3 ms·
> So why not Wikipedia? - Cheap to host, just text and images - Funded by non-profit with too much funding - All images are permissively licensed - Easily a
by yesco 3y ago
> So why not Wikipedia?
- Cheap to host, just text and images
- Funded by non-profit with too much funding
- All images are permissively licensed
- Easily archived
- Easily forked
The only potential "death" I can ever see happening to Wikipedia is the kind that happens from some kind of fracturing, similar to what we often see with fan wikis. But this kind of outcome could be a good thing really, multiple competing Wikipedia's would probably help keep each other honest, and wouldn't functionally be too different than the non-english sections of Wikipedia that already exist.
If anything I'm a bit concerned that Wikipedia might be getting a bit too influential than an encyclopedia aught to be.
- johnnyanmac 3y agoToo much money by what metric? Either way, it functions but I feel it's simply a tool for 99.9% of people. They don't read the in depth heated arguments, they looks something up, get brief context, and dip. What they do with that information is honestly no better or worse than any news organization. Ideally we teach to identify and take bias into account, but we've been at a trend for a while now to try and regulate tech instead of society.
- ternaryoperator 3y ago> - Cheap to host, just text and images I doubt it's cheap at this level of traffic.
- Animats 3y ago> Funded by non-profit with too much funding. Right. The Wikimedia Foundation keeps trying other projects. They think they are supposed to grow. This leads to increasingly obnoxious demands for more contributions. "By 2022, it employed around 700 staff and contractors, with annual revenues of $155 million, annual expenses of $146 million, net assets of $240 million and a growing endowment, which surpassed $100 million in June 2021." It's the disease of universities - too many administrators.