4 ms·
> Everything on the internet is monetized. From your clicks to selling you subscription. Everyone is trying to make a buck. That is categorically false. Wikip
by p-e-w 4y ago
> Everything on the internet is monetized. From your clicks to selling you subscription. Everyone is trying to make a buck.
That is categorically false.
Wikipedia is the greatest collection of knowledge ever assembled. It puts the library of Alexandria to shame. And all of it was created by people who did not make a single buck from their efforts, nor were they trying to.
The same can be said for the highly skilled professionals who devote their free time to building amazing Open Source technologies, for the contributors on sites like Stack Exchange, for the creative geniuses that write certain comments on Reddit, and for millions of others who tirelessly work to make the Internet what it is.
Of course, if you try to view the Web through the narrow lens of Silicon Valley business, you are bound to be disappointed. Join a few subreddits that aren't constantly on the front page. Get an IRC and/or Matrix account, and hang out in the channels. You may find that the Internet you are feeling nostalgic for has never disappeared in the first place.
- DMell 4y ago> Wikipedia is the greatest collection of knowledge ever assembled. It puts the library of Alexandria to shame. And all of it was created by people who did not make a single buck from their efforts, nor were they trying to. I’m not trying to counter anything you have stated - in fact, I agree with the majority of it. I just wanted to share this: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/29/18644158/north-face-wikipedia-hack-leo-burnett-top-imagens https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/29/18644158/north-face-wikip...
- p-e-w 4y agoRight. Obviously, there are (a very small number of) people who try to abuse Wikipedia for their own gain. They are almost always identified quickly, and dealt with accordingly. But they are not the ones who "built Wikipedia". The ones that did never made a dime. If someone sticks an advertising poster to the front door of a human rights advocacy group's headquarters during the night, and the poster is removed the next morning, the fact that it hung there for a few hours says absolutely nothing about the organization or the people who work for it. I see articles like the one you linked to, which try to extract sensationalist value out of such non-events, as part of a deliberate smear campaign against Wikipedia. The idea is to create the impression that Wikipedia has been infiltrated by political and commercial interests, which is absolute hogwash. This smear campaign has been going on for many, many years, and I've just learned to ignore such claims entirely, since I've convinced myself long ago that they are without any merit.
- DMell 4y agoFor clarity, that wasn’t my intention even of the slightest.
- e56jie46judr 4y agoHighly debatable. Wikipedia is great and all sure but I think HN glorifies its role in society a little too much these days. Lots of people still use Wikipedia of course but Youtube eclipses it easily these days for most people I've found.
- RileyJames 4y agoIsn’t Wikipedia a classic example of what the internet was like before it became hyper commercialised? Yes, there were monetised sites and products during that period. But it didn’t feel quite as hyper monetisation & growth focused as it is today. It was certainly before the social media giants of today conquered online communities & blogs.