3 ms·

And places like Wikipedia don’t even give you internet points! What dummies these contributors are.

swalling 2y ago
Except Wikipedia is a non-profit and the content produced is under a free license. The founder of Wikipedia and the few employees are the least wealthy people to run a top 10 website.
- minitech 2y ago
  I agree that the Wikipedia model is better, but Stack Exchange posts are also under a Creative Commons license.
- YetAnotherNick 2y ago
  Nobody contributes to Wikipedia or Stackoverflow because of license. Most contribute because humans like sharing information with other people. If Wikipedia's eyeballs are low, people wouldn't contribute.
  - LeonB 2y ago
    Some people would still contribute. It’s an intrinsic drive. (But I agree with your point in general)
  - swalling 2y ago
    “If Wikipedia’s eyeballs are low, people wouldn’t contribute” People were contributing well before it was a top 10 website. That’s how it got kickstarted in the first place.
    - YetAnotherNick 2y ago
      But people knew that the content is easily accessible over internet and the usage would grow. If the content is only available in say one library in a random city, people wouldn't contribute for free.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
belter 2y ago
Except nobody is selling Wikipedia for 1.8 Billion. Do you see the difference? Congrats on totally missing the point.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  So what? That neither devalues the contributions nor the value given to other people through the content.
  - belter 2y ago
    Imagine this scenario: A group of volunteers builds a public park, putting in hours of work, landscaping, planting trees, and creating a beautiful space for everyone to enjoy. Years later, the park’s manager fences it off, sells it for $1.8 billion, and pockets the money. When questioned, the manager says, “So what? The volunteers enjoyed building it, and people got value from the park while it was open.”
    - CaptainFever 2y ago
      Your story about a park going from "public" to "private", with the manager tricking the volunteers into making something that is no longer public and pocketing the money, is a false analogy for multiple reasons. 1. What do you mean by "open"? If you're talking about the company, the park was private -- fenced off -- from the start; there was no "bait and switch". This is the part which is worth 1.8 billion dollars: the brand name, network, software and system. 2. What do you mean by "open"? If you're talking about the content licenses, then the park is still open and public to this day. This is valuable too, of course, but no one will buy CC-licensed content for 1.8 billion dollars. It's just in the commons. Basically, while both the website and the content are valuable, the 1.8 billion dollars you're complaining about wasn't used to buy the content. Anyone can get that for free. It was used to buy the website, which has always been private and proprietary. Your story would make more sense if StackExchange was a non-profit started by a group of volunteers which somehow got turned into a for-profit and sold to the benefit of a single person, or if they somehow re-licensed everyone's content into proprietary. But neither happened. And that's why it's a false analogy.

Except Wikipedia is a non-profit and the content produced is under a free license. The founder of Wikipedia and the few employees are the least wealthy people to run a top 10 website.

minitech 2y ago
I agree that the Wikipedia model is better, but Stack Exchange posts are also under a Creative Commons license.
YetAnotherNick 2y ago
Nobody contributes to Wikipedia or Stackoverflow because of license. Most contribute because humans like sharing information with other people. If Wikipedia's eyeballs are low, people wouldn't contribute.
- LeonB 2y ago
  Some people would still contribute. It’s an intrinsic drive. (But I agree with your point in general)
- swalling 2y ago
  “If Wikipedia’s eyeballs are low, people wouldn’t contribute” People were contributing well before it was a top 10 website. That’s how it got kickstarted in the first place.
  - YetAnotherNick 2y ago
    But people knew that the content is easily accessible over internet and the usage would grow. If the content is only available in say one library in a random city, people wouldn't contribute for free.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

belter 2y ago

Except nobody is selling Wikipedia for 1.8 Billion. Do you see the difference? Congrats on totally missing the point.

robertlagrant 2y ago
So what? That neither devalues the contributions nor the value given to other people through the content.
- belter 2y ago
  Imagine this scenario: A group of volunteers builds a public park, putting in hours of work, landscaping, planting trees, and creating a beautiful space for everyone to enjoy. Years later, the park’s manager fences it off, sells it for $1.8 billion, and pockets the money. When questioned, the manager says, “So what? The volunteers enjoyed building it, and people got value from the park while it was open.”
  - CaptainFever 2y ago
    Your story about a park going from "public" to "private", with the manager tricking the volunteers into making something that is no longer public and pocketing the money, is a false analogy for multiple reasons. 1. What do you mean by "open"? If you're talking about the company, the park was private -- fenced off -- from the start; there was no "bait and switch". This is the part which is worth 1.8 billion dollars: the brand name, network, software and system. 2. What do you mean by "open"? If you're talking about the content licenses, then the park is still open and public to this day. This is valuable too, of course, but no one will buy CC-licensed content for 1.8 billion dollars. It's just in the commons. Basically, while both the website and the content are valuable, the 1.8 billion dollars you're complaining about wasn't used to buy the content. Anyone can get that for free. It was used to buy the website, which has always been private and proprietary. Your story would make more sense if StackExchange was a non-profit started by a group of volunteers which somehow got turned into a for-profit and sold to the benefit of a single person, or if they somehow re-licensed everyone's content into proprietary. But neither happened. And that's why it's a false analogy.