3 ms·

i think that this was very interesting, i think that if wikipedia had that sort of funding then it could surely hire more editors/moderators to make sure the in

i think that this was very interesting, i think that if wikipedia had that sort of funding then it could surely hire more editors/moderators to make sure the info is reliable. i also found it quite ironic that the first thing that popped up was 'please subscribe to daily dot'

bawolff 5y ago
They currently don't hire any moderators. According to the article, they got 142 million in donations so far this fiscal year. Assuming they spent that entirely on hiring editors, had no other expenses (including no other fundraising expenses), had no server costs, etc they could hire 4500 people at min wage. According to https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/active-editors/normal|line|2-year|(page_type)~content*non-content|monthly https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/... there's been 39 thousand editors who have made 5+ edits last month to just english wikipedia [not counting other languages] (Unfortunately I could not find any stats for overall active editors from all languages, nor could I find any stats for "very" active editors). That stat isn't very good for the argument I'm trying to make, but I suspect there's in the neighbourhood of 4500 existing editors/moderators who treat it as effectively a full time job, once you combine all the languages. Thus I doubt this budget would be sufficient to hire the existing editors, let alone hire more.
- saurik 5y ago
  Right: because you shifted the argument to editors from moderators; what they need are not people to edit articles, but instead to do community management that reduces the toxicity of the current de facto bureaucracy that is designed to prevent arguments but instead seems to cause them.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    The parent literally used the phrase "editors/moderators". The current bureaucracy is not designed to prevent arguments, its designed to make sure such arguments are productive. Whether it succedes is debatable. Its certainly not without issue.
    - checkerscaptian 5y ago
      both of your comments are very interesting, i feel like there should be a way that Wikipedia could auto check facts using an algorithm to flag anything incorrect by referencing up to date reputable sources like NASA, Britannica ect.then use the editors/moderators to pick up anything that was flagged.
      - akolbe 5y ago
        The Wikimedia Foundation plays absolutely no role in editing or moderating Wikipedia content. I employs no editors/moderators. All that work is done exclusively by unpaid volunteers.

bawolff 5y ago

They currently don't hire any moderators. According to the article, they got 142 million in donations so far this fiscal year. Assuming they spent that entirely on hiring editors, had no other expenses (including no other fundraising expenses), had no server costs, etc they could hire 4500 people at min wage. According to https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/active-editors/normal|line|2-year|(page_type)~content*non-content|monthly https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/... there's been 39 thousand editors who have made 5+ edits last month to just english wikipedia [not counting other languages] (Unfortunately I could not find any stats for overall active editors from all languages, nor could I find any stats for "very" active editors). That stat isn't very good for the argument I'm trying to make, but I suspect there's in the neighbourhood of 4500 existing editors/moderators who treat it as effectively a full time job, once you combine all the languages. Thus I doubt this budget would be sufficient to hire the existing editors, let alone hire more.

saurik 5y ago
Right: because you shifted the argument to editors from moderators; what they need are not people to edit articles, but instead to do community management that reduces the toxicity of the current de facto bureaucracy that is designed to prevent arguments but instead seems to cause them.
- bawolff 5y ago
  The parent literally used the phrase "editors/moderators". The current bureaucracy is not designed to prevent arguments, its designed to make sure such arguments are productive. Whether it succedes is debatable. Its certainly not without issue.
  - checkerscaptian 5y ago
    both of your comments are very interesting, i feel like there should be a way that Wikipedia could auto check facts using an algorithm to flag anything incorrect by referencing up to date reputable sources like NASA, Britannica ect.then use the editors/moderators to pick up anything that was flagged.
    - akolbe 5y ago
      The Wikimedia Foundation plays absolutely no role in editing or moderating Wikipedia content. I employs no editors/moderators. All that work is done exclusively by unpaid volunteers.