9 ms·

Exactly. I'm headed back to wikipedia, where I found community as a teenager. I think you can draw a direct line from wikimedia's nonprofit status to 22 years o

Exactly. I'm headed back to wikipedia, where I found community as a teenager. I think you can draw a direct line from wikimedia's nonprofit status to 22 years of greatness and steady improvement.

TylerE 3y ago
Eh, the Foundation has a lot of bloat and solicits donations far above actual operating costs.
- kaba0 3y ago
  Which makes sense in case of a nonprofit that relies on donations and can’t predict whether the next year will be a hard one for people, making their sole income drop.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- pneumonic 3y ago
  True, but luckily they don't intrude on the community or impact the Wikipedia site too much beyond their ever more frequent "We desperately need donations" campaigns. As the Foundation has gotten richer, its desire for more milk from its Wikipedia cash cow has only grown.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  Sure, they're far from perfect. I don't mind if build a nice big contingency fund or even become personally wealthy -- but I think it makes a difference that greed isn't the central organizing principle.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    Its closer to its a scam than its far from perfect
    - Aeolun 3y ago
      Do we have a massive, free, encyclopedia? Yes? Then it isn’t a scam.
      - B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago
        Needs competition. Another 'pedia or two would be healthy, and perhaps enlightening.
        foobarbecue 3y ago
        Yeah. Does H2G2 count?
        erikts 3y ago
        Wikipedia entry[1] of h2g2 (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition)[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2g2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2g2 [2] https://www.h2g2.com/ https://www.h2g2.com/
      - ekianjo 3y ago
        They are not the ones writing the content. So yes, it's a scam. They are making money on free contributors.
TX81Z 3y ago
A friend there once told me the exec-level staff basically just does what the users want and they lack any real “authority” over the site. However, the drawback is they had a lot of great ideas for improvements but the power users throw a fit over any changes.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  I think the pace of change has been just right, though. They added a graphical editor and modernifed the interface styling. Both of those changes happened about 5 years later than I would have expected, but you can tell they were carried out with extreme care not to piss off any users. We end up with an experience that pleases everyone.
- wpietri 3y ago
  It sounds like you think it odd that exec-level staff should be honoring the wishes of the people who do all the work, but I'm not getting why. Sure, most companies are authoritarian hierarchies. But most companies also pay people enough that they'll put up with the authoritarianism, at least for a while. When you pay $0 for core labor, that means you've given up most of your ability to push people around.
  - TX81Z 3y ago
    I didn’t actually say what I think about anything.
    - wpietri 3y ago
      And I never said otherwise.
- specialist 3y ago
  > ...power users throw a fit over any changes. Such a freq complaint it's a cliché. Certainly been true for every software product and service I've worked.
  - 3y ago
nebula8804 3y ago
There is definitely interests that have captured Wikipedia. It takes the form of editors that have slowly built up a lot of credibility and power that then use it years later in some manner that does not agree with the neutral nature of the site. The events leading up to the US 2020 election are burned into my mind. Sure people tend to talk about the craziness of the US far-Right but the non-centrist Left also got attacked and censored. In one case a popular Youtuber on the Left (Kyle Kulisnki) had posted some commentary on independent attack ads that were extremely negative to the Democratic party. That led to a multiple threads on Wikipedia calling for the deletion of his page. After 3 attempts to remove his page by the same editor, it finally got removed on the 4th attempt. [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kyle_Kulinski_(4th_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... Watching this whole experience play out in real time was utterly disgusting and showed me how the site has since become captured. Its a shame because despite calls for secondary sourcing in my experience many people do in fact trust Wikipedia whole heartedly. It is really dangerous that leadership did not clamp down on this behavior when it was happening. Now they have exposed themselves to attacks from the far right and eventually people with a lot of exposure (People like Musk) might call them out(if he hasn't already). That will begin the slow slide into half the country not trusting the site at all and their minds being made up no matter what Wikipedia does. Interestingly the page was recreated over a year later after the election was over but the lasting damage has been done. I presume that in the next election it will be targeted again. We see this behavior on other platforms such as Reddit during election season and you can be sure that Musk is whipping up something big for 2024 (and his rivals are probably developing some sort of countermeasure) but I thought I could always count on Wikipedia being a place of refuge. I guess not.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  Sounds like a regrettable epsiode. However, looking at the deletion, I see he was deleted as non-notable. Debates about notability are common on WP and not inherently political. Back in the day (2006-2010ish, I think) I was a pretty active member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. I was kind of on a crusade against people who would put up their own pages to try to promote themselves, in violation of the Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia policy. Mainly, I was worried that it would be untenable to keep WP accurate if we had too many pages. I also went on a rampage deleting pages for individual pokemon, which I'm not proud of. There was a well-established consensus at the time that most individual pokemon did not meet the notability threshold (I don't remember the exact criteria, but it had to do with multiple sources of the information being available) and therefore their pages should be deleted. Looking back, that was kinda silly... The Wikipedia is not Paper policy probably outweighs the Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia policy when it comes to Pokemon. Anyway, I don't doubt that there is a political element in the case of this Kyle guy, but it's probable that I would have voted to have him deleted on completely apolitical grounds. (I haven't heard of him and haven't read enough to form a political or notability opinion on him at this point)
scarface_74 3y ago
The last year I could find for their largest donors from a quick Google search was 2018. Three of the big 5 tech companies are in the top 10 of largest donors. Do you think they are going to donate to Reddit?

Exactly. I'm headed back to wikipedia, where I found community as a teenager. I think you can draw a direct line from wikimedia's nonprofit status to 22 years of greatness and steady improvement.

TylerE 3y ago

Eh, the Foundation has a lot of bloat and solicits donations far above actual operating costs.

kaba0 3y ago
Which makes sense in case of a nonprofit that relies on donations and can’t predict whether the next year will be a hard one for people, making their sole income drop.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
pneumonic 3y ago
True, but luckily they don't intrude on the community or impact the Wikipedia site too much beyond their ever more frequent "We desperately need donations" campaigns. As the Foundation has gotten richer, its desire for more milk from its Wikipedia cash cow has only grown.
foobarbecue 3y ago
Sure, they're far from perfect. I don't mind if build a nice big contingency fund or even become personally wealthy -- but I think it makes a difference that greed isn't the central organizing principle.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  Its closer to its a scam than its far from perfect
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    Do we have a massive, free, encyclopedia? Yes? Then it isn’t a scam.
    - B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago
      Needs competition. Another 'pedia or two would be healthy, and perhaps enlightening.
      - foobarbecue 3y ago
        Yeah. Does H2G2 count?
        erikts 3y ago
        Wikipedia entry[1] of h2g2 (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition)[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2g2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2g2 [2] https://www.h2g2.com/ https://www.h2g2.com/
    - ekianjo 3y ago
      They are not the ones writing the content. So yes, it's a scam. They are making money on free contributors.

TX81Z 3y ago

A friend there once told me the exec-level staff basically just does what the users want and they lack any real “authority” over the site. However, the drawback is they had a lot of great ideas for improvements but the power users throw a fit over any changes.

foobarbecue 3y ago
I think the pace of change has been just right, though. They added a graphical editor and modernifed the interface styling. Both of those changes happened about 5 years later than I would have expected, but you can tell they were carried out with extreme care not to piss off any users. We end up with an experience that pleases everyone.
wpietri 3y ago
It sounds like you think it odd that exec-level staff should be honoring the wishes of the people who do all the work, but I'm not getting why. Sure, most companies are authoritarian hierarchies. But most companies also pay people enough that they'll put up with the authoritarianism, at least for a while. When you pay $0 for core labor, that means you've given up most of your ability to push people around.
- TX81Z 3y ago
  I didn’t actually say what I think about anything.
  - wpietri 3y ago
    And I never said otherwise.
specialist 3y ago
> ...power users throw a fit over any changes. Such a freq complaint it's a cliché. Certainly been true for every software product and service I've worked.
- 3y ago

nebula8804 3y ago

There is definitely interests that have captured Wikipedia. It takes the form of editors that have slowly built up a lot of credibility and power that then use it years later in some manner that does not agree with the neutral nature of the site. The events leading up to the US 2020 election are burned into my mind. Sure people tend to talk about the craziness of the US far-Right but the non-centrist Left also got attacked and censored. In one case a popular Youtuber on the Left (Kyle Kulisnki) had posted some commentary on independent attack ads that were extremely negative to the Democratic party. That led to a multiple threads on Wikipedia calling for the deletion of his page. After 3 attempts to remove his page by the same editor, it finally got removed on the 4th attempt. [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kyle_Kulinski_(4th_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... Watching this whole experience play out in real time was utterly disgusting and showed me how the site has since become captured. Its a shame because despite calls for secondary sourcing in my experience many people do in fact trust Wikipedia whole heartedly. It is really dangerous that leadership did not clamp down on this behavior when it was happening. Now they have exposed themselves to attacks from the far right and eventually people with a lot of exposure (People like Musk) might call them out(if he hasn't already). That will begin the slow slide into half the country not trusting the site at all and their minds being made up no matter what Wikipedia does. Interestingly the page was recreated over a year later after the election was over but the lasting damage has been done. I presume that in the next election it will be targeted again. We see this behavior on other platforms such as Reddit during election season and you can be sure that Musk is whipping up something big for 2024 (and his rivals are probably developing some sort of countermeasure) but I thought I could always count on Wikipedia being a place of refuge. I guess not.

foobarbecue 3y ago
Sounds like a regrettable epsiode. However, looking at the deletion, I see he was deleted as non-notable. Debates about notability are common on WP and not inherently political. Back in the day (2006-2010ish, I think) I was a pretty active member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. I was kind of on a crusade against people who would put up their own pages to try to promote themselves, in violation of the Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia policy. Mainly, I was worried that it would be untenable to keep WP accurate if we had too many pages. I also went on a rampage deleting pages for individual pokemon, which I'm not proud of. There was a well-established consensus at the time that most individual pokemon did not meet the notability threshold (I don't remember the exact criteria, but it had to do with multiple sources of the information being available) and therefore their pages should be deleted. Looking back, that was kinda silly... The Wikipedia is not Paper policy probably outweighs the Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia policy when it comes to Pokemon. Anyway, I don't doubt that there is a political element in the case of this Kyle guy, but it's probable that I would have voted to have him deleted on completely apolitical grounds. (I haven't heard of him and haven't read enough to form a political or notability opinion on him at this point)

scarface_74 3y ago

The last year I could find for their largest donors from a quick Google search was 2018. Three of the big 5 tech companies are in the top 10 of largest donors. Do you think they are going to donate to Reddit?