4 ms·

Because it’s unnecessary and brings outside influences that could corrupt it’s stated goals

endisneigh 4y ago
You can be corrupt without having a lot of money. There are countless examples of such. I applaud the their moves. The more money they have, the more likely they are to exist in perpetuity. Needlessly limiting their revenue isn’t going to solve anything.
- grapeskin 4y ago
  It’s good in the way that a gym that sells soda and ice cream is running a good business. They’ll definitely see short term profit gains. But they’re losing sight of their original goals and risk losing their long term market.
- marcinzm 4y ago
  >Needlessly limiting their revenue isn’t going to solve anything. But they've done exactly that since day 1 by refusing to show any ads.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    Not exactly, because ads would result in people not donating and go against their mission. Forming into Wikimedia Enterprise allows them to get enterprise revenue without compromising the experience of reading the content
- usrusr 4y ago
  The more money Wikimedia has, the less likely it gets that they keep recurring expenses in a sustainable range. And you can be corrupt without money, true. But corrupt people tend to avoid organisations that don't have a lot of money, they all try to work where the money is. And the do-gooders that are the other group of people likely to push into an org like Wikimedia tend to be particularly defenseless against the first kind.
- wpietri 4y ago
  > The more money they have, the more likely they are to exist in perpetuity. I think the opposite is true. Consider examples like broke lottery winners, the resource curse [1], and the long history of startups getting lots of money and then cratering, from Webvan to WeWork. With Wikipedia in particular, I'm concerned that the more money there is, the more attractive it is to people who want to be near large streams of money for various reasons, including living large and diverting money to their own friends, pet projects, and grand visions. I'm also concerned that even if they are able to avoid those people entirely, large budgets pose other risks, including inflexibility in downturns, which I think increase the odds of a setback turning into a full collapse. Corruption, like cancer, is statistically inevitable for organizations. The only question is whether they have the right mechanisms to detect and exercise the tumors when they're small. But the scrappier Wikipedia stays, the less we have to worry about that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
hulitu 4y ago
Some people just don't have enough. For them it is necessary. The only thing that is sad is that is difficult to explain to a child that wiki{m,p}edia is just another "news" outlet and everything there shall be taken with a grain of salt.

You can be corrupt without having a lot of money. There are countless examples of such. I applaud the their moves. The more money they have, the more likely they are to exist in perpetuity. Needlessly limiting their revenue isn’t going to solve anything.

grapeskin 4y ago
It’s good in the way that a gym that sells soda and ice cream is running a good business. They’ll definitely see short term profit gains. But they’re losing sight of their original goals and risk losing their long term market.
marcinzm 4y ago
>Needlessly limiting their revenue isn’t going to solve anything. But they've done exactly that since day 1 by refusing to show any ads.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Not exactly, because ads would result in people not donating and go against their mission. Forming into Wikimedia Enterprise allows them to get enterprise revenue without compromising the experience of reading the content
usrusr 4y ago
The more money Wikimedia has, the less likely it gets that they keep recurring expenses in a sustainable range. And you can be corrupt without money, true. But corrupt people tend to avoid organisations that don't have a lot of money, they all try to work where the money is. And the do-gooders that are the other group of people likely to push into an org like Wikimedia tend to be particularly defenseless against the first kind.
wpietri 4y ago
> The more money they have, the more likely they are to exist in perpetuity. I think the opposite is true. Consider examples like broke lottery winners, the resource curse [1], and the long history of startups getting lots of money and then cratering, from Webvan to WeWork. With Wikipedia in particular, I'm concerned that the more money there is, the more attractive it is to people who want to be near large streams of money for various reasons, including living large and diverting money to their own friends, pet projects, and grand visions. I'm also concerned that even if they are able to avoid those people entirely, large budgets pose other risks, including inflexibility in downturns, which I think increase the odds of a setback turning into a full collapse. Corruption, like cancer, is statistically inevitable for organizations. The only question is whether they have the right mechanisms to detect and exercise the tumors when they're small. But the scrappier Wikipedia stays, the less we have to worry about that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

hulitu 4y ago

Some people just don't have enough. For them it is necessary. The only thing that is sad is that is difficult to explain to a child that wiki{m,p}edia is just another "news" outlet and everything there shall be taken with a grain of salt.