4 ms·

I like Wikipedia as it is now. I presume Jimmy is responsible for this. I feel it’s going to be 5 years before Wikipedia is plastered in ads with selective edit

I like Wikipedia as it is now. I presume Jimmy is responsible for this. I feel it’s going to be 5 years before Wikipedia is plastered in ads with selective editing rights going to paid sponsors if he’s gone.

suprfsat 6y ago
> plastered in ads Besides Jimmy's lovely face?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  I'm inclined to treat "please donate" ads for Wikipedia itself very differently than paid ads for third parties.
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    I dislike them just as much. I dislike advertisements because I don't enjoy people trying to make me act irrationally. Wikipedia advertisements are just as manipulative as normal ads, if not more so.
    - s_dev 6y ago
      This comment seems hilariously out of place when you consider Facebook is being accused of undermining democracy with its ads.
      - garbagetime 6y ago
        I had in mind when I said normal ads fast food ads, cell phone ads, etc.
    - mmkos 6y ago
      Perhaps you can say that Wikipedia ads are manipulative, but I wouldn't say that it makes one act 'irrationally'. It's not irrational to support Wikipedia. In my view, they drive the point home that Wikipedia's infrastructure and governance is not free to maintain and the money has to come from somewhere.
      - garbagetime 6y ago
        I love Wikipedia[1]. And if they only asked for the money they needed to run Wikipedia, and did so in a straight-forward way, I'd be happy enough. But the reality is, despite what the frequent, heavily optimised ads might have a reader think, they have enormous amounts of money already, and lots of it is spent questionably or on other projects. [1]Although I share Gwern's concerns as laid out here: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
      - gruez 6y ago
        >In my view, they drive the point home that Wikipedia's infrastructure and governance is not free to maintain and the money has to come from somewhere. That might be true, but AFAIK "hosting" makes up a small part of WMF's budget. The ads definitely give an impression that wikimedia is struggling to pay hosting expenses, but this isn't really the case. According to their 2018 report[1] "Internet hosting" and "Depreciation and amortization" combined only make up 6.4% of their budget. "Salaries and wages" makes up 47.3%, but it's unclear how much of the staff is related to IT, rather than in admin or advocacy. [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/financials-leadership/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/fin...
      - garbagetime 6y ago
        On a different note: Is a person acting rationally when they make the right move for the wrong reason?
    - evan_ 6y ago
      Ads on Wikipedia might take the form of a banner at the top and bottom of the page or they might take the form of suddenly the page for Nestle only talks about how great the company’s products are and doesn’t mention the Colombian death squads or child slavery.
    - scandox 6y ago
      I agree. I find Wikipedia's marketing communications very annoying and I've explained why in response to some of their emails in I think a constructive and polite manner. For the type of organization they are, the way they communicate is just patronising. I gave them money until they started asking for it in the manner they do now.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Chris2048 6y ago
I dislike Wikipedia as it is now. I'm not sure if Jimmy is responsible for this, but it would be nice if someone sorted out the paradox of "notability" and/or reliance on proof-by-publication.
- rendall 6y ago
  > "the paradox of "notability" and/or reliance on proof-by-publication" What does that mean? I've seen articles removed as "not notable" that "should be moved to fan wiki". The arguments for deleting them involve cryptic insidery jargon like "I vote delete because WP:NOT and WP:PRC" Someone quite upset with the process ranted about how these kinds of deletions are to Jimmy Wales' financial advantage. I thought it was paranoid, but it's not an utterly absurd assertion, as Jimmy Wales does have financial share in one of those fan wikis.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    Sources are publications, so things are proven by what established media says. Difficulty arises when publications are more likely to repeat a narrative than originate it (herd safety). As such the problem becomes: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one" - only now echoed in an supposedly neutral "pedia". Notability is the same problem: something is notable if there is published media about it, otherwise not so. My perception is relevance and truth are being outsourced to 3rd parties based on whether or not you blog post has corporate registration.
    - rendall 6y ago
      I've found true the observation that Wikipedia is great for uncontroversial topics, but if it's controversial, the mechanisms that are supposed to maintain neutrality falters.

suprfsat 6y ago

> plastered in ads Besides Jimmy's lovely face?

ceejayoz 6y ago
I'm inclined to treat "please donate" ads for Wikipedia itself very differently than paid ads for third parties.
- garbagetime 6y ago
  I dislike them just as much. I dislike advertisements because I don't enjoy people trying to make me act irrationally. Wikipedia advertisements are just as manipulative as normal ads, if not more so.
  - s_dev 6y ago
    This comment seems hilariously out of place when you consider Facebook is being accused of undermining democracy with its ads.
    - garbagetime 6y ago
      I had in mind when I said normal ads fast food ads, cell phone ads, etc.
  - mmkos 6y ago
    Perhaps you can say that Wikipedia ads are manipulative, but I wouldn't say that it makes one act 'irrationally'. It's not irrational to support Wikipedia. In my view, they drive the point home that Wikipedia's infrastructure and governance is not free to maintain and the money has to come from somewhere.
    - garbagetime 6y ago
      I love Wikipedia[1]. And if they only asked for the money they needed to run Wikipedia, and did so in a straight-forward way, I'd be happy enough. But the reality is, despite what the frequent, heavily optimised ads might have a reader think, they have enormous amounts of money already, and lots of it is spent questionably or on other projects. [1]Although I share Gwern's concerns as laid out here: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
    - gruez 6y ago
      >In my view, they drive the point home that Wikipedia's infrastructure and governance is not free to maintain and the money has to come from somewhere. That might be true, but AFAIK "hosting" makes up a small part of WMF's budget. The ads definitely give an impression that wikimedia is struggling to pay hosting expenses, but this isn't really the case. According to their 2018 report[1] "Internet hosting" and "Depreciation and amortization" combined only make up 6.4% of their budget. "Salaries and wages" makes up 47.3%, but it's unclear how much of the staff is related to IT, rather than in admin or advocacy. [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/financials-leadership/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/fin...
    - garbagetime 6y ago
      On a different note: Is a person acting rationally when they make the right move for the wrong reason?
  - evan_ 6y ago
    Ads on Wikipedia might take the form of a banner at the top and bottom of the page or they might take the form of suddenly the page for Nestle only talks about how great the company’s products are and doesn’t mention the Colombian death squads or child slavery.
  - scandox 6y ago
    I agree. I find Wikipedia's marketing communications very annoying and I've explained why in response to some of their emails in I think a constructive and polite manner. For the type of organization they are, the way they communicate is just patronising. I gave them money until they started asking for it in the manner they do now.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Chris2048 6y ago

I dislike Wikipedia as it is now. I'm not sure if Jimmy is responsible for this, but it would be nice if someone sorted out the paradox of "notability" and/or reliance on proof-by-publication.

rendall 6y ago
> "the paradox of "notability" and/or reliance on proof-by-publication" What does that mean? I've seen articles removed as "not notable" that "should be moved to fan wiki". The arguments for deleting them involve cryptic insidery jargon like "I vote delete because WP:NOT and WP:PRC" Someone quite upset with the process ranted about how these kinds of deletions are to Jimmy Wales' financial advantage. I thought it was paranoid, but it's not an utterly absurd assertion, as Jimmy Wales does have financial share in one of those fan wikis.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  Sources are publications, so things are proven by what established media says. Difficulty arises when publications are more likely to repeat a narrative than originate it (herd safety). As such the problem becomes: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one" - only now echoed in an supposedly neutral "pedia". Notability is the same problem: something is notable if there is published media about it, otherwise not so. My perception is relevance and truth are being outsourced to 3rd parties based on whether or not you blog post has corporate registration.
  - rendall 6y ago
    I've found true the observation that Wikipedia is great for uncontroversial topics, but if it's controversial, the mechanisms that are supposed to maintain neutrality falters.