3 ms·

Seems a bit silly to me. Working on the UI that enables expanding and maintaining wikipedia feels like a reasonable top priority of the organization responsible

Seems a bit silly to me. Working on the UI that enables expanding and maintaining wikipedia feels like a reasonable top priority of the organization responsible for maintaining wikipedia. If they just "served" it, it would collapse.

jefftk 4y ago
I agree it's a reasonable thing for them to work on, but not to fundraise for under the banner of "keep Wikipedia online".
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Why not?
  - jefftk 4y ago
    Because it doesn't contribute to Wikipedia remaining online.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      If they get more donations it does, though.
    - DrBenCarson 4y ago
      If we agree that a poorly designed experience will become obsolete over time, then how does this expenditure not increase Wiki’s chances of staying online?
      - jefftk 4y ago
        The experience isn't and wasn't poorly designed, though. It could surely be improved, but we're incredibly far from "Wikipedia dies through neglect" territory.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      So netflix should have only paid for DVDs and shipping?
      - jefftk 4y ago
        Elaborate?
        abenga 4y ago
        Not the GP, but I think they mean keeping an organization alive in the exact state it exists now vs. enabling it to change to adapt to a changing world portend opposite chances that an organization will remain around in the long term.
- dbingham 4y ago
  I don't know. Here's where I start to break with some of the ways people are thinking about this. When you pay a fee to a website - do you question how they spend that money to this level of detail? Do you ask, I dunno, lets go with Slack, to break down their fee by how much of it is necessary to keep Slack online "as is"? I don't think I've ever seen someone do that. There's a level of entitlement that comes with donations that people just don't attach to services they purchase. Wikipedia isn't a charity in the traditional sense - IE it's not taking those donations and redistributing them to those in poverty. It's an organization building and maintaining a platform that provides pretty a vital service to society. Almost everyone who donates to it will have gotten far more value from Wikipedia than the cost of their donation. Maybe, instead of thinking of it as "donation", people should be thinking of their contributions as a "sliding scale fee". On the other hand, I do believe Wikipedia should be open and should be accountable to its community. I just believe the community should be reasonable when exercising that accountability.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    When I pay money for a service I compare the benefit I'm getting to the cost of the service and decide whether it's worth it. This works pretty well! When I donate to a charity I compare the altruistic benefit my marginal contribution will produce to the amount I'm donating. This doesn't work very well, because it's really hard to estimate the benefit to society. But it still worth doing, because there are a lot of really valuable things that aren't going to be funded unless we put up our money.
  - antasvara 4y ago
    I certainly think it's reasonable to donate money without a breakdown of where it's going to go. I also think that the things that Wikipedia is doing are perfectly reasonable. Where I have an issue (and I suspect many others do) is when Wikipedia phrases donation requests as "keeping the lights on" or something to that effect. I suspect there would be a lot less hate if the requests were phrased like "help Wikipedia grow" or something like that. It's more of a framing issue than an issue with where money is being spent. If Slack was claiming that they needed my fee to "keep the lights on," I think most people would have issues with that language/framing.

jefftk 4y ago

I agree it's a reasonable thing for them to work on, but not to fundraise for under the banner of "keep Wikipedia online".

endisneigh 4y ago
Why not?
- jefftk 4y ago
  Because it doesn't contribute to Wikipedia remaining online.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    If they get more donations it does, though.
  - DrBenCarson 4y ago
    If we agree that a poorly designed experience will become obsolete over time, then how does this expenditure not increase Wiki’s chances of staying online?
    - jefftk 4y ago
      The experience isn't and wasn't poorly designed, though. It could surely be improved, but we're incredibly far from "Wikipedia dies through neglect" territory.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    So netflix should have only paid for DVDs and shipping?
    - jefftk 4y ago
      Elaborate?
      - abenga 4y ago
        Not the GP, but I think they mean keeping an organization alive in the exact state it exists now vs. enabling it to change to adapt to a changing world portend opposite chances that an organization will remain around in the long term.
dbingham 4y ago
I don't know. Here's where I start to break with some of the ways people are thinking about this. When you pay a fee to a website - do you question how they spend that money to this level of detail? Do you ask, I dunno, lets go with Slack, to break down their fee by how much of it is necessary to keep Slack online "as is"? I don't think I've ever seen someone do that. There's a level of entitlement that comes with donations that people just don't attach to services they purchase. Wikipedia isn't a charity in the traditional sense - IE it's not taking those donations and redistributing them to those in poverty. It's an organization building and maintaining a platform that provides pretty a vital service to society. Almost everyone who donates to it will have gotten far more value from Wikipedia than the cost of their donation. Maybe, instead of thinking of it as "donation", people should be thinking of their contributions as a "sliding scale fee". On the other hand, I do believe Wikipedia should be open and should be accountable to its community. I just believe the community should be reasonable when exercising that accountability.
- jefftk 4y ago
  When I pay money for a service I compare the benefit I'm getting to the cost of the service and decide whether it's worth it. This works pretty well! When I donate to a charity I compare the altruistic benefit my marginal contribution will produce to the amount I'm donating. This doesn't work very well, because it's really hard to estimate the benefit to society. But it still worth doing, because there are a lot of really valuable things that aren't going to be funded unless we put up our money.
- antasvara 4y ago
  I certainly think it's reasonable to donate money without a breakdown of where it's going to go. I also think that the things that Wikipedia is doing are perfectly reasonable. Where I have an issue (and I suspect many others do) is when Wikipedia phrases donation requests as "keeping the lights on" or something to that effect. I suspect there would be a lot less hate if the requests were phrased like "help Wikipedia grow" or something like that. It's more of a framing issue than an issue with where money is being spent. If Slack was claiming that they needed my fee to "keep the lights on," I think most people would have issues with that language/framing.