3 ms·

I'm curious about your gripes with Wikipedia. I donate regularly because it's still growing more useful to me year after year and has resisted ads and obscene p

by Andrex 4y ago

I'm curious about your gripes with Wikipedia. I donate regularly because it's still growing more useful to me year after year and has resisted ads and obscene partnerships.

redox99 4y ago
It's definitely better than the Mozilla situation, but here[1] is a good look at what I'm referring to. Basically their spending is insane and increases a lot each year (although it seems that 2020-2021 was the first period that it didn't increase). Their spending and rate of increase doesn't really make sense. I really like Wikipedia and use it a lot, but remember that the content comes from people that doesn't get paid, so when you think of what the funding gets you, think of the tech, servers, etc, not the articles themselves. And I definitely don't see as an user, what Wikipedia does with their 110M/year spending, that they couldn't do with their 30M/year spending in 2011 or even less. I mean they spend 110M/year, have a fairly simple website, and they couldn't manage to implement dark mode?[2] I also dislike that they run donation campaigns pretending like if you don't donate they're going down, when actually their financials are extremely good. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... [2] Outside of their "gadget" or whatever that is, for logged in users, which I just found exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dark_mode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dark_mode
- morjom 4y ago
  About the first ref. That seems insane! I'm a young guy with little financial knowledge but how does a website like Wikipedia spend that much money? What could've changed that much other than the amount of articles and traffic, which surely doesn't cost THAT much, right?

3 ms·

I'm curious about your gripes with Wikipedia. I donate regularly because it's still growing more useful to me year after year and has resisted ads and obscene p

by Andrex 4y ago

I'm curious about your gripes with Wikipedia. I donate regularly because it's still growing more useful to me year after year and has resisted ads and obscene partnerships.

redox99 4y ago
It's definitely better than the Mozilla situation, but here[1] is a good look at what I'm referring to. Basically their spending is insane and increases a lot each year (although it seems that 2020-2021 was the first period that it didn't increase). Their spending and rate of increase doesn't really make sense. I really like Wikipedia and use it a lot, but remember that the content comes from people that doesn't get paid, so when you think of what the funding gets you, think of the tech, servers, etc, not the articles themselves. And I definitely don't see as an user, what Wikipedia does with their 110M/year spending, that they couldn't do with their 30M/year spending in 2011 or even less. I mean they spend 110M/year, have a fairly simple website, and they couldn't manage to implement dark mode?[2] I also dislike that they run donation campaigns pretending like if you don't donate they're going down, when actually their financials are extremely good. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... [2] Outside of their "gadget" or whatever that is, for logged in users, which I just found exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dark_mode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dark_mode
- morjom 4y ago
  About the first ref. That seems insane! I'm a young guy with little financial knowledge but how does a website like Wikipedia spend that much money? What could've changed that much other than the amount of articles and traffic, which surely doesn't cost THAT much, right?