3 ms·

Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia. It's one place in the internet I can go and not be bombarded with ads.

toyg 5y ago
True, but you'll periodically be bombarded by donation drives instead... Money ruins everything, sadly. Where's my barter system...
- skyyler 5y ago
  I’m fine with that. Donation drives aren’t misleading. Donation drives don’t use shadow profiles. Donation drives don’t impact content. Donation drives don’t convince my grandma that she needs to send the IRS Target gift cards.
  - loeg 5y ago
    Wikipedia's donation drive is highly misleading. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais... Or the still salient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
  Decentralized/distributed are the technical terms you seek.
rurban 5y ago
But filled with editors who accuse you of various sorts of foul play when stepping onto their turfs.
- sigg3 5y ago
  Just like any other peer review process..? Littered with little kings. Some people just like this kind of mostly imaginary and low risk power.. It's not really endemic to Wikipedia as such, in my humble opinion. And the project still works.
gruez 5y ago
>Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia I disagree, but for a different reason: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...
- kaba0 5y ago
  This was quite debunked last time - they do have reserves because in case something really bad happens (eg. people stop donating), they don’t want to go down instantly. I really don’t see how having a few years worth of reserves a bad thing - people really held open-source/non-profit companies to impossible standards.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >This was quite debunked last time Debunked... how? Can you link to this "debunking"? >they do have reserves because in case something really bad happens (eg. people stop donating), they don’t want to go down instantly. I really don’t see how having a few years worth of reserves a bad thing - people really held open-source/non-profit companies to impossible standards. This was addressed in the article. >The WMF’s financial independence is clearly not at any risk. So what is going on? The official answer is that the WMF thinks you can never have too much money put aside for a rainy day. The WMF also has high-flying, global plans to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge” by 2030. It says it wants to create “knowledge equity”—a world where people everywhere will have as much access to information in their own language as a first-world citizen—and that this will require continuous budget increases. In all of these endeavors, it is aided by the discovery that it has a money tap in Wikipedia, built through the work of volunteers, that it can open whenever it pleases. The article isn't just decrying wikimedia building a massive reserve, it's decrying them massively expanding their scope.

toyg 5y ago

True, but you'll periodically be bombarded by donation drives instead... Money ruins everything, sadly. Where's my barter system...

skyyler 5y ago
I’m fine with that. Donation drives aren’t misleading. Donation drives don’t use shadow profiles. Donation drives don’t impact content. Donation drives don’t convince my grandma that she needs to send the IRS Target gift cards.
- loeg 5y ago
  Wikipedia's donation drive is highly misleading. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais... Or the still salient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER
aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
Decentralized/distributed are the technical terms you seek.

rurban 5y ago

But filled with editors who accuse you of various sorts of foul play when stepping onto their turfs.

sigg3 5y ago
Just like any other peer review process..? Littered with little kings. Some people just like this kind of mostly imaginary and low risk power.. It's not really endemic to Wikipedia as such, in my humble opinion. And the project still works.

gruez 5y ago

>Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia I disagree, but for a different reason: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...

kaba0 5y ago
This was quite debunked last time - they do have reserves because in case something really bad happens (eg. people stop donating), they don’t want to go down instantly. I really don’t see how having a few years worth of reserves a bad thing - people really held open-source/non-profit companies to impossible standards.
- gruez 5y ago
  >This was quite debunked last time Debunked... how? Can you link to this "debunking"? >they do have reserves because in case something really bad happens (eg. people stop donating), they don’t want to go down instantly. I really don’t see how having a few years worth of reserves a bad thing - people really held open-source/non-profit companies to impossible standards. This was addressed in the article. >The WMF’s financial independence is clearly not at any risk. So what is going on? The official answer is that the WMF thinks you can never have too much money put aside for a rainy day. The WMF also has high-flying, global plans to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge” by 2030. It says it wants to create “knowledge equity”—a world where people everywhere will have as much access to information in their own language as a first-world citizen—and that this will require continuous budget increases. In all of these endeavors, it is aided by the discovery that it has a money tap in Wikipedia, built through the work of volunteers, that it can open whenever it pleases. The article isn't just decrying wikimedia building a massive reserve, it's decrying them massively expanding their scope.