4 ms·

You find it disgusting that a service, which you probably use both directly and indirectly multiple times a day and costs you nothing, has the nerve to give you

You find it disgusting that a service, which you probably use both directly and indirectly multiple times a day and costs you nothing, has the nerve to give you a suggestion of donating 10$ once? That is a very peculiar attitude to have.

pydry 5y ago
I find this attitude peculiar. The editors who provided all that value will get $0. It's like buying an album where $9.92 goes to the label and yet the label still complains about freeloaders depriving the poor musicians of income if they don't pay the $10.
- kaba0 5y ago
  And who exactly gets the money? Because as I see, there is no corruption in the system at all. There are a few inefficiencies, but it’s incomparable to the bleeding out of musicians.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Jimbo's friends, i think.
- MrDresden 5y ago
  You are comparing apples and oranges there.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    So? Why should one fruit grower get away with a practice that is almost universally condemned in another?
    - MrDresden 5y ago
      Making music is the livelyhood of musicians. Making edits on Wikipedia is for most a hobby, and they do not get paid for it and thus do not rely on it (I would know, I have made many edits on my language wiki and look at it mostly as something positive to give back). They have the option of stopping making edits and walk away without any hit to their income or professional growth. That is not to say that those who make certain amount of quality edits shouldn't receive something for it, or even be hired in to be on staff editors (potentially there are these kinds of positions within Wikimedia and I just don't know about it). Comparing the practice of asking consumers for an optional donation once in a while, without any access restriction to the content, versus being (legally) forced to buy the album (also taking into account streaming here) where the funds go mostly to the label doesn't make any sense.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        If they're asking for donations and the middleman takes it all then yes, that feels exactly like the music business.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

pydry 5y ago

I find this attitude peculiar. The editors who provided all that value will get $0. It's like buying an album where $9.92 goes to the label and yet the label still complains about freeloaders depriving the poor musicians of income if they don't pay the $10.

kaba0 5y ago
And who exactly gets the money? Because as I see, there is no corruption in the system at all. There are a few inefficiencies, but it’s incomparable to the bleeding out of musicians.
- pydry 5y ago
  Jimbo's friends, i think.
MrDresden 5y ago
You are comparing apples and oranges there.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  So? Why should one fruit grower get away with a practice that is almost universally condemned in another?
  - MrDresden 5y ago
    Making music is the livelyhood of musicians. Making edits on Wikipedia is for most a hobby, and they do not get paid for it and thus do not rely on it (I would know, I have made many edits on my language wiki and look at it mostly as something positive to give back). They have the option of stopping making edits and walk away without any hit to their income or professional growth. That is not to say that those who make certain amount of quality edits shouldn't receive something for it, or even be hired in to be on staff editors (potentially there are these kinds of positions within Wikimedia and I just don't know about it). Comparing the practice of asking consumers for an optional donation once in a while, without any access restriction to the content, versus being (legally) forced to buy the album (also taking into account streaming here) where the funds go mostly to the label doesn't make any sense.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      If they're asking for donations and the middleman takes it all then yes, that feels exactly like the music business.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]