4 ms·

If you read their Wikipedia page [1] they sound like an Italian Saint. A lot about the various awards they have gotten and other "charitable" activities. But r

If you read their Wikipedia page [1] they sound like an Italian Saint. A lot about the various awards they have gotten and other "charitable" activities. But reading the comments here, I get another impression of the company. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bending_Spoons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bending_Spoons

fallingknife 3y ago
One the one hand, never take rankings and awards like that seriously. On the other hand, people in these comments are irrationally angry about the fact that people are getting fired in this deal without knowing any of the business reasons behind it.
epolanski 3y ago
That's like 100% written by themselves or a PR agency.
- stuartjohnson12 3y ago
  The great thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit. Don't mind if I do...
  - dylan604 3y ago
    So that's what they want you to believe, but unless you are part of the accepted editor cabal, any changes you make will be reverted by someone actually part of the cabal
    - stuartjohnson12 3y ago
      Do you think I'm part of the editor cabal? If so, what qualified me? If not, do you expect my changes to this article to be reverted?
      - dylan604 3y ago
        I have no idea if you are or not. I'm challenging your claim about anyone being able to make edits as that's what Wiki wants people to think since most people will take that at face value. The reality is, that if you are not an accepted member of the cabal, then your edits will be reverted. So yes, if you are not part of the cabal, I would expect your edits to be reverted...at some point in time. I have very little faith in the system. If you are part of the cabal, how long did it take to learn the handshake? /s
        stuartjohnson12 3y ago
        I don't know what it means to be a member of the cabal. I just showed up one day and started writing edits. I have about a thousand edits now. Some of them were reverted, but most weren't. I think the reason people perceive there to be a "cabal" is that they edit articles that are either very contentious to begin with (national identity, gender, politics) or are high traffic and most of the content has already been discussed at length. Even in those areas, I think there is not a cabal, just lots of angry individual people who oftentimes end up being banned if they get angry enough. But I don't generally edit in high traffic areas generally because I don't like long litigations on talk pages. The last time I saw the "cabal" in effect on Wikipedia was when I tried to rephrase some things on a page related to a controversial topic. There were two users working together to load the page with some very biased terms. I tried to remove them but was swiftly reverted. I think that's what you mean when you say the cabal. I gave up editing that article because a long fight didn't interest me. Since then, both of the users trying to guard that article against edits have since been banned from editing in the area that article was in. The "cabal" as you see it is usually just a small number of very interested editors with a strong opinion. If their opinions are too strong, then they're usually in violation of Wikipedia policy and they get cleaned out eventually. I don't like to fight with those people though. My favourite thing to do on Wikipedia is clean up around the edges. If you follow this link, you'll be taken to a random article which is tagged as being written in a promotional tone. There are around 25,000 articles like this on Wikipedia at the moment. https://randomincategory.toolforge.org/All_articles_with_a_promotional_tone?site=en.wikipedia.org https://randomincategory.toolforge.org/All_articles_with_a_p... These articles could use attention from an average, unbiased person to help tidy them up and read more neutrally. I see fixing Wikipedia articles like a kind of gardening. There is a lot to do in areas which are not trafficked so highly. I hope you would consider contributing one day.
    - mhh__ 3y ago
      I've made changes to a pretty contentious page (amongst others, but that one in particular is quite conspiratorial) and it's all still there.
fakedang 3y ago
Really? I didn't check if anything in the page changed, but it seems to me like Bending Spoons was a failing wannabe Rocket Internet: "Evernote was acquired and everyone was laid off." "Immuni was awarded but less than 1% used it." "Acquired some company and fired its entire team." Literally sounds like some tech scavenger.
- cdchn 3y ago
  The Gordon Gekkos of 2024.
Sakos 3y ago
Oh wow, they even acquired Evernote and fired the entire staff. I hadn't heard about that.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  Yeah, they did that. The app is not going "downhill" yet, however if they start to ruin it for good, I'll be moving out. I was not planning to do that, and I don't wish that they force me to do that.
  - monkey_monkey 3y ago
    > eah, they did that. The app is not going "downhill" yet, Isn't that because there's not much further the Evernote app can fall?
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      For my use case, the app is not half bad, except it's being Electron. The underpinnings hold so well, because .enex format is good, and the application understands Markdown formatting cues for the most part. Also, the professional plan has GPS tagged notes, which I tend to like. Evernote doesn't have much alternatives for what I use it for. Notion doesn't work offline, Obsidian is too information dense and not easy to collaborate with. I use Obsidian + publish for my digital garden, but it doesn't work well for other things I use Evernote for. I never had the data loss people mentioned about, either. Lastly, I don't care about AI stuff in either Evernote or Notion. I neither trust the tech, nor I consent to train these "things" with my data.
  - sib 3y ago
    Somehow I missed the acquisition. I think the downhill slide has begun - they recently changed the terms / capabilities on their free version to make it even more limited and, presumably, to get more people to upgrade. It's good to know this because it gives me the push I needed to finally move off my very limited use of the app.
- AlwaysRock 3y ago
andruby 3y ago
The wikipedia page has been thoroughly editted today and reads a lot more factual now.
- brandall10 3y ago
  It is but it's still not up to date with their more recent carnage. Is this just an aggressive PE firm or what?
  - simonebrunozzi 3y ago
    A PE firm (don't remember which one) acquired a substantial stake of the company a while ago.

fallingknife 3y ago

One the one hand, never take rankings and awards like that seriously. On the other hand, people in these comments are irrationally angry about the fact that people are getting fired in this deal without knowing any of the business reasons behind it.

epolanski 3y ago

That's like 100% written by themselves or a PR agency.

stuartjohnson12 3y ago
The great thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit. Don't mind if I do...
- dylan604 3y ago
  So that's what they want you to believe, but unless you are part of the accepted editor cabal, any changes you make will be reverted by someone actually part of the cabal
  - stuartjohnson12 3y ago
    Do you think I'm part of the editor cabal? If so, what qualified me? If not, do you expect my changes to this article to be reverted?
    - dylan604 3y ago
      I have no idea if you are or not. I'm challenging your claim about anyone being able to make edits as that's what Wiki wants people to think since most people will take that at face value. The reality is, that if you are not an accepted member of the cabal, then your edits will be reverted. So yes, if you are not part of the cabal, I would expect your edits to be reverted...at some point in time. I have very little faith in the system. If you are part of the cabal, how long did it take to learn the handshake? /s
      - stuartjohnson12 3y ago
        I don't know what it means to be a member of the cabal. I just showed up one day and started writing edits. I have about a thousand edits now. Some of them were reverted, but most weren't. I think the reason people perceive there to be a "cabal" is that they edit articles that are either very contentious to begin with (national identity, gender, politics) or are high traffic and most of the content has already been discussed at length. Even in those areas, I think there is not a cabal, just lots of angry individual people who oftentimes end up being banned if they get angry enough. But I don't generally edit in high traffic areas generally because I don't like long litigations on talk pages. The last time I saw the "cabal" in effect on Wikipedia was when I tried to rephrase some things on a page related to a controversial topic. There were two users working together to load the page with some very biased terms. I tried to remove them but was swiftly reverted. I think that's what you mean when you say the cabal. I gave up editing that article because a long fight didn't interest me. Since then, both of the users trying to guard that article against edits have since been banned from editing in the area that article was in. The "cabal" as you see it is usually just a small number of very interested editors with a strong opinion. If their opinions are too strong, then they're usually in violation of Wikipedia policy and they get cleaned out eventually. I don't like to fight with those people though. My favourite thing to do on Wikipedia is clean up around the edges. If you follow this link, you'll be taken to a random article which is tagged as being written in a promotional tone. There are around 25,000 articles like this on Wikipedia at the moment. https://randomincategory.toolforge.org/All_articles_with_a_promotional_tone?site=en.wikipedia.org https://randomincategory.toolforge.org/All_articles_with_a_p... These articles could use attention from an average, unbiased person to help tidy them up and read more neutrally. I see fixing Wikipedia articles like a kind of gardening. There is a lot to do in areas which are not trafficked so highly. I hope you would consider contributing one day.
  - mhh__ 3y ago
    I've made changes to a pretty contentious page (amongst others, but that one in particular is quite conspiratorial) and it's all still there.

fakedang 3y ago

Really? I didn't check if anything in the page changed, but it seems to me like Bending Spoons was a failing wannabe Rocket Internet: "Evernote was acquired and everyone was laid off." "Immuni was awarded but less than 1% used it." "Acquired some company and fired its entire team." Literally sounds like some tech scavenger.

cdchn 3y ago
The Gordon Gekkos of 2024.

Sakos 3y ago

Oh wow, they even acquired Evernote and fired the entire staff. I hadn't heard about that.

bayindirh 3y ago
Yeah, they did that. The app is not going "downhill" yet, however if they start to ruin it for good, I'll be moving out. I was not planning to do that, and I don't wish that they force me to do that.
- monkey_monkey 3y ago
  > eah, they did that. The app is not going "downhill" yet, Isn't that because there's not much further the Evernote app can fall?
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    For my use case, the app is not half bad, except it's being Electron. The underpinnings hold so well, because .enex format is good, and the application understands Markdown formatting cues for the most part. Also, the professional plan has GPS tagged notes, which I tend to like. Evernote doesn't have much alternatives for what I use it for. Notion doesn't work offline, Obsidian is too information dense and not easy to collaborate with. I use Obsidian + publish for my digital garden, but it doesn't work well for other things I use Evernote for. I never had the data loss people mentioned about, either. Lastly, I don't care about AI stuff in either Evernote or Notion. I neither trust the tech, nor I consent to train these "things" with my data.
- sib 3y ago
  Somehow I missed the acquisition. I think the downhill slide has begun - they recently changed the terms / capabilities on their free version to make it even more limited and, presumably, to get more people to upgrade. It's good to know this because it gives me the push I needed to finally move off my very limited use of the app.
AlwaysRock 3y ago

andruby 3y ago

The wikipedia page has been thoroughly editted today and reads a lot more factual now.

brandall10 3y ago
It is but it's still not up to date with their more recent carnage. Is this just an aggressive PE firm or what?
- simonebrunozzi 3y ago
  A PE firm (don't remember which one) acquired a substantial stake of the company a while ago.