4 ms·

That is a ridiculous and ugly accusation to make. If you don’t know what it takes to run a globally available top site, it is better not throw stones at people.

by harikb 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ramraj07 5y ago
Have I run a site comparable to Wikipedia? No. Do I know nothing about that topic? Debatable. Leaving that aside, Wikipedia was live and ticking when it had 1% of today’s coffers, so it’s hard to substantiate why they need money approaching a billion dollars for a non profit running a website all things considered.
- gcthomas 5y ago
  I wonder how much Facebook spends on running _its_ website?
- kaba0 5y ago
  They are not just running a website?
  - xvector 5y ago
    Then their donation banner should reflect the true purpose of the donation, rather than misleading readers into thinking it’s necessary for Wikipedia.com.
    - kaba0 5y ago
      It is necessary for Wikipedia.
- middleclick 5y ago
  This assumes that traffic has not changed since "1% of its coffers". Traffic has grown and the site has become faster.
iKevinShah 5y ago
I am not the original commentator but all the replies to this seem like attacking the individual (for a lack of better term) than providing a counter argument. They clearly state that they have been donating and assume that "their intention is to just increase their coffers with no clear plan on WHAT they are going to use it." Is that wrong ? Far from reality? Help them (and readers like me) get a clear understanding. OKAY, it is an ugly accusation considering "don’t know what it takes to run a globally available top site", but why? How much does it cost to run a Wiki like site on that high traffic using some modified form of mediawiki platform? I am just trying to get a clearer understanding than attacking / siding anyone
- kaba0 5y ago
  What about running a freely query-able database https://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2020/01/29/newbie-guide-querying-wikidata/ https://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2020/01/29/newbie-guide-qu... Or hosting all the images? Or paying developers, devops, managers? Like sure, some middle manager may be unnecessary but a big company will have inefficiencies. Also, it is a good decision to not stop accepting funds once a monthly quota is reached since donations are fickle. An article like this may suddenly cause an outage in donations, they have to have reserves for such cases.
  - saurik 5y ago
    > What about running a freely query-able database [link to Wikidata] When someone goes to Wikipedia and feels "this was awesome; I want to support this... and OMG, they say they might fail if they don't get money from people like me!" it is absolutely unethical to take their money and spend it on Wikidata, a product this user might have no clue exists and may or may not care at all about. Maybe Wikidata is a great thing, but then the pitch should be "we are glad you enjoyed Wikipedia! don't worry: Wikipedia is safe, as we have more than enough money to fund it! however, we have other projects we think might make a similarly positive impact on the world... maybe you would want to donate to one of them?".
    - kaba0 5y ago

That is a ridiculous and ugly accusation to make. If you don’t know what it takes to run a globally available top site, it is better not throw stones at people.

by harikb 5y ago

That is a ridiculous and ugly accusation to make. If you don’t know what it takes to run a globally available top site, it is better not throw stones at people.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ramraj07 5y ago

Have I run a site comparable to Wikipedia? No. Do I know nothing about that topic? Debatable. Leaving that aside, Wikipedia was live and ticking when it had 1% of today’s coffers, so it’s hard to substantiate why they need money approaching a billion dollars for a non profit running a website all things considered.

gcthomas 5y ago
I wonder how much Facebook spends on running _its_ website?
kaba0 5y ago
They are not just running a website?
- xvector 5y ago
  Then their donation banner should reflect the true purpose of the donation, rather than misleading readers into thinking it’s necessary for Wikipedia.com.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    It is necessary for Wikipedia.
middleclick 5y ago
This assumes that traffic has not changed since "1% of its coffers". Traffic has grown and the site has become faster.

iKevinShah 5y ago

I am not the original commentator but all the replies to this seem like attacking the individual (for a lack of better term) than providing a counter argument. They clearly state that they have been donating and assume that "their intention is to just increase their coffers with no clear plan on WHAT they are going to use it." Is that wrong ? Far from reality? Help them (and readers like me) get a clear understanding. OKAY, it is an ugly accusation considering "don’t know what it takes to run a globally available top site", but why? How much does it cost to run a Wiki like site on that high traffic using some modified form of mediawiki platform? I am just trying to get a clearer understanding than attacking / siding anyone

kaba0 5y ago
What about running a freely query-able database https://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2020/01/29/newbie-guide-querying-wikidata/ https://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2020/01/29/newbie-guide-qu... Or hosting all the images? Or paying developers, devops, managers? Like sure, some middle manager may be unnecessary but a big company will have inefficiencies. Also, it is a good decision to not stop accepting funds once a monthly quota is reached since donations are fickle. An article like this may suddenly cause an outage in donations, they have to have reserves for such cases.
- saurik 5y ago
  > What about running a freely query-able database [link to Wikidata] When someone goes to Wikipedia and feels "this was awesome; I want to support this... and OMG, they say they might fail if they don't get money from people like me!" it is absolutely unethical to take their money and spend it on Wikidata, a product this user might have no clue exists and may or may not care at all about. Maybe Wikidata is a great thing, but then the pitch should be "we are glad you enjoyed Wikipedia! don't worry: Wikipedia is safe, as we have more than enough money to fund it! however, we have other projects we think might make a similarly positive impact on the world... maybe you would want to donate to one of them?".
  - kaba0 5y ago