5 ms·
There was a vote, the majority (70%+) of those that voted voted to stop. I don't know why other arguments would matter
by ithinkso 4y ago
There was a vote, the majority (70%+) of those that voted voted to stop. I don't know why other arguments would matter
- mcherm 4y agoBecause I didn't participate in that vote, along with huge numbers of people who are similarly situated. I am a user of Wikipedia and a regular donor, but I do not follow whatever list there is of issues to be voted on. This was not a vote of Wikipedia donors, it was a vote of politically active Wikipedia authors on the subject of which donations should be accepted.
- ithinkso 4y agoI understand that but it was not a vote for Wikipedia users nor it was a vote for Wikipedia donors. It was a vote for Wikipedia and what payment do they accept - it has no impact for you as an user, and as a donor - they made their choice how and what they want to be donated to them It's an interesting topic in on itself, about rejecting donations. On one hand they are donations to you so you should be greatful but on the other hand, if they are from the party you're against... well, do you accept even if it helps your cause?
- topranks 4y agoIt was posted here, on twitter , Reddit etc. There were significant numbers of pro-crypto people sharing it to get people to vote no.
- otterley 4y agoYou also don’t get to vote on how HN, Twitter, or Facebook operate, no matter how many posts you write. None of these belong to you, so you don’t get a say. You are, of course, welcome to build your own and take payment however you please.
- SkyBelow 4y agoWhat would it mean for it to matter? Does it matter to wikipedia or those voting what we discuss here? Very unlikely. But internally for an individual trying to understand why someone else would make a choice that they themselves would not, it does matter for improving our own understanding and empathy. If you choose B but I would choose A if I were in your shame shoes, then either I don't understand your shoes well enough to call them the same or I'm missing some understanding of the issue. Even in the case where we could objectively determine that A was the correct choice, if I don't understand why you choose B then I'm still missing something about the situation. This could be just to sate curiosity, but enough instances of similar behavior allows us to better understand and empathize with others. When it comes to an issue we think we understand better than most other issues, to have a disagreement in what we would've done is much more striking and indicative of some flaw in our understanding. If this was a bunch of surgeons picking some post-surgery recovery practice to recommend, I could easily dismiss the difference in me not understanding the topic well enough. If it is instead a kid picking a different answer than I would on a test after I helped tutor them, then it is a much clearer indication that I'm missing something in tutoring. Maybe a bad assumption about prior knowledge, maybe an unknown to me issue with test taking like them having significant test anxiety that doesn't show up in tutoring, ect.