4 ms·

Wikipedia is particularly insulting because they make enough money to cover the actual costs of running Wikipedia (the site) in days if not hours, and could ope

Wikipedia is particularly insulting because they make enough money to cover the actual costs of running Wikipedia (the site) in days if not hours, and could operate for years without any additional donations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32840097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32840097

mhh__ 3y ago
Is that including staff + trying to do new stuff or just the servers.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  Why should Wikipedia do new stuff? Or rather, why is it okay for Wikipedia to lie to people to get funding for their new pet projects?
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    Some of those new projects are directly applicable to potentially improving Wikipedia. Some.
  - wpietri 3y ago
    > Why should Wikipedia do new stuff? Because it's not perfect yet? The point of Wikipedia is not to have some servers ticking over. The project has a vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." I agree it's not ok for them to lie, and am bothered enough by their dubious fundraising tactics that I stopped donating. But that's a totally separate concern than whether Wikipedia's mission is complete.
    - starttoaster 3y ago
      What is the mission for Wikipedia beyond doing what they already do, which is just hosting the largest internet encyclopedia? Purely curious because I thought Wikipedia was pretty much at its end game for what it wants to accomplish that is the job of the organization rather than the job of all of its volunteers.
      - doublespanner 3y ago
        Wikipedia is the marketing face of Wikimedia. People donate to the first, but the money gets used by the second, and Wikimedia grows to use all of the money it receives. Wikimedia has no solvable mission, its just a mechanism to turn donations for a project people like into donations for arbitrary causes.
      - The_Colonel 3y ago
        > The Wikimedia Foundation's mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Its mission is not just "hosting" - actually creating an encyclopedia is much more than paying for the server costs. Wikimedia produced many very useful projects which often integrate into Wikipedia, but work well standalone as well, and work towards the stated mission - projects like Commons, WikiData, WikiSource. Some projects are more useful than others, but that's just normal.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      > The project has a vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." That's not their vision. Not only do they require entries to be notable, they'll remove information from articles that are, in their editorial judgment, too long. Neither action is compatible with the goal of sharing the sum of all knowledge.
      - epups 3y ago
        It is, because removing this barrier to entry and editorial power would lead to spam and SEO bullshit, which arguably already exists. Knowledge does not equal amount of content.
  - mhh__ 3y ago
    I see mentioned something like making a new editor UI. This is quite important for the longevity of Wikipedia.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Stop conflating wikipedia and wikimedia. Little of the new stuff is for wikipedia and what's there is of questionable value.
    - _Algernon_ 3y ago
      Why not? Wikimedia intentionally conflates the two in their own funding drives, which is exactly the issue we are discussing in this thread.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  It includes staff, but not new stuff. The new stuff seems to be mostly things not directly related to Wikipedia, like funding third-party projects or causes. I'm trying to be politic here: many people don't like the projects they are funding with donation money, and others just don't like that they give money to any projects, and other people don't like that they keep the banner up after they've paid for salaries and keeping the lights on.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    And others, like me, resent any hard-sell tactic and won't give money to anybody using them.
MrDresden 3y ago
Is it personally insulting to you that a completely free high quality services sometimes ask if you want to donate what ever small amount you'd like? You'll be proper mad when you realize how much money that other company, whom you regularly pay for access to their services, has in the bank.
- squeaky-clean 3y ago
  It's personally insulting that they lie and make it seem like they need the money to keep running, and that your donation will go towards helping Wikipedia itself, when they do not and it does not. There's a difference between "donate if you appreciate this website" and "donate if you appreciate this website because we will have to shut down otherwise (not really though)"
- pardoned_turkey 3y ago
  Wikipedia is... nuanced. Keep in mind that the entity doing the fundraising is the Wikimedia Foundation. They pay the hosting costs, but return nothing to the actual Wikipedians (editors, admins.) Instead, what's left is used to pay the salaries for hundreds of administrative employees, fund third-party charities, and so on. You can love Wikipedia but have misgivings about the Foundation.
  - junofan 3y ago
    It’s openly a grift. The fundraising messages are disingenuous.
- calderknight 3y ago
  We are really the ones who provide that high quality. Wikipedia isn't edited by the Wikimedia foundation.
nativeit 3y ago
https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2022-annual-report/financials/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2022-annu... Seems almost mundane, as if they’re running a very effective foundation that’s actively achieving their goals. See the recent Cambridge study that explored how their governance has been effective at promoting moderate discourse while suppressing misinformation and hateful content: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/rule-ambiguity-institutional-clashes-and-population-loss-how-wikipedia-became-the-last-good-place-on-the-internet/FC3F7B9CBF951DD30C2648E7DEFB65EE https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-s...
- adammarples 3y ago
  Seems off. They have 250 million in net asset and hosting costs 2 million a year while they spend 88 million on salaries and still beg for money each year?
- concordDance 3y ago
  Uh, the opening paragraph of that second leads reads to me like wikipedia effectively got ideologically captured and got rid of all editors who didn't agree.

mhh__ 3y ago

Is that including staff + trying to do new stuff or just the servers.

_Algernon_ 3y ago
Why should Wikipedia do new stuff? Or rather, why is it okay for Wikipedia to lie to people to get funding for their new pet projects?
- qingcharles 3y ago
  Some of those new projects are directly applicable to potentially improving Wikipedia. Some.
- wpietri 3y ago
  > Why should Wikipedia do new stuff? Because it's not perfect yet? The point of Wikipedia is not to have some servers ticking over. The project has a vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." I agree it's not ok for them to lie, and am bothered enough by their dubious fundraising tactics that I stopped donating. But that's a totally separate concern than whether Wikipedia's mission is complete.
  - starttoaster 3y ago
    What is the mission for Wikipedia beyond doing what they already do, which is just hosting the largest internet encyclopedia? Purely curious because I thought Wikipedia was pretty much at its end game for what it wants to accomplish that is the job of the organization rather than the job of all of its volunteers.
    - doublespanner 3y ago
      Wikipedia is the marketing face of Wikimedia. People donate to the first, but the money gets used by the second, and Wikimedia grows to use all of the money it receives. Wikimedia has no solvable mission, its just a mechanism to turn donations for a project people like into donations for arbitrary causes.
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      > The Wikimedia Foundation's mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Its mission is not just "hosting" - actually creating an encyclopedia is much more than paying for the server costs. Wikimedia produced many very useful projects which often integrate into Wikipedia, but work well standalone as well, and work towards the stated mission - projects like Commons, WikiData, WikiSource. Some projects are more useful than others, but that's just normal.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > The project has a vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." That's not their vision. Not only do they require entries to be notable, they'll remove information from articles that are, in their editorial judgment, too long. Neither action is compatible with the goal of sharing the sum of all knowledge.
    - epups 3y ago
      It is, because removing this barrier to entry and editorial power would lead to spam and SEO bullshit, which arguably already exists. Knowledge does not equal amount of content.
- mhh__ 3y ago
  I see mentioned something like making a new editor UI. This is quite important for the longevity of Wikipedia.
- concordDance 3y ago
  Stop conflating wikipedia and wikimedia. Little of the new stuff is for wikipedia and what's there is of questionable value.
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    Why not? Wikimedia intentionally conflates the two in their own funding drives, which is exactly the issue we are discussing in this thread.
karaterobot 3y ago
It includes staff, but not new stuff. The new stuff seems to be mostly things not directly related to Wikipedia, like funding third-party projects or causes. I'm trying to be politic here: many people don't like the projects they are funding with donation money, and others just don't like that they give money to any projects, and other people don't like that they keep the banner up after they've paid for salaries and keeping the lights on.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  And others, like me, resent any hard-sell tactic and won't give money to anybody using them.

MrDresden 3y ago

Is it personally insulting to you that a completely free high quality services sometimes ask if you want to donate what ever small amount you'd like? You'll be proper mad when you realize how much money that other company, whom you regularly pay for access to their services, has in the bank.

squeaky-clean 3y ago
It's personally insulting that they lie and make it seem like they need the money to keep running, and that your donation will go towards helping Wikipedia itself, when they do not and it does not. There's a difference between "donate if you appreciate this website" and "donate if you appreciate this website because we will have to shut down otherwise (not really though)"
pardoned_turkey 3y ago
Wikipedia is... nuanced. Keep in mind that the entity doing the fundraising is the Wikimedia Foundation. They pay the hosting costs, but return nothing to the actual Wikipedians (editors, admins.) Instead, what's left is used to pay the salaries for hundreds of administrative employees, fund third-party charities, and so on. You can love Wikipedia but have misgivings about the Foundation.
- junofan 3y ago
  It’s openly a grift. The fundraising messages are disingenuous.
calderknight 3y ago
We are really the ones who provide that high quality. Wikipedia isn't edited by the Wikimedia foundation.

nativeit 3y ago

https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2022-annual-report/financials/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2022-annu... Seems almost mundane, as if they’re running a very effective foundation that’s actively achieving their goals. See the recent Cambridge study that explored how their governance has been effective at promoting moderate discourse while suppressing misinformation and hateful content: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/rule-ambiguity-institutional-clashes-and-population-loss-how-wikipedia-became-the-last-good-place-on-the-internet/FC3F7B9CBF951DD30C2648E7DEFB65EE https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-s...

adammarples 3y ago
Seems off. They have 250 million in net asset and hosting costs 2 million a year while they spend 88 million on salaries and still beg for money each year?
concordDance 3y ago
Uh, the opening paragraph of that second leads reads to me like wikipedia effectively got ideologically captured and got rid of all editors who didn't agree.