3 ms·
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 m
by 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 agoI 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 agoOn a different note: Is a person acting rationally when they make the right move for the wrong reason?