3 ms·

To me, the main difference between almost every other place on the Internet (save for personal websites) and Wikipedia is the lack of advertising, or attempting

by hliyan 3y ago

To me, the main difference between almost every other place on the Internet (save for personal websites) and Wikipedia is the lack of advertising, or attempting to generate revenue through engagement. That is the reason why Wikipedia still remains tolerable.

matkoniecz 3y ago
I would like to pitch OpenStreetMap as another example (to be clear there are also banners about donating, but it is smaller and not misleading one)
- local_crmdgeon 3y ago
  Yes, but I have no idea how to participate in OSM and I'm a huge map nerd. Not true of Wiki
  - amiga386 3y ago
    This probably isn't the spirit, but the simplest thing is to right-click on the map and pick "Add note", that's definitely participating, although there's an "outsiderness" to it, you have to hope an "insider" (someone who has created an account) actually works on the map to address your note... someone unlike Wikipedia where both anonymous and logged-in users get direct editing access to the underlying data.
  - simbolit 3y ago
    Back when I used android devices, I used https://streetcomplete.app/ https://streetcomplete.app/ - great user interface, it directs you to a location and asks you simple questions.
  - UtopiaPunk 3y ago
    I only recently started editing in OpenStreetMap and its fun! The OSM has a wiki with lots of documentation, and there is page on how to get started here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Getting_Involved https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Getting_Involved I find working from a computer the most satisfying to contribute. I mostly just make updates on the map for my town, the places I really engage with. Biking is a new hobby of mine, so I've updated bicycle lanes and paths, as well as crosswalks that I come across. I also sometimes update local business information and such. As someone else noted, Andriod also has the StreetComplete app, which is great for making simple and fast edits. Sometimes when I take the bus or am riding in the passenger seat of a car, I'll use StreetComplete to update the bus stops or street info as I go by. I also use Komoot for planning cycling routes, which itself uses OpenStreetMap. It's nice to see my edits show up in other places, like Komoot
_uhtu 3y ago
I'd be willing to say this is causation. Wikipedia is one of the few places on the Internet where there isn't an a absolutely desperate end goal to keep people staring at it all day and all night to make 0.006 cents on ad revenue. So the content can actually be useful instead of drowned out in SEO and ads.
- sasaf5 3y ago
  > Wikipedia is one of the few places on the Internet where there isn't an a absolutely desperate end goal to keep people staring at it all day and all night And yet so successful at it :)
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  So much this. One thing I regularly think about is that there are many popular websites that could be sustainable with a smaller headcount, but they took VC and need to eat the world.
  - waveBidder 3y ago
    ~0% interest was a mistake.
    - dazzlefruit 3y ago
      Should we expect more useful websites in the next 10 years? Should we expect them to rot and need replacement in the decade after that? Should the Fed add "make the Internet a nice place" as a fourth mission?
nvm0n2 3y ago
They routinely run absolutely massive banner ads for themselves at the top of every page begging for donations they don't need. And these ads are the worst: extremely deceptive, unnecessary, and huge.
- whywhywhywhy 3y ago
  Honestly once you learn the truth about their finances their banner campaign are actually the absolute pits of advertising and the most deceptive and emotionally manipulative type of advertising going. Laughable to claim wikipedia is "ad free" just because the one ad is for wikipedia.
  - some_random 3y ago
    I completely agree that their campaigns are distasteful for a number of reasons, but I think the original point was more that the lack of ad slots for sale has prevented the site from turning into the addiction optimized hellsite that most websites have become now
  - riffruff24 3y ago
    I like that they're up front about it. They also didn't pollute their own content with indistinguishable ads. Also I've been using adblocks for so long, the only ads I see are ones that pollute the content. So yay wikipedia.
- hnbad 3y ago
  There's a huge functional difference between fundraising ads (no matter how manipulative) and the kind of commercial (and behavioral) ads you see everywhere else: the incentive structure it creates. Behavioral ads also require extremely intrusive tracking. Commercial ads incentivise optimising for impressions, i.e. getting users to see as many ads as possible. This leads to clickbait, bloating one-line news bits into entire articles and extending the number of clicks necessary for a user to get what they want. Social media makes this even worse by making the ads "content" (i.e. "sponsored posts") and thus trying to drive up "engagement" which in practice leads to outrage bait (because people are more likely to comment or share what they disagree with or dislike). Wikipedia on the other hand just has a slightly annoying banner made more annoying by lazy-loading (and thus shifting the layout) that shows up for a few weeks each year. Unless your complaint is with "supposedly non-profit organizations trying to make more money" (in which case I'd say your problem might be more systemic than just a website with an ad) I'd take this over the former any day.

by hliyan 3y ago

matkoniecz 3y ago

I would like to pitch OpenStreetMap as another example (to be clear there are also banners about donating, but it is smaller and not misleading one)

local_crmdgeon 3y ago
Yes, but I have no idea how to participate in OSM and I'm a huge map nerd. Not true of Wiki
- amiga386 3y ago
  This probably isn't the spirit, but the simplest thing is to right-click on the map and pick "Add note", that's definitely participating, although there's an "outsiderness" to it, you have to hope an "insider" (someone who has created an account) actually works on the map to address your note... someone unlike Wikipedia where both anonymous and logged-in users get direct editing access to the underlying data.
- simbolit 3y ago
  Back when I used android devices, I used https://streetcomplete.app/ https://streetcomplete.app/ - great user interface, it directs you to a location and asks you simple questions.
- UtopiaPunk 3y ago
  I only recently started editing in OpenStreetMap and its fun! The OSM has a wiki with lots of documentation, and there is page on how to get started here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Getting_Involved https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Getting_Involved I find working from a computer the most satisfying to contribute. I mostly just make updates on the map for my town, the places I really engage with. Biking is a new hobby of mine, so I've updated bicycle lanes and paths, as well as crosswalks that I come across. I also sometimes update local business information and such. As someone else noted, Andriod also has the StreetComplete app, which is great for making simple and fast edits. Sometimes when I take the bus or am riding in the passenger seat of a car, I'll use StreetComplete to update the bus stops or street info as I go by. I also use Komoot for planning cycling routes, which itself uses OpenStreetMap. It's nice to see my edits show up in other places, like Komoot

_uhtu 3y ago

I'd be willing to say this is causation. Wikipedia is one of the few places on the Internet where there isn't an a absolutely desperate end goal to keep people staring at it all day and all night to make 0.006 cents on ad revenue. So the content can actually be useful instead of drowned out in SEO and ads.

sasaf5 3y ago
> Wikipedia is one of the few places on the Internet where there isn't an a absolutely desperate end goal to keep people staring at it all day and all night And yet so successful at it :)
bcrosby95 3y ago
So much this. One thing I regularly think about is that there are many popular websites that could be sustainable with a smaller headcount, but they took VC and need to eat the world.
- waveBidder 3y ago
  ~0% interest was a mistake.
  - dazzlefruit 3y ago
    Should we expect more useful websites in the next 10 years? Should we expect them to rot and need replacement in the decade after that? Should the Fed add "make the Internet a nice place" as a fourth mission?

nvm0n2 3y ago

They routinely run absolutely massive banner ads for themselves at the top of every page begging for donations they don't need. And these ads are the worst: extremely deceptive, unnecessary, and huge.

whywhywhywhy 3y ago
Honestly once you learn the truth about their finances their banner campaign are actually the absolute pits of advertising and the most deceptive and emotionally manipulative type of advertising going. Laughable to claim wikipedia is "ad free" just because the one ad is for wikipedia.
- some_random 3y ago
  I completely agree that their campaigns are distasteful for a number of reasons, but I think the original point was more that the lack of ad slots for sale has prevented the site from turning into the addiction optimized hellsite that most websites have become now
- riffruff24 3y ago
  I like that they're up front about it. They also didn't pollute their own content with indistinguishable ads. Also I've been using adblocks for so long, the only ads I see are ones that pollute the content. So yay wikipedia.
hnbad 3y ago
There's a huge functional difference between fundraising ads (no matter how manipulative) and the kind of commercial (and behavioral) ads you see everywhere else: the incentive structure it creates. Behavioral ads also require extremely intrusive tracking. Commercial ads incentivise optimising for impressions, i.e. getting users to see as many ads as possible. This leads to clickbait, bloating one-line news bits into entire articles and extending the number of clicks necessary for a user to get what they want. Social media makes this even worse by making the ads "content" (i.e. "sponsored posts") and thus trying to drive up "engagement" which in practice leads to outrage bait (because people are more likely to comment or share what they disagree with or dislike). Wikipedia on the other hand just has a slightly annoying banner made more annoying by lazy-loading (and thus shifting the layout) that shows up for a few weeks each year. Unless your complaint is with "supposedly non-profit organizations trying to make more money" (in which case I'd say your problem might be more systemic than just a website with an ad) I'd take this over the former any day.