive has a complete copy of wikipedia. ( though not fully up to date ofc) if wikipedia fails due to incompetence or bad leadership, Internet archive will be first in line to pick up the hot potato of the approximate human knowledge register. https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_c... Links to help yo on your way https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics
- kick 6y ago
  None of this is novel information, and "it's literally just a wiki!" isn't in any way actually true and is incredibly reductive. Along with everything else, you're not even including images.
detaro 6y ago
Of course their banners always seem to be about "supporting Wikipedia" that's "surviving on donations" and needs to "protect its independence", not about supporting a "constantly expanding scope" of projects Wikimedia would like to do, and thus asks for more money each year. And for most people, the visible service provided is the same: Wikipedia. Not the grants they give out, not the lobbying they do, ...

by kick 6y ago

Out_of_Characte 6y ago

A year ago I read a very well written article linked trough HN that broke down wikipedia's total est traffic and active data and made several cost analysis that aired on the side of caution. It didn't match wikimedia's allocation at all. However I cannot for the life of me find the article on ddg or google. It comes down to this, Wikipedia being mostly text based means that the size of their library isn't as big as you'd think. Compressed, their english articles amount to 16GB. You can download the entire thing on your laptop and see for yourself, its all there. even adding all history and languages on top, you're not exactly reaching petabytes just yet. most of their costs come from traffic. but the website is still text. I tried finding good bandwidth estimates but dont have time. I want to give wikipedia the benefit of doubt but they are just wastefull. Last point I want to make, Internet Archive has a complete copy of wikipedia. ( though not fully up to date ofc) if wikipedia fails due to incompetence or bad leadership, Internet archive will be first in line to pick up the hot potato of the approximate human knowledge register. https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_c... Links to help yo on your way https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics

kick 6y ago
None of this is novel information, and "it's literally just a wiki!" isn't in any way actually true and is incredibly reductive. Along with everything else, you're not even including images.

detaro 6y ago

Of course their banners always seem to be about "supporting Wikipedia" that's "surviving on donations" and needs to "protect its independence", not about supporting a "constantly expanding scope" of projects Wikimedia would like to do, and thus asks for more money each year. And for most people, the visible service provided is the same: Wikipedia. Not the grants they give out, not the lobbying they do, ...