4 ms·

Clickbait also includes scandal-mongering, sensationalism, or yellow journalism as a whole. The Register fits that category very well and I didn't even have to

Clickbait also includes scandal-mongering, sensationalism, or yellow journalism as a whole. The Register fits that category very well and I didn't even have to open those 2 links to know that they are rubbish. Personally, I don't care on how many millions the directors of Wikimedia sit on, because Wikipedia is possibly the most useful online service we have. And not only that, but all the content in it is licensed under open licenses that allow for reuse [1], which is very relevant in a climate in which copyright extensions keep being granted. I also prefer to see them asking for donations instead of serving ads, because ad companies are selling my data to the highest bidder and I don't necessarily want other parties to find out the topics I'm interested in. Do you care about the internal expenses or about the revenue of each company you're interacting with? If Wikimedia would introduce a subscription model, they'd earn much more than they are doing right now. They don't have a subscription model, they don't serve ads, they aren't locking-in content, they don't sell my traffic - all they are doing is asking nicely for donations about once a year, which is totally optional, it's not like you have to pay up. I really don't get what's wrong with that. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_con...

akolbe 12y ago
You shouldn't write anyone a free license to collect as much money as they can by monetizing the Wikipedia brand. The money has to actually serve a need and be spent in a way that benefits the reader. And there have been germane questions asked about that, even by Wikimedia's own outgoing director: http://www.dailydot.com/business/sue-gardner-log-rolling-corruption-wikimedia-chapters/ http://www.dailydot.com/business/sue-gardner-log-rolling-cor... The reason most of the Wikimedia Foundation's expenditure goes on salaries these days is that they have vastly expanded their staff. Staff expansion isn't bad, but it shouldn't be an end in itself, and the staff hired should be qualified and deliver value for money. And here even Jimmy Wales admitted that their cost/benefit ratio needs a lot of improvement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=623290066 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_W... The main thing to bear in mind is that donations are not needed to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free, as the fundraising banners say. There is more than enough money for that; it's a very small part of the Foundation's expenditure today. It used to be different: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4#t=275 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4#t=275

akolbe 12y ago

You shouldn't write anyone a free license to collect as much money as they can by monetizing the Wikipedia brand. The money has to actually serve a need and be spent in a way that benefits the reader. And there have been germane questions asked about that, even by Wikimedia's own outgoing director: http://www.dailydot.com/business/sue-gardner-log-rolling-corruption-wikimedia-chapters/ http://www.dailydot.com/business/sue-gardner-log-rolling-cor... The reason most of the Wikimedia Foundation's expenditure goes on salaries these days is that they have vastly expanded their staff. Staff expansion isn't bad, but it shouldn't be an end in itself, and the staff hired should be qualified and deliver value for money. And here even Jimmy Wales admitted that their cost/benefit ratio needs a lot of improvement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=623290066 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_W... The main thing to bear in mind is that donations are not needed to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free, as the fundraising banners say. There is more than enough money for that; it's a very small part of the Foundation's expenditure today. It used to be different: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4#t=275 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4#t=275