6 ms·

They aren’t really more complicated than Wikipedia, though. Because it’s all network effects, it either needs to be a centralised walled garden (even Wikipedia

They aren’t really more complicated than Wikipedia, though. Because it’s all network effects, it either needs to be a centralised walled garden (even Wikipedia fits here to certain extent) or else a federated system like email. Whether the business model that maintains a centralised system is for-profit or not is basically irrelevant. Facebook would have as much difficulty taking over wikipedia’s leadership in online encycolpedias as Wikipedia would have trying to become the dominant social network. It’s just a matter of who got there first (at least until they possibly get displaced by something else that users drift toward).

yunohn 5y ago
> They aren’t really more complicated than Wikipedia, though. I’m not sure how to reply to someone that compares multimedia, feature-filled social networks to a mostly-read-only information store.
- cybernautique 5y ago
  And yet you did reply, with apparent incredulity. Wikipedia is a method by which users generate, disseminate, and moderate content of a specific media type. Facebook, et al., don't innovate on the content being produced, because they do not produce it. They innovate on removing friction to the first two, or producing new methods for the third. Yeah, they really aren't that much more complex. More complicated, I'll grant you, simply owing to the vast amount of cruft and legacy that such privacy-eating titans inherently accrue. But the actual media type is pretty irrelevant as far as I care.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    > And yet you did reply, with apparent incredulity. While you can be pedantic, I did not reply to their actual points. > Yeah, they really aren't that much more complex. This really reminds me of the infamous HN Dropbox comment, but worse.
    - cybernautique 5y ago
      The comparison to the Dropbox comment is very fair. I maintain that I paid the piper his dues; it's complicated, but not complex, and I would never dare charge that I could make an equivalent service. However, I do charge that it's extremely overblown.
      - yunohn 5y ago
        > it's complicated, but not complex These are synonyms. Please disambiguate with contextual examples, if you believe otherwise. There are various features provided by Snapchat (camera, filters, games) and FB (marketplace, messenger) that nobody would ever compare to a BBForum/Wikipedia. They are inherently complex and valuable to the majority of their users.
        zimpenfish 5y ago
        > [complicated, complex] are synonyms. I mean, sure, but you can't just swap them in and out like that - you can have something complicated which is not complex (say a knitting pattern with four colours) and something complex which is not complicated ("put this arrow into the centre of that target").
        yunohn 5y ago
        I asked for contextual examples, not random ones. Though I guess if we’re in a thread of people reducing various platforms to a BBForum/Wikipedia, it wouldn’t make any sense to them.
        zimpenfish 5y ago
        > I asked for contextual examples, not random ones. I was merely pointing out that you can't toss off "complex and complicated are synonyms" as some kind of argument "gotcha".
        5y ago
judge2020 5y ago
Last I checked Wikimedia was primarily funded by big donors, with Google.org being one of them (and my understanding is that this is not a google donation matching program, but a direct contribution) https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/donors/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/don...
- xmprt 5y ago
  Is that purely a donation or is that payment to continue using Wikipedia contents in their search result cards and IOT devices?
  - judge2020 5y ago
    No, not in regards to Google.org in the 2018 financials I linked (it’s at least not an official quid pro quo). They have since asked for some compensation it looks like: https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-finally-asking-big-tech-to-pay-up/ https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-finally-asking-big-tec...
- ryan_lane 5y ago
  Wikimedia Foundation is funded primarily by small donations (<$100), during its fundraising campaign once a year. You're linking to a page that names donors who contributed $1000+. Notice that Wikimedia Foundation has little to no influence over the content or community that runs Wikimedia sites. The money is primarily used for running the infrastructure, developing the software, paying the staff (a large percentage of which is spent on tech and legal), and organizing community events. disclosure: I worked for Wikimedia during the earlier years.
- circlefavshape 5y ago
  Those are donors who have given over $1k. AIUI the vast majority of the wikimedia's money comes from small individual donations

yunohn 5y ago

> They aren’t really more complicated than Wikipedia, though. I’m not sure how to reply to someone that compares multimedia, feature-filled social networks to a mostly-read-only information store.

cybernautique 5y ago
And yet you did reply, with apparent incredulity. Wikipedia is a method by which users generate, disseminate, and moderate content of a specific media type. Facebook, et al., don't innovate on the content being produced, because they do not produce it. They innovate on removing friction to the first two, or producing new methods for the third. Yeah, they really aren't that much more complex. More complicated, I'll grant you, simply owing to the vast amount of cruft and legacy that such privacy-eating titans inherently accrue. But the actual media type is pretty irrelevant as far as I care.
- yunohn 5y ago
  > And yet you did reply, with apparent incredulity. While you can be pedantic, I did not reply to their actual points. > Yeah, they really aren't that much more complex. This really reminds me of the infamous HN Dropbox comment, but worse.
  - cybernautique 5y ago
    The comparison to the Dropbox comment is very fair. I maintain that I paid the piper his dues; it's complicated, but not complex, and I would never dare charge that I could make an equivalent service. However, I do charge that it's extremely overblown.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      > it's complicated, but not complex These are synonyms. Please disambiguate with contextual examples, if you believe otherwise. There are various features provided by Snapchat (camera, filters, games) and FB (marketplace, messenger) that nobody would ever compare to a BBForum/Wikipedia. They are inherently complex and valuable to the majority of their users.
      - zimpenfish 5y ago
        > [complicated, complex] are synonyms. I mean, sure, but you can't just swap them in and out like that - you can have something complicated which is not complex (say a knitting pattern with four colours) and something complex which is not complicated ("put this arrow into the centre of that target").
        yunohn 5y ago
        I asked for contextual examples, not random ones. Though I guess if we’re in a thread of people reducing various platforms to a BBForum/Wikipedia, it wouldn’t make any sense to them.
        zimpenfish 5y ago
        > I asked for contextual examples, not random ones. I was merely pointing out that you can't toss off "complex and complicated are synonyms" as some kind of argument "gotcha".
        5y ago

judge2020 5y ago

Last I checked Wikimedia was primarily funded by big donors, with Google.org being one of them (and my understanding is that this is not a google donation matching program, but a direct contribution) https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/donors/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/don...

xmprt 5y ago
Is that purely a donation or is that payment to continue using Wikipedia contents in their search result cards and IOT devices?
- judge2020 5y ago
  No, not in regards to Google.org in the 2018 financials I linked (it’s at least not an official quid pro quo). They have since asked for some compensation it looks like: https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-finally-asking-big-tech-to-pay-up/ https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-finally-asking-big-tec...
ryan_lane 5y ago
Wikimedia Foundation is funded primarily by small donations (<$100), during its fundraising campaign once a year. You're linking to a page that names donors who contributed $1000+. Notice that Wikimedia Foundation has little to no influence over the content or community that runs Wikimedia sites. The money is primarily used for running the infrastructure, developing the software, paying the staff (a large percentage of which is spent on tech and legal), and organizing community events. disclosure: I worked for Wikimedia during the earlier years.
circlefavshape 5y ago
Those are donors who have given over $1k. AIUI the vast majority of the wikimedia's money comes from small individual donations