5 ms·

This seems like the typical HN meme of looking at something and assuming the technical piece is all there is to it. Wikipedia's biggest challenge over the year

This seems like the typical HN meme of looking at something and assuming the technical piece is all there is to it. Wikipedia's biggest challenge over the years hasn't been building or hosting its website. It's been convincing the world that an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone on the Internet is a credible and neutral source of information. One of the ways you do that is by speaking at conferences, traveling to meet with people, etc.

jahlove 6y ago
The only reason I checked was because of Jimmy Wales' past controversy regarding use of the foundation's credit card [0]: > Wool wrote that Wales had asked the foundation to reimburse him for costly items like a $1,300 dinner for four at a Florida steakhouse. Wool alleged that at one point Wales was short on receipts for $30,000 in expenses before settling the matter with the foundation's lawyer and paying the organization $7,000. > Wool added that Wales' foundation credit card was taken away in 2006. [0] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-accused-of-expenses-rort-20080305-gds3ve.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-acc...
- jononor 6y ago
  14 years ago, and sounds like they handled it well.
alisonkisk 6y ago
> It's been convincing the world that an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone on the Internet is a credible and neutral source of information. This is not wikimedia's job at all. The public can decide if they trust the content.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  Are you suggesting that in the face of existing encyclopedia companies, generations of people who had always used print encyclopedias, and the general public still figuring out what the internet is all about, Wikimedia should be restrained from answering criticisms or making a case for their value? That seems... odd.
  - dlubarov 6y ago
    Eh, Wikipedia is 20 years old, and has been a top 20 site for the past 15 years. At this point, they don't have much serious competition. Britannica stopped printing physical encyclopedias in 2012. The WMF can certainly make their case and answer criticisms, but there are cost-efficient ways of doing that. I don't see much value in funding parties, conferences, etc. for a product that has already dominated in most markets.
    - smsm42 6y ago
      The conferences are not to suppress competition, it's to enable cooperation. Wikis are very distributed projects, and conferences are the only place where people could get together, discuss things, exchange experiences and ideas, and so on. And no, it's not the same via teleconference or mailing lists, those do exist but it's completely different mode of operation.
    - ckoerner 6y ago
      Most markets? That’s a very privileged view. Research by the WMF in 2019 shows incredibly low rates of awareness in large parts of the world. I doubly you will read it, nor to I seek to argue this with you, but here are the findings: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_Readers/Awareness#Awareness_per_country https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_Readers/Awareness#Awaren...
      - dlubarov 6y ago
        > That’s a very privileged view > I doubly you will read it Why do you feel the need to use ad hominems rather than simply making your point? > Research by the WMF in 2019 shows incredibly low rates of awareness in large parts of the world I wasn't claiming that Wikipedia is near peak global usage. My point was that there is no meaningful competition left, so usage should grow organically, as it did for EN-WP back when the WMF had a shoestring budget. Can you identify some markets where Wikipedia is losing ground to an inferior competitor with more aggressive marketing? I'm not sure there are any.
    - pwinnski 6y ago

jahlove 6y ago

The only reason I checked was because of Jimmy Wales' past controversy regarding use of the foundation's credit card [0]: > Wool wrote that Wales had asked the foundation to reimburse him for costly items like a $1,300 dinner for four at a Florida steakhouse. Wool alleged that at one point Wales was short on receipts for $30,000 in expenses before settling the matter with the foundation's lawyer and paying the organization $7,000. > Wool added that Wales' foundation credit card was taken away in 2006. [0] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-accused-of-expenses-rort-20080305-gds3ve.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-acc...

jononor 6y ago
14 years ago, and sounds like they handled it well.

alisonkisk 6y ago

> It's been convincing the world that an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone on the Internet is a credible and neutral source of information. This is not wikimedia's job at all. The public can decide if they trust the content.

pwinnski 6y ago
Are you suggesting that in the face of existing encyclopedia companies, generations of people who had always used print encyclopedias, and the general public still figuring out what the internet is all about, Wikimedia should be restrained from answering criticisms or making a case for their value? That seems... odd.
- dlubarov 6y ago
  Eh, Wikipedia is 20 years old, and has been a top 20 site for the past 15 years. At this point, they don't have much serious competition. Britannica stopped printing physical encyclopedias in 2012. The WMF can certainly make their case and answer criticisms, but there are cost-efficient ways of doing that. I don't see much value in funding parties, conferences, etc. for a product that has already dominated in most markets.
  - smsm42 6y ago
    The conferences are not to suppress competition, it's to enable cooperation. Wikis are very distributed projects, and conferences are the only place where people could get together, discuss things, exchange experiences and ideas, and so on. And no, it's not the same via teleconference or mailing lists, those do exist but it's completely different mode of operation.
  - ckoerner 6y ago
    Most markets? That’s a very privileged view. Research by the WMF in 2019 shows incredibly low rates of awareness in large parts of the world. I doubly you will read it, nor to I seek to argue this with you, but here are the findings: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_Readers/Awareness#Awareness_per_country https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_Readers/Awareness#Awaren...
    - dlubarov 6y ago
      > That’s a very privileged view > I doubly you will read it Why do you feel the need to use ad hominems rather than simply making your point? > Research by the WMF in 2019 shows incredibly low rates of awareness in large parts of the world I wasn't claiming that Wikipedia is near peak global usage. My point was that there is no meaningful competition left, so usage should grow organically, as it did for EN-WP back when the WMF had a shoestring budget. Can you identify some markets where Wikipedia is losing ground to an inferior competitor with more aggressive marketing? I'm not sure there are any.
  - pwinnski 6y ago