4 ms·

Personally, I attribute this more to Wikipedia's non-commercial nature. It's goal has a clear end state because it isn't chasing endless growth that for-profit/

Personally, I attribute this more to Wikipedia's non-commercial nature. It's goal has a clear end state because it isn't chasing endless growth that for-profit/vc-backed companies do. I believe also it's possible to have a social media network that is non-commercial and is successful because it has no need to pump engagement to chase endless growth.

wanttocomment 3y ago
I'm not sure that's the case. It has an ever expanding budget and picks up new political causes often.
- themitigating 3y ago
  How does either of those things make it like a business or chasing profit?
  - wanttocomment 3y ago
    The specific attribute mentioned is the pressure to continue to grow, instead of executing a simple mission. Wikipedia doesn't do that at all, and clearly feels pressure to grow power and expand into new domains.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      The last time wikimedia really did that was wikidata and that was a decade ago. Although i suppose the ongoing abstract wikipedia stuff is an example of that. By and large i dont think there has been much in way of expansion attempts. Most of them are from long ago.
      - account42 3y ago
        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/WMF_Support_and_Revenue%2C_Expenses_and_Net_Assets_at_Year_End.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/WMF_Supp...
        bawolff 3y ago
        What does that have to do with expanding into new domains? Its just a restructuring of how some of the funding works.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jfengel 3y ago
I believe any social site will inevitably devolve into spam and trolling, and arguments about why my poor behavior doesn't quite cross the line. It has to constantly solicit new content, even if it were completely devoid of financial goal, because it's fundamentally read-write. Wikipedia aims for a read only state and will happily throw out any contribution even slightly out of line since that's not its mission. It's anti-social.
- andrepd 3y ago
  That's trivially proven false by the numerous examples of social sites that subsist for decades with a healthy community.
- ghaff 3y ago
  There have been other social information sites that failed not so much because of an explicit commercial angle but because any such site can easily be overrun by the grifter and scammers.
  - detourdog 3y ago
    That is the irony to me. Good things seem to require a strong vision and discipline. This often comes from an individual forceful enough to maintain focus for the group.
    - themitigating 3y ago
      It can also come from rules that are enforced by a group of individuals
      - detourdog 3y ago
        Yes it can, I think that it is rarer form. I can't think of any but I'm sure they exist.
- evolve2k 3y ago
  This belief is founded on a falsehood, specifically it rests upon some version of the popularised economic theory of the “tragedy of the commons”. Short version. The original Tradgedy of the Commons paper that much modern economic theory rests upon and that is a key pillar that justifies the value of privatisation has found to have been made up. Elinor Ostrom spent over 20 years debunking that there’s nothing you can do, and distilled a set of principals that any community can enact to protect and preserve a commons. By example, here’s Mozilla led research on ‘A Practical Framework for Applying Ostrom’s Principles to Data Commons Governance’ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/a-practical-framework-for-applying-ostroms-principles-to-data-commons-governance/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/a-practical-framework...

wanttocomment 3y ago

I'm not sure that's the case. It has an ever expanding budget and picks up new political causes often.

themitigating 3y ago
How does either of those things make it like a business or chasing profit?
- wanttocomment 3y ago
  The specific attribute mentioned is the pressure to continue to grow, instead of executing a simple mission. Wikipedia doesn't do that at all, and clearly feels pressure to grow power and expand into new domains.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    The last time wikimedia really did that was wikidata and that was a decade ago. Although i suppose the ongoing abstract wikipedia stuff is an example of that. By and large i dont think there has been much in way of expansion attempts. Most of them are from long ago.
    - account42 3y ago
      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/WMF_Support_and_Revenue%2C_Expenses_and_Net_Assets_at_Year_End.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/WMF_Supp...
      - bawolff 3y ago
        What does that have to do with expanding into new domains? Its just a restructuring of how some of the funding works.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jfengel 3y ago

I believe any social site will inevitably devolve into spam and trolling, and arguments about why my poor behavior doesn't quite cross the line. It has to constantly solicit new content, even if it were completely devoid of financial goal, because it's fundamentally read-write. Wikipedia aims for a read only state and will happily throw out any contribution even slightly out of line since that's not its mission. It's anti-social.

andrepd 3y ago
That's trivially proven false by the numerous examples of social sites that subsist for decades with a healthy community.
ghaff 3y ago
There have been other social information sites that failed not so much because of an explicit commercial angle but because any such site can easily be overrun by the grifter and scammers.
- detourdog 3y ago
  That is the irony to me. Good things seem to require a strong vision and discipline. This often comes from an individual forceful enough to maintain focus for the group.
  - themitigating 3y ago
    It can also come from rules that are enforced by a group of individuals
    - detourdog 3y ago
      Yes it can, I think that it is rarer form. I can't think of any but I'm sure they exist.
evolve2k 3y ago
This belief is founded on a falsehood, specifically it rests upon some version of the popularised economic theory of the “tragedy of the commons”. Short version. The original Tradgedy of the Commons paper that much modern economic theory rests upon and that is a key pillar that justifies the value of privatisation has found to have been made up. Elinor Ostrom spent over 20 years debunking that there’s nothing you can do, and distilled a set of principals that any community can enact to protect and preserve a commons. By example, here’s Mozilla led research on ‘A Practical Framework for Applying Ostrom’s Principles to Data Commons Governance’ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/a-practical-framework-for-applying-ostroms-principles-to-data-commons-governance/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/a-practical-framework...