Wikipedians are rebelling against “unethical” Wikipedia fundraising banners(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Wikipedians are rebelling against “unethical” Wikipedia fundraising banners
https://twitter.com/wikiland/status/1592477366739415040
401 comments
FWIW I was a Wikipedia admin for ~15 years, contributor for ~20 years, and resigned last month citing use of funds as one of the key reasons.
The discussion has run for less than 24 hours; and of those (now) 37 editors, only three (3) have left a comment saying they are okay with the banners as they are.
Good URL trick. It helps to be a staffer. ;)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:DLynch_(WMF)
Good URL trick. It helps to be a staffer. ;)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:DLynch_(WMF)
It looks like your account is using HN primarily if not exclusively to post about this one cause. That's not allowed here—it runs against the intended purpose of the site, which is intellectual curiosity.
Single-purpose accounts are by definition repetitive and repetition is bad for curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...), as is any form of predictability. For this reason, we ban single-purpose accounts. Needless to say this doesn't have to do with the merits of your cause; it just has to do with the mandate of this site.
I'm not going to ban you right now but if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and diversify your posts to HN and adjust so that you're using it in the intended spirit, we'd be grateful.
Single-purpose accounts are by definition repetitive and repetition is bad for curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...), as is any form of predictability. For this reason, we ban single-purpose accounts. Needless to say this doesn't have to do with the merits of your cause; it just has to do with the mandate of this site.
I'm not going to ban you right now but if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and diversify your posts to HN and adjust so that you're using it in the intended spirit, we'd be grateful.
> It looks like your account is using HN primarily if not exclusively to post about this one cause.
https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=akolbe
Looking at akolbe's contributions with the strongest plausible interpretation of what they've said, and assuming good faith, it doesn't look that way to me.
Also looking at akolbe's profile we see that they are deeply connected with Wikipedia, so it makes sense that some of their posts would involve stories about Wikipedia (presumably, they'd have more insight about what's happening at Wikipedia than the average reader).
https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=akolbe
Looking at akolbe's contributions with the strongest plausible interpretation of what they've said, and assuming good faith, it doesn't look that way to me.
Also looking at akolbe's profile we see that they are deeply connected with Wikipedia, so it makes sense that some of their posts would involve stories about Wikipedia (presumably, they'd have more insight about what's happening at Wikipedia than the average reader).
However, the user's comment appears mostly to criticize the fundraising and spending. If it's the only argument the user can come up, then it's predictable and doesn't offer meaningful conversation. Though I initially joined HN to participate in Wikimedia-related topics, I feel there's other interesting things to discuss, and ventured into other topics I never thought I would discuss.
What I wrote was based not only on submissions but on comments as well.
I take your comments under advisement.
It's true that many of my discussion comments here – especially recently – have been about Wikipedia fundraising.
There are several reasons for this. For one, this is a topic I both care about and am knowledgeable about, and it's also something people often ask questions about in the resulting threads here. My submissions on other topics don't generally result in a lot of discussion of this type.
Another reason is that there simply has been a lot of controversy on Wikipedia about this topic during the past year. My contributions here have mostly focused on aspects of Wikipedia, as this is the area I am most knowledgeable about – from my work as a Wikipedia volunteer and as a contributor and former editor-in-chief of Wikipedia's community newspaper – and therefore the current controversies around fundraising often come up. (This said, many of my Wikipedia-related submissions have nothing to do with fundraising.)
And to be clear, I did not start the Request for Comment on Wikipedia that this thread is about.
There is a lot of great content here. I regularly read other threads and will endeavour to contribute more broadly to discussions. Regards.
It's true that many of my discussion comments here – especially recently – have been about Wikipedia fundraising.
There are several reasons for this. For one, this is a topic I both care about and am knowledgeable about, and it's also something people often ask questions about in the resulting threads here. My submissions on other topics don't generally result in a lot of discussion of this type.
Another reason is that there simply has been a lot of controversy on Wikipedia about this topic during the past year. My contributions here have mostly focused on aspects of Wikipedia, as this is the area I am most knowledgeable about – from my work as a Wikipedia volunteer and as a contributor and former editor-in-chief of Wikipedia's community newspaper – and therefore the current controversies around fundraising often come up. (This said, many of my Wikipedia-related submissions have nothing to do with fundraising.)
And to be clear, I did not start the Request for Comment on Wikipedia that this thread is about.
There is a lot of great content here. I regularly read other threads and will endeavour to contribute more broadly to discussions. Regards.
akolbe's posts are almost universally about Wikimedia Foundation's fundraising. The research is poorly sourced, mostly inaccurate, and has a strong bias against using funding for anything other than paying for hosting costs (which to akolbe, shouldn't include paying the staff). akolbe's strongest stance is against using money for "social causes", even though not much of the funding is used for that.
Overall, akolbe is using multiple platforms to troll this particular issue. It used to be limited to wikimedia-l and to the community pump, but times change.
Overall, akolbe is using multiple platforms to troll this particular issue. It used to be limited to wikimedia-l and to the community pump, but times change.
Let us note that of the six candidates for the Wikimedia Foundation board in this year's (s)election process, three endorsed the statement:
"WMF fundraising is deceptive: it creates a false appearance that the WMF is short of money while it is in fact richer than ever."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_electio...
One of these candidates (Mike Peel) was elected. The other successful candidate, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, said on the same page, "I do feel that the online campaign can be improved. See videos for more."
She did indeed comment further in the videos, saying (in reply to question 6), "The one thing that I think we can improve is our on-wiki campaign. It is sometimes too aggressive to my taste."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_electio...
The rest in your post you have made up. It does not reflect my opinions at all.
"WMF fundraising is deceptive: it creates a false appearance that the WMF is short of money while it is in fact richer than ever."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_electio...
One of these candidates (Mike Peel) was elected. The other successful candidate, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, said on the same page, "I do feel that the online campaign can be improved. See videos for more."
She did indeed comment further in the videos, saying (in reply to question 6), "The one thing that I think we can improve is our on-wiki campaign. It is sometimes too aggressive to my taste."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_electio...
The rest in your post you have made up. It does not reflect my opinions at all.
I agree with the fact that the messaging is deceptive. I'd like it to change. I've specifically called WMF out for it in the past. You're going well past complaining about the messaging, though.
I did not make up the rest, and we've had numerous exchanges here, and on twitter, where you were pretty explicit about what things you dislike WMF funding, and most of those happen to be related to funding social issues related to Wikimedia (lack of representation, for example). You source from places with obvious bias that also include outright lies.
You specifically call out how much is being spent on hosting, even though it's been pointed out to you numerous times by numerous people that it doesn't include the cost of engineering, legal, HR, internal IT, etc. which are vital to running and maintaining the sites. You're purposely being misleading, to the point of being deceitful.
You point to a post by an old VP, that mentions a price wikipedia could be run for, but fail to take the word of folks (like me) who worked there at the time, that can tell you WMF was woefully understaffed (and poorly led by that VP) when he made that statement. Today's headcount is way more realistic in terms of what's needed to keep things going. It also doesn't take into account that the employees were woefully underpaid (and continue to be underpaid).
I did not make up the rest, and we've had numerous exchanges here, and on twitter, where you were pretty explicit about what things you dislike WMF funding, and most of those happen to be related to funding social issues related to Wikimedia (lack of representation, for example). You source from places with obvious bias that also include outright lies.
You specifically call out how much is being spent on hosting, even though it's been pointed out to you numerous times by numerous people that it doesn't include the cost of engineering, legal, HR, internal IT, etc. which are vital to running and maintaining the sites. You're purposely being misleading, to the point of being deceitful.
You point to a post by an old VP, that mentions a price wikipedia could be run for, but fail to take the word of folks (like me) who worked there at the time, that can tell you WMF was woefully understaffed (and poorly led by that VP) when he made that statement. Today's headcount is way more realistic in terms of what's needed to keep things going. It also doesn't take into account that the employees were woefully underpaid (and continue to be underpaid).
[deleted]
[deleted]
I was hoping someone could help me understand. The objective of the Wikimedia Endowment[0] is to invest until the profits fully fund Wikipedia, expenses, as is the case with most endowments. According to Wikipedia’s financial statements[1], their spending balloons by tens of millions of dollars each year.
2015-2016: $66M
2019-2020: $112M
2021-2022: $146M
Assuming a modest return of 5%, isn’t it the case they would need billions in their endowment to fully fund Wikipedia?
0: https://wikimediaendowment.org/
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statis...
2015-2016: $66M
2019-2020: $112M
2021-2022: $146M
Assuming a modest return of 5%, isn’t it the case they would need billions in their endowment to fully fund Wikipedia?
0: https://wikimediaendowment.org/
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statis...
Wikimedia != Wikipedia
The hosting bill is $2,704,842 per year, and the work is done by volunteers.
The hosting bill is $2,704,842 per year, and the work is done by volunteers.
The "Internet Hosting" line doesn't mean what some seem to think or imply it does. There's a ton of non-volunteer work that must happen to make any use of that hosting bill (software + infrastructure engineering teams, and obviously lots of other departments a functioning organization should have). There are valid debates to be had about how Wikipedia asks for and uses donations, but trying to imply that it only takes ~$3M/yr to "run" Wikipedia and the rest is useless bloat is hyperbolic fantasy and completely unhelpful.
While that's true, the majority of WMF's staff is not performing essential functions like IT. [1] shows lots of staff in fundraising, design, brand, marketing, communications, and advocacy type roles.
I think WMF's budget history [2] also proves that it's possible to run Wikipedia with much less funding. E.g. they spent $2m in 2006-2007, vs $146m in 2021-2022. They were already a top 10 website in 2007 (per Alexa), so things like traffic growth wouldn't explain that much of their budget growth.
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
I think WMF's budget history [2] also proves that it's possible to run Wikipedia with much less funding. E.g. they spent $2m in 2006-2007, vs $146m in 2021-2022. They were already a top 10 website in 2007 (per Alexa), so things like traffic growth wouldn't explain that much of their budget growth.
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
Of all the departments in the org structure of Wikimedia, the Technology and Product departments are the two with the highest individual headcounts. Combined Tech+Product staff is slightly over half of the entire org's headcount. Most of the employees in these departments are technical in nature (either engineers of some kind or direct supporting roles), and you can make a fair case that they're all necessary operationally for the sites (maybe only Tech is necessary on a day-to-day level, but you wouldn't make it much further into the future without Product's work as well).
I would argue that the other departments/teams you listed are also necessary to the long-term health of the Foundation and the sites as well. However, even if we hypothetically decided that your whole list of "non-essential" org departments/teams/functions were a complete waste of resources (and again, they're not, IMHO!), those still don't comprise all the "other half" of the org's non-tech/product headcount, as you're still missing other essential teams like Legal, Talent&Culture (HR), etc, which are also significant chunks (Legal alone is a little over 10% of staff and extremely important and impactful!).
As to your point about budget growth: it was a different site and a different Internet in 2006. The org is growing up and becoming more responsible. It's getting more resilient in the face of an increasingly hostile Internet, it's getting better at fighting technical and legal censorship battles around the world, and it's slowly replacing the externalities of burning out a handful of highly skilled and overworked staff with more robust and "normal" staffing where employees can have real work-life balance and vacation plans or departures don't cause undue risks, etc. We're also trying to reach out to and support the growth of underserved Wikipedian communities around the world (both in technical and non-technical senses) in ways that we couldn't even dream of in 2006. Increased costs and overhead are to be expected with all of this!
Even at today's Tech headcounts, if you compare us to any other major sites of this importance, scope, or even traffic level on the Internet, we're still operating on relatively-shoestring tech staffing levels, especially considering we don't outsource core infrastructure to 3rd party services or clouds, mostly due to our strong user privacy and legal stances.
I would argue that the other departments/teams you listed are also necessary to the long-term health of the Foundation and the sites as well. However, even if we hypothetically decided that your whole list of "non-essential" org departments/teams/functions were a complete waste of resources (and again, they're not, IMHO!), those still don't comprise all the "other half" of the org's non-tech/product headcount, as you're still missing other essential teams like Legal, Talent&Culture (HR), etc, which are also significant chunks (Legal alone is a little over 10% of staff and extremely important and impactful!).
As to your point about budget growth: it was a different site and a different Internet in 2006. The org is growing up and becoming more responsible. It's getting more resilient in the face of an increasingly hostile Internet, it's getting better at fighting technical and legal censorship battles around the world, and it's slowly replacing the externalities of burning out a handful of highly skilled and overworked staff with more robust and "normal" staffing where employees can have real work-life balance and vacation plans or departures don't cause undue risks, etc. We're also trying to reach out to and support the growth of underserved Wikipedian communities around the world (both in technical and non-technical senses) in ways that we couldn't even dream of in 2006. Increased costs and overhead are to be expected with all of this!
Even at today's Tech headcounts, if you compare us to any other major sites of this importance, scope, or even traffic level on the Internet, we're still operating on relatively-shoestring tech staffing levels, especially considering we don't outsource core infrastructure to 3rd party services or clouds, mostly due to our strong user privacy and legal stances.
To be clear I wasn't trying to say that those employees aren't doing useful work, just that they're non-essential. One could argue that product design/engineering/management isn't essential to running Wikipedia either, especially if the work is for sister projects rather than WP itself. And I imagine departments like HR could be much smaller if the org was much smaller.
Maybe WMF's budget is justifiable based on its impact. I think most of us just want WMF to be upfront about how donors' funds are used, i.e. to not imply that donations are needed to keep the lights on, so that donors can make an informed decision. Most editors agree that the current banner messaging is misleading, as per the linked proposal.
Maybe WMF's budget is justifiable based on its impact. I think most of us just want WMF to be upfront about how donors' funds are used, i.e. to not imply that donations are needed to keep the lights on, so that donors can make an informed decision. Most editors agree that the current banner messaging is misleading, as per the linked proposal.
Okay, so how much does it cost to run "core" wikipedia?
This is what the Wikimedia VP said in 2013:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March...
"WMF has operated in the past without staffing and with very minimal staffing, so clearly it's _possible_ to host a high traffic website on an absolute shoestring. But I would argue that an endowment, to actually be worthwhile, should aim for a significantly higher base level of minimal annual operating expenses, more in the order of magnitude of $10M+/year, to ensure not only bare survival, but actual sustainability of Wikimedia's mission."
Revenue goal for the current year has been set at $175 million. The WMF more than doubles its expenses every five years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial...
This is not about keeping Wikipedia online – it's about financing the growth of the Wikimedia organisation. Donors by and large are left quite unaware of this fact; they mostly think Wikipedia is in some sort of trouble.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March...
"WMF has operated in the past without staffing and with very minimal staffing, so clearly it's _possible_ to host a high traffic website on an absolute shoestring. But I would argue that an endowment, to actually be worthwhile, should aim for a significantly higher base level of minimal annual operating expenses, more in the order of magnitude of $10M+/year, to ensure not only bare survival, but actual sustainability of Wikimedia's mission."
Revenue goal for the current year has been set at $175 million. The WMF more than doubles its expenses every five years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial...
This is not about keeping Wikipedia online – it's about financing the growth of the Wikimedia organisation. Donors by and large are left quite unaware of this fact; they mostly think Wikipedia is in some sort of trouble.
Well, maybe the VP has a point. A "bloated" Wikimedia organization is probably at least more resistant to hostile takeover / being sued into oblivion / swamped by some sort of crisis than a shoestring one. The more people derive money and social status from running an independent Wikipedia, the more collective incentive there is to maintain the status quo, as opposed to accepting some juicy offer from Google which we'd all hate.
Editing Wikipedia is done by volunteers. The sysadmin/operations staff is paid, and so are the Mediawiki developers building out stuff specifically for WP.
There are paid administrators and developers, but also unpaid ones too.
Yes, there are volunteer sysadmins, some with the exact same authorizations as WMF employees. With modern infrastructure as code, they can even contribute to how the site is deployed.
Some projects have good crossover between paid and volunteer Wikipedians. But the WMF tends to do the heavier lifts, even if sometimes they are ideas the community isn’t interested in.
Yes, there are volunteer sysadmins, some with the exact same authorizations as WMF employees. With modern infrastructure as code, they can even contribute to how the site is deployed.
Some projects have good crossover between paid and volunteer Wikipedians. But the WMF tends to do the heavier lifts, even if sometimes they are ideas the community isn’t interested in.
As the sibling comment points out, assuming Wikipedia's endowment sees 5% returns, it needs to be $54 million just to cover Wikipedia's hosting expenses. That doesn't cover any other Wikipedia/Wikimedia expenses like their full time staff or other OpEx.
If the endowment gets less than 5% returns it needs to be that much larger to cover expenses.
If the endowment gets less than 5% returns it needs to be that much larger to cover expenses.
Yeah, and they already have a lot more than 54M in the bank
Per this page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment the Endowment at the Tides Foundation held over $113 million in January of this year. That is the latest data available.
The Wikimedia Foundation itself reported assets of $239 million in addition to that, as of June this year:
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWi...
The Wikimedia Foundation itself reported assets of $239 million in addition to that, as of June this year:
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWi...
A lot of work on software development is done by the paid staff. And Wikipedia - and also accompanying projects like Commons, Wikidata, Wiktionary, Wikisource, etc. - are complex pieces of software with long list of features requested by users. Even if it weren't so, running site of this magnitude requires an operations team that can not be volunteer. So, pretending that the hosting bill is the only (or the main) expense that goes into running Wikipedia is silly.
then to which the money donated go? I mean considering it's money raised using banners splattered all over Wikipedia, specifically saying Wikipedia and barely any mention of Wikimedia
Not sure where their spending goes so I'm not going to comment on that, but assuming a 5% rate of return (for example), they'd need 20 times their annual spending to be fully funded by their endowment. Ever million that's added is 20 million more needed. Conversely, every million saved is 20 million less that's needed. Ballooning is not the way, but maybe they'll level off? No idea - I don't run the business or care to dive into their expenses. Just wanted to highlight the double power of reducing their expenses in this case. I'm sure they understand that though.
[deleted]
There is nothing about “intersectional scientific method” anywhere on the internet or on the org’s website. https://www.vanguardstem.com/serch.
Non profits (WMF) grant money to programs that directly or indirectly affect the content of all products offered by the WMF. It’s not just Wikipedia. There are grants that goto volunteers to increase editorship/authorship of non English Wikipedia or in countries and culture where Wikipedia does not have as many articles.
Calling this culture wars and simply saying “the money doesn’t goto hosting” is low complexity thinking that fails to account for all the things the foundation does.
Non profits (WMF) grant money to programs that directly or indirectly affect the content of all products offered by the WMF. It’s not just Wikipedia. There are grants that goto volunteers to increase editorship/authorship of non English Wikipedia or in countries and culture where Wikipedia does not have as many articles.
Calling this culture wars and simply saying “the money doesn’t goto hosting” is low complexity thinking that fails to account for all the things the foundation does.
https://conversations.vanguardstem.com/hotsciencesummer-faq-...
>What is the intersectional scientific methodology? The Intersectional Scientific Methodology (ISM) is the concept that your identities and experiences influence your science. We coined this term in our peer-reviewed article. You will need to address how your project incorporates embodied observation, embedded context, and/or collective impact in the additional information section of your proposal to be eligible for a boost.
This isn't nearly the bogeyman people would have you believe it is. One's "identities and experiences" can easily influence which questions they are and aren't addressing (intentionally or not). None of this "intersectional scientific method" seems, however, to degrade the scientific method itself.
>What is the intersectional scientific methodology? The Intersectional Scientific Methodology (ISM) is the concept that your identities and experiences influence your science. We coined this term in our peer-reviewed article. You will need to address how your project incorporates embodied observation, embedded context, and/or collective impact in the additional information section of your proposal to be eligible for a boost.
This isn't nearly the bogeyman people would have you believe it is. One's "identities and experiences" can easily influence which questions they are and aren't addressing (intentionally or not). None of this "intersectional scientific method" seems, however, to degrade the scientific method itself.
Five years ago it was just some crazy college kids, pay them no mind, now they have institutional control of HR departments and college administrations. Scientists in academia have to write proper ideological statements about how "woke" they are in order to research fluid dynamics.
Until this kind of thing gets successful pushback, we should assume they'll continue to reorient institutions around the culture war and there will be no outbreak of common sense.
Until this kind of thing gets successful pushback, we should assume they'll continue to reorient institutions around the culture war and there will be no outbreak of common sense.
Knowing, acknowledging and accounting for one's own biases is just good science.
You wouldn't use a thermometer that was always 10C too high to measure and reports temperatures, without pointing out that the thermometer has a 10C bias, would you? Why would you oppose introspection about oneself and one's own potential biases in knowledge production?
You wouldn't use a thermometer that was always 10C too high to measure and reports temperatures, without pointing out that the thermometer has a 10C bias, would you? Why would you oppose introspection about oneself and one's own potential biases in knowledge production?
Explicitly enforcing biases towards a particular ideological project is not "unbiasing", though, it's more bias.
Maybe I'm engaging in FUD and these people will be content with some minor efforts towards restraining bias, but in my experience it's never enough.
Maybe I'm engaging in FUD and these people will be content with some minor efforts towards restraining bias, but in my experience it's never enough.
Maybe I am missing the part where is says there is a particular ideological project beyond better science?
You act like bias isn't actually a problem in science, but when I think back to the number of studies recruiting on campus at my Highly Selective Undergrad Institution (TM), and cross reference that with the student population, it's really easy to understand the claims that science is WEIRD[1].
[1] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/weird
You act like bias isn't actually a problem in science, but when I think back to the number of studies recruiting on campus at my Highly Selective Undergrad Institution (TM), and cross reference that with the student population, it's really easy to understand the claims that science is WEIRD[1].
[1] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/weird
You're describing a very legitimate sampling error problem. I'm describing forced ideological conformity. Both exist in academia today.
If, in the spirit of the proposed "bias declaiming section", a social scientist made a point of saying that they're systematically biased against conservative and white/rural viewpoints, how do you think that would go over? Pat on the back for introspection?
If, in the spirit of the proposed "bias declaiming section", a social scientist made a point of saying that they're systematically biased against conservative and white/rural viewpoints, how do you think that would go over? Pat on the back for introspection?
I think so, yeah, sure.
Why don’t you think so? "Our own academic perspective limits us e.g. in our survey design and language, making it harder for us to connect with our respondents" is something I heard and learned over and over and over again.
Why don’t you think so? "Our own academic perspective limits us e.g. in our survey design and language, making it harder for us to connect with our respondents" is something I heard and learned over and over and over again.
That's different. Your phrasing is politically neutral and could even be interpreted as centering blue-favored groups.
My contention is that any "unbiasing" which said "we are going to lean conservative to counter our innate liberal bias" would not be welcomed.
(I'm a liberal, btw, I just believe in calling a spade a spade. Don't call one-sided activism "unbiasing".)
My contention is that any "unbiasing" which said "we are going to lean conservative to counter our innate liberal bias" would not be welcomed.
(I'm a liberal, btw, I just believe in calling a spade a spade. Don't call one-sided activism "unbiasing".)
Please don't add disclaimers like "I'm a liberal", it should not matter what your political opinions are. Shoot the message, not the messenger after all?
When all the biases one is asked to acknowledge and account for are biases against one specific political movement and its symbols, this is an isolated demand for rigour (https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demand...) and not necessarily good for science. To adapt your thermometer metaphor, if there were two types of thermometer in circulation, one 10C too high and one 10C too low, would demanding that people constantly remind each other, and where possible correct, for thermometers that output a temperature that is too high (and perhaps labelling any reference to the low-balling ones as dangerous misinformation by people who have a vested interest in high readings) actually improve the quality of scientific output? On the meta-analysis level, the opposite might happen, if the biases used to cancel out on average and now one of them is left standing unopposed.
And which biases, specifically, are asked to be accounted for? My count on that page is zero.
[deleted]
1. That's not what is happening here. There's no intention to use this to make science better.
2. Even if it was, some people are assumed to be "biased" based on silly things like the color of their skin or what gender they are. The bias-checking process is biased.
2. Even if it was, some people are assumed to be "biased" based on silly things like the color of their skin or what gender they are. The bias-checking process is biased.
This comment says a lot about your worldview, but not much about anything else.
> I'm right, you're wrong
Great argument
> Account joined 34 days ago
Nevermind, I'm sorry I said anything.
Great argument
> Account joined 34 days ago
Nevermind, I'm sorry I said anything.
You made two wild assertions without any evidence.
It’s not about biased tools though. I would use a device invented by a Nazi scientist.
In fact we all benefit daily from scientific discoveries made in oppressive, violent, bigoted regimes.
In fact we all benefit daily from scientific discoveries made in oppressive, violent, bigoted regimes.
> about how "woke" they are in order to research fluid dynamics
If someone asked VanguardStem to fund a fluid dynamics project, what are you imagining they would have to say in order to pass the ISM criteria? This concern comes across like hyperbolic fearmongering.
If someone asked VanguardStem to fund a fluid dynamics project, what are you imagining they would have to say in order to pass the ISM criteria? This concern comes across like hyperbolic fearmongering.
It's a real thing. UC does it and other institutions.
In order to be considered for a job, you lead with a "diversity statement", this is looked at before your job qualifications even, and there are right and wrong opinions to put in it. "I want to treat everyone equally" is a Wrong Opinion.
In order to be considered for a job, you lead with a "diversity statement", this is looked at before your job qualifications even, and there are right and wrong opinions to put in it. "I want to treat everyone equally" is a Wrong Opinion.
That they would work to promote diversity and a commitment to diversity with whatever managerial power they ended up with as a part of the position.
Oh, yes, there's the aforementioned hyperbolic fearmongering.
How is it fearmongering? Mandatory “diversity statements” are a growing trend in academia.
It’s been discussed on HN before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33053149
It’s been discussed on HN before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33053149
I'm not sure why you're calling that fear mongering, it's perfectly normal. Where don't you have to voice a commitment to diversity? I guess startups without HR?
If "woke" is on your radar you're living the good life. If you want to re-spec, your time might be spent on restoring damaged ecosystems or helping feed homeless.
Unless you just want to blame people who were previously kids, (aka autonomous adults) for shifting global priorities as if they shouldn't be allowed to prioritise that. In which case, lolwat.
Unless you just want to blame people who were previously kids, (aka autonomous adults) for shifting global priorities as if they shouldn't be allowed to prioritise that. In which case, lolwat.
[deleted]
I'm just a software guy and I don't claim to be saving the world with how I live my life. I like tech is all.
Maybe the woke people can go feed the homeless and stop making physics phds write ideological essays about social issues. Then everyone wins.
Maybe the woke people can go feed the homeless and stop making physics phds write ideological essays about social issues. Then everyone wins.
> Scientists in academia have to write proper ideological statements about how "woke" they are in order to research fluid dynamics.
This isn't new you have always needed to give a good reason why your research should be funded. The funding should be used to progress human knowledge or contribute to your community, save lives etc.
The days of righting "fluid dynamics is cool $500k plz" aren't behind us they simply never existed.
This isn't new you have always needed to give a good reason why your research should be funded. The funding should be used to progress human knowledge or contribute to your community, save lives etc.
The days of righting "fluid dynamics is cool $500k plz" aren't behind us they simply never existed.
> “ A STEM creative is anyone interested in and thinking about questions in STEM, period. We use the term STEM creative to highlight and emphasize that one does NOT need to be a “scientist” in order to launch a #HotScienceSummer project. You don’t even need a STEM or any degree!”
It seems like a science engagement project rather than an attempt to do actual scientific research.
It seems like a science engagement project rather than an attempt to do actual scientific research.
Yeah, it seems like people are just trying to find something to disagree with. It is absolutely true in the social sciences. Eugenics anyone? There are mountains of shit science out there that is rooted in the bias of the scientist.
Almost everyone that has kids actively practices eugenics (unless you literally have unprotected sex with literally everyone).
"the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Developed largely by Sir Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, eugenics was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis in order to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups."
uhhhh, no.
uhhhh, no.
The OP was just saying that most of the non-ineffable things about love are natural selection, and that what the eugenicists wanted was already happening naturally. Nature is cruel after all.
"actively practices" is the polar opposite of natural selection.
To wit: "Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which in his view is intentional, whereas natural selection is not."[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
To wit: "Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which in his view is intentional, whereas natural selection is not."[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
[deleted]
Funny enough, it’s the Jews that extensively practice eugenics these days.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim
> Its objective is to minimize, and eventually eliminate, the incidence of genetic disorders common to Jewish people, such as Tay–Sachs disease.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim
> Its objective is to minimize, and eventually eliminate, the incidence of genetic disorders common to Jewish people, such as Tay–Sachs disease.
Yes, and if their banner ads for donations focused on that then many of would be more comfortable donating. Our concern is their deceptive ads that give the impression that Wikipedia is struggling to pay the bills for serving Wikipedia.
Sorry to ask in multiple places, but people keep discussing this but this isn't talked about at all in the OP. Was the link changed?
Link to the actual discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(propos...
Thanks!
I'm not a fan of the links to Twitter not because of the recent insanity but because a Twitter discussion is frequently fragmented, paywalled, vacuous, etc. It's usually a rung up from Reddit but that's not saying much.
As for Wikipedia, I regret giving them money in the past because i get endless breathless emails from Jimmy Wales now. I see their situation as tragic because with distributed teams and hiring people who are deeply motivated I'd think they could get dramatically better $ productivity than anybody else if they were willing to transcend their volunteer model and feed some money to Wikipedians to improve the product.
I'm reminded of the social entrepreneur Paul Glover who was the founder of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Hours
and frequently wrote "poison pills" into the bylaws of organizations he founded to prevent the "skim 90% of the money" situations that frequently cause successful NGOs to become separate from their constituents. For instance any organization he founded had a rule that the organization would never own a building.
I'm not a fan of the links to Twitter not because of the recent insanity but because a Twitter discussion is frequently fragmented, paywalled, vacuous, etc. It's usually a rung up from Reddit but that's not saying much.
As for Wikipedia, I regret giving them money in the past because i get endless breathless emails from Jimmy Wales now. I see their situation as tragic because with distributed teams and hiring people who are deeply motivated I'd think they could get dramatically better $ productivity than anybody else if they were willing to transcend their volunteer model and feed some money to Wikipedians to improve the product.
I'm reminded of the social entrepreneur Paul Glover who was the founder of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Hours
and frequently wrote "poison pills" into the bylaws of organizations he founded to prevent the "skim 90% of the money" situations that frequently cause successful NGOs to become separate from their constituents. For instance any organization he founded had a rule that the organization would never own a building.
Do you have a link or reference for details on Paul Glover's "poison pills"? I couldn't find much with a quick Google search so I don't think I have the right keywords.
Unfortunately, "personal communication". He told me about them.
Any pointers on how this worked then? Usually whoever owns the business simply decides what happens to it, is this some sort of "I reserve the right to take back the business for 10% of its value" clause when selling it? Wikipedia hasn't been sold so not even that would work here.
These were written into the bylaws of non-profit organizations. The board could have amended these, but I think these boards were closely watched by the community and it would have been very visible that this had been done.
The point is that a NGO should recognize that NGOs by default go bad in a highly predictable way and should be organized to resist this.
The point is that a NGO should recognize that NGOs by default go bad in a highly predictable way and should be organized to resist this.
[deleted]
I love this part in the discussion information section:
> If there is a consensus that the banners are not appropriate to run but the WMF tries to run them without implementing the required changes then our proposed method to enforce the consensus is for Common.css to be modified to prevent them from appearing.
> If there is a consensus that the banners are not appropriate to run but the WMF tries to run them without implementing the required changes then our proposed method to enforce the consensus is for Common.css to be modified to prevent them from appearing.
Last time something like that happened (MediaViewer), the WMF added superprotect and locked local admins out of editing it.
Surely the WMF has to be careful not to alienate their community though - the wiki can be forked at any time and if enough high priority editors went, they could potentially lose control...
edit: ... or not. It seems like there have been attempts at munity before (Spanish Wikipedia) and they haven't succeeded.
edit: ... or not. It seems like there have been attempts at munity before (Spanish Wikipedia) and they haven't succeeded.
The vast, vast, VAST amount of Wiki users just go to the domain name, they give absolutely no cares or thoughts to the fights behind the scene.
I don't mind giving to Wikipedia despite the recent controversies, what I can't bear is regularly giving them money, and receiving messages titled "We've had enough", clearly designed at guilting me into giving more. This is abusing psychology, which is probably effective, but unethical. I have no doubt they feel in the right to do so given their mission. Wrongdoing for the right reasons is still wrongdoing.
Wikipedia is and continues to be the best resource on the web. I really don't care to armchair run their parents organization. I'll continue to donate and hope that they know what they're doing.
I think HN gets too tunnel visioned on the technical side of the project. Look at how many comments reduce Wikipedia to it's "hosting" costs. There's more to running an organization than the servers.
All large organizations experience waste and spend some money poorly. It's basically an operating expense at scale. The net value creation tends to still be positive.
I believe there's more to running a successful global comprehensive and free encyclopedia than hosting. To keep the content and community vibrant, to expand into new languages and communities. These things probably require more than just "hosting". I don't know what's required but I'll continue to donate to WMF and hope for the best.
I think HN gets too tunnel visioned on the technical side of the project. Look at how many comments reduce Wikipedia to it's "hosting" costs. There's more to running an organization than the servers.
All large organizations experience waste and spend some money poorly. It's basically an operating expense at scale. The net value creation tends to still be positive.
I believe there's more to running a successful global comprehensive and free encyclopedia than hosting. To keep the content and community vibrant, to expand into new languages and communities. These things probably require more than just "hosting". I don't know what's required but I'll continue to donate to WMF and hope for the best.
Since WMF really cranked their fundraising popups into high gear ~6 weeks ago people have been posting articles here protesting about the foundation and on every thread there is someone who takes this standpoint. It's your money, but this attitude also strikes me as being very stubborn when confronted with the possibility that your charity is being wasted.
The critique is not merely administrative bloat or waste. The critique is about the magnitude of these problems. There is always waste but WMF has more than comparable non-profits like Internet Archive and when you have board members kicking large sums of money around to their other non-profits then there are questions of a serious ethical breach. The critique is about the deceptive nature of the WMF ad campaign. The critique is about how the WMF does very little of the actual work in running Wikipedia but takes the lions share of the cash from the community of volunteers. The critique is pretty detailed and well articulated and it is not simply a technical objection that anything beyond servers is a waste. This representation is of the critique is pretty unfair given how much thought and effort people have put into spelling out their case against WMF.
Again it's your money but I would strongly suggest doing your homework before defending the WMF.
The critique is not merely administrative bloat or waste. The critique is about the magnitude of these problems. There is always waste but WMF has more than comparable non-profits like Internet Archive and when you have board members kicking large sums of money around to their other non-profits then there are questions of a serious ethical breach. The critique is about the deceptive nature of the WMF ad campaign. The critique is about how the WMF does very little of the actual work in running Wikipedia but takes the lions share of the cash from the community of volunteers. The critique is pretty detailed and well articulated and it is not simply a technical objection that anything beyond servers is a waste. This representation is of the critique is pretty unfair given how much thought and effort people have put into spelling out their case against WMF.
Again it's your money but I would strongly suggest doing your homework before defending the WMF.
> Since WMF really cranked their fundraising popups into high gear ~6 weeks ago
WMF cranks their popups every year around this time. I haven't found them to be any more obtrusive this year than every other year.
> The critique is about how the WMF does very little of the actual work in running Wikipedia
That's fair, I just disagree with the critique's I've heard. Most commentators are taking what I consider to be a very narrow view of what it means to "run Wikipedia."
WMF cranks their popups every year around this time. I haven't found them to be any more obtrusive this year than every other year.
> The critique is about how the WMF does very little of the actual work in running Wikipedia
That's fair, I just disagree with the critique's I've heard. Most commentators are taking what I consider to be a very narrow view of what it means to "run Wikipedia."
> Most commentators are taking what I consider to be a very narrow view of what it means to "run Wikipedia."
The people who're most up in arms about it tend to focus on just the hosting costs, without considering the cost of paying even a skeleton devops crew, let alone paying for ongoing development (of which the WMF funds at least a pretty solid majority).
Reasonable people can disagree about whether the WMF is spending its money correctly, of course, or whether it's overspending on otherwise-necessary categories. I dislike the implicit argument that we shouldn't pay people to work on open source projects, though.
The people who're most up in arms about it tend to focus on just the hosting costs, without considering the cost of paying even a skeleton devops crew, let alone paying for ongoing development (of which the WMF funds at least a pretty solid majority).
Reasonable people can disagree about whether the WMF is spending its money correctly, of course, or whether it's overspending on otherwise-necessary categories. I dislike the implicit argument that we shouldn't pay people to work on open source projects, though.
This is a misframing of the issue here. It’s not that we should only consider hosting costs, I’ll eagerly concede this straw man argument is indeed poor.
The issue is that relative to other projects WMF runs, Wikipedia is more popular and also inexpensive to run.
Fundraising to users of the popular product, while diverting the funds raised to ancillary products is already misleading by itself.
Making urgent claims that the popular product may suffer without funds, when diverting those funds elsewhere — now it’s not just misleading but gives me a strong stench of being unethical.
The issue is that relative to other projects WMF runs, Wikipedia is more popular and also inexpensive to run.
Fundraising to users of the popular product, while diverting the funds raised to ancillary products is already misleading by itself.
Making urgent claims that the popular product may suffer without funds, when diverting those funds elsewhere — now it’s not just misleading but gives me a strong stench of being unethical.
> Making urgent claims that the popular product may suffer without funds, when diverting those funds elsewhere — now it’s not just misleading but gives me a strong stench of being unethical.
This reminds me of the emails the various US political parties send out around trending issues, ex. "You need to send us $5 TODAY to keep [opposing party] from [doing something that's in the news]." Obviously this money goes to the party fund and not to fighting the specific issue they're campaigning on and the wording of these is overly alarmist.
This reminds me of the emails the various US political parties send out around trending issues, ex. "You need to send us $5 TODAY to keep [opposing party] from [doing something that's in the news]." Obviously this money goes to the party fund and not to fighting the specific issue they're campaigning on and the wording of these is overly alarmist.
The issue people have is less what Wikipedia does with the funds donated to them, then how they advertise. If you advert suggests you are about to go under, but in reality you are spending money left right and center on various other charities, with only vaguely related mission statements, then you are taking advantage of the god will of your donators, that is the problem here.
>All large organizations experience waste and spend some money poorly.
Sure and if their advertising was in any way honest about their financial situation people would mind much less.
Personally I would never donate to an organization which repeatedly claims to be at the brink of collapse, while managing very significant amount of funds and investing them into vanity projects. If I wanted to donate money, why wouldn't I donate to anything else?
>All large organizations experience waste and spend some money poorly.
Sure and if their advertising was in any way honest about their financial situation people would mind much less.
Personally I would never donate to an organization which repeatedly claims to be at the brink of collapse, while managing very significant amount of funds and investing them into vanity projects. If I wanted to donate money, why wouldn't I donate to anything else?
> If you advert suggests you are about to go under, but in reality you are spending money left right and center on various other charities, with only vaguely related mission statements, then you are taking advantage of the god will of your donators, that is the problem here.
This, totally. That's the reason for me too.
They do good work but the way they ask really ticks me off. And it's been like this forever, when they still featured the sad-sam Jimmy Wales pic.
They do great work but I'll rather give to archive.org that also do amazing and important work, need it a lot more and don't cry about it so much.
This, totally. That's the reason for me too.
They do good work but the way they ask really ticks me off. And it's been like this forever, when they still featured the sad-sam Jimmy Wales pic.
They do great work but I'll rather give to archive.org that also do amazing and important work, need it a lot more and don't cry about it so much.
Part of the danger is that the excess of funds is used to create permanent costs (e.g. hiring more people than needed, running on more servers than needed, creating more management layers than needed) that then become a danger to the organisation if there are ever lean times. It's very easy to increase costs, and very difficult to reduce them safely.
This gets exacerbated when the management get all excited about their pet projects and reroute funding & resources to those instead of the main thing that the funds were supposed to be for. Mozilla is the classic example of this - the Firefox team is not a priority when the funds get low, because of the various hare-brained projects the management have come up with.
This gets exacerbated when the management get all excited about their pet projects and reroute funding & resources to those instead of the main thing that the funds were supposed to be for. Mozilla is the classic example of this - the Firefox team is not a priority when the funds get low, because of the various hare-brained projects the management have come up with.
Wikipedia is a precious thing. I want to support wikipedia. The vast majority of the money that goes to the WMF supports salaries and wages for 'programs' but there is no further breakdown publicly available, other than to say that those are not general, administrative, or fundraising wages related to the core mission.
The WMF does a lot of interesting and good work, and I have no doubt much of it is vital to the mission of wikipedia, but they amount of money it consumes with zero transparency makes me wonder if it's being spent effectively. They need to open the books of the foundation so that people can be confident again that they're supporting useful work and not vanity projects of fund administrators who have an enormous pile of money to throw around.
The WMF does a lot of interesting and good work, and I have no doubt much of it is vital to the mission of wikipedia, but they amount of money it consumes with zero transparency makes me wonder if it's being spent effectively. They need to open the books of the foundation so that people can be confident again that they're supporting useful work and not vanity projects of fund administrators who have an enormous pile of money to throw around.
[deleted]
You can read Wikimedia's financial statements here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/#a1-...
I'm completely fine with how they use their money and will continue donating as long as Wikipedia remains a valuable resource for me. I do not care much that Wikimedia is not directly Wikipedia and that they spend more money than Wikipedia would alone.
This feels similar to the Mozilla vs Firefox "why is Mozilla spending money on other things" argument.
I will continue donating to Mozilla, Wikimedia, and the Internet Archive because I think they're all doing important work beyond their core products. I don't have to pick one or the other, I can give to all of them.
I'm completely fine with how they use their money and will continue donating as long as Wikipedia remains a valuable resource for me. I do not care much that Wikimedia is not directly Wikipedia and that they spend more money than Wikipedia would alone.
This feels similar to the Mozilla vs Firefox "why is Mozilla spending money on other things" argument.
I will continue donating to Mozilla, Wikimedia, and the Internet Archive because I think they're all doing important work beyond their core products. I don't have to pick one or the other, I can give to all of them.
I have been donating annually around $50 or less for the last ten years. I was quite surprised to get an email from [email protected] last month suggesting I increase my donation to $250.
I'm planning to not donate at all this year, (instead to Internet Archive) based largely on discussions I have read here at HN. But I thought the request to suddenly increase my typical donation five-fold was pretty outrageous.
I'm planning to not donate at all this year, (instead to Internet Archive) based largely on discussions I have read here at HN. But I thought the request to suddenly increase my typical donation five-fold was pretty outrageous.
I still toss wiki a few bucks now and then (even though I hear they are flush with cash and have been for a while) just because I use and enjoy it so frequently (and because I think it's a valuable source of information for everyone, generally), but I too have started giving more to the Internet Archive. Its founder Brewster Kahle is a wonderful person. Some choice excerpts from from his wiki:
"Struck by the immensity of the task being undertaken and achieved: to store and index everything that was on the Web, Kahle states: 'I was standing there, looking at this machine that was the size of five or six Coke machines, and there was an 'aha' moment that said, 'You can do everything.'"
"Knowledge lives in lots of different forms over time," Kahle said in 2011. "First it was in people's memories, then it was in manuscripts, then printed books, then microfilm, CD-ROMs, now on the digital internet. Each one of these generations is very important."
"It's not that expensive. For the cost of 60 miles of highway, we can have a 10 million-book digital library available to a generation that is growing up reading on-screen. Our job is to put the best works of humankind within reach of that generation."
"Struck by the immensity of the task being undertaken and achieved: to store and index everything that was on the Web, Kahle states: 'I was standing there, looking at this machine that was the size of five or six Coke machines, and there was an 'aha' moment that said, 'You can do everything.'"
"Knowledge lives in lots of different forms over time," Kahle said in 2011. "First it was in people's memories, then it was in manuscripts, then printed books, then microfilm, CD-ROMs, now on the digital internet. Each one of these generations is very important."
"It's not that expensive. For the cost of 60 miles of highway, we can have a 10 million-book digital library available to a generation that is growing up reading on-screen. Our job is to put the best works of humankind within reach of that generation."
> I still toss wiki a few bucks now and then
A small favor to ask: can you avoid using the word "wiki" as casual shorthand to refer to Wikipedia? It falls in the same territory (or nearby, at least) as someone who doesn't know better saying "Java" to refer to JS (JavaScript).
NB: I have tried to word this as politely and non-derisively as I can think to. If you have any improvements, please let me know.
PS: Thank you for 1. your support of Wikipedia, 2. your support of the Internet Archive, and 3. the signal that you send by pulling back from #1 right now, when it makes a lot of sense to do so.
A small favor to ask: can you avoid using the word "wiki" as casual shorthand to refer to Wikipedia? It falls in the same territory (or nearby, at least) as someone who doesn't know better saying "Java" to refer to JS (JavaScript).
NB: I have tried to word this as politely and non-derisively as I can think to. If you have any improvements, please let me know.
PS: Thank you for 1. your support of Wikipedia, 2. your support of the Internet Archive, and 3. the signal that you send by pulling back from #1 right now, when it makes a lot of sense to do so.
> It falls in the same territory (or nearby, at least) as someone who doesn't know better saying "Java" to refer to JS (JavaScript).
I don't mean to offend you, but this is a poor analogy. Java and JavaScript are hardly related, the former a programming language developed by Sun employees and first implemented by Sun, and while the latter did involve collaboration with Sun by Netscape and used Java-like syntax, the JS name is more marketing than having any relation to Java. But more importantly, neither is a type of the other.
"Wikipedia" is a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is, in fact, both of these things and the most well known, the largest and by far the most used implementation of wiki[1] ever.
> can you avoid using the word "wiki" as casual shorthand to refer to Wikipedia?
It's really ok that nearly everyone does this, and what you're asking is like asking New York Times employees to stop calling nytimes.com "the website." I would not be surprised if 99.9% of all wiki implementation ever is actually Wikipedia, iow, there are lots of wikis, but most of them, by volume, are Wikipedia.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
I don't mean to offend you, but this is a poor analogy. Java and JavaScript are hardly related, the former a programming language developed by Sun employees and first implemented by Sun, and while the latter did involve collaboration with Sun by Netscape and used Java-like syntax, the JS name is more marketing than having any relation to Java. But more importantly, neither is a type of the other.
"Wikipedia" is a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is, in fact, both of these things and the most well known, the largest and by far the most used implementation of wiki[1] ever.
> can you avoid using the word "wiki" as casual shorthand to refer to Wikipedia?
It's really ok that nearly everyone does this, and what you're asking is like asking New York Times employees to stop calling nytimes.com "the website." I would not be surprised if 99.9% of all wiki implementation ever is actually Wikipedia, iow, there are lots of wikis, but most of them, by volume, are Wikipedia.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTWIKI
"Tree's leaves are turning pretty colors. I think Tree looks nice today."
"Tree's leaves are turning pretty colors. I think Tree looks nice today."
Please cease referring to your vehicle as "the car," or "my truck." It has a make and model and it is not all cars or all trucks. Also, when speaking of air travel, do not refer to this transportation as "a plane," nor "the plane," but instead, for example, "Boeing 737 Flight xyz." Do not ever, ever say you are taking a train, cab, uber, or bus. Do not ever go "home" again. There are lots of homes. Be specific, as continuing to speak this way is inaccurate, ambiguous, grammatically incorrect and confusing.
This comment is full of false equivalences. In fact, it contains only false equivalences.
What you just wrote is a decent argument against anyone taking issue with someone saying "the wiki" or even "my/our wiki" where it makes sense to. With respect to the topic at hand, however, that makes it a total strawman, because no one is taking issue with those things. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" is nothing like exercising the grammar of the English language to construct ordinary sentences involving "the bus" or "my truck".
Please don't make bad faith arguments like this. It stands out especially when it comes from someone who's first remarks were an objection to the Java/JS example on the grounds of category error.
Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" would be like shortening "Burger King" to "burger".* It shouldn't be done, and it shouldn't be controversial to bring it up. It was a polite request, after all.
* or if that example bothers you, shortening "Taco Shack" to "shack", to use an example that will withstand any criticism that Burger King is not a burger, whereas Wikipedia is a wiki—which (again) doesn't even matter in this case, since we're not claiming any faux pas over the appropriate use of "a wiki" or "the wiki" or "our wiki" or "some wiki", etc.
What you just wrote is a decent argument against anyone taking issue with someone saying "the wiki" or even "my/our wiki" where it makes sense to. With respect to the topic at hand, however, that makes it a total strawman, because no one is taking issue with those things. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" is nothing like exercising the grammar of the English language to construct ordinary sentences involving "the bus" or "my truck".
Please don't make bad faith arguments like this. It stands out especially when it comes from someone who's first remarks were an objection to the Java/JS example on the grounds of category error.
Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" would be like shortening "Burger King" to "burger".* It shouldn't be done, and it shouldn't be controversial to bring it up. It was a polite request, after all.
* or if that example bothers you, shortening "Taco Shack" to "shack", to use an example that will withstand any criticism that Burger King is not a burger, whereas Wikipedia is a wiki—which (again) doesn't even matter in this case, since we're not claiming any faux pas over the appropriate use of "a wiki" or "the wiki" or "our wiki" or "some wiki", etc.
> This comment is full of false equivalences. In fact, it contains only false equivalences.
Please demonstrate any false equivalence that I employed and demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed in claiming equivalence. Using wiki for Wikipedia, specifically because Wikipedia is a wiki, is the same kind of substitution as using plane for Boeing 737, because examples like these replace the specific with the general, which is incredibly common.
> What you just wrote is a decent argument against anyone taking issue with someone saying "the wiki" or even "my/our wiki" where it makes sense to. With respect to the topic at hand, however, that makes it a total strawman, because no one is taking issue with those things. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" is nothing like exercising the grammar of the English language to construct ordinary sentences involving "the bus" or "my truck".
Whether a definite or indefinite article is used makes no difference here, they merely indicate whether identity is known, and when missing they are assumed: "(the) wiki is not a proper citation." In English, we often use the general group in which the object belongs to replace the object, such as "vehicle" for "truck," and "truck" for "Ford," or "Internet" for "website" and "website" for "reddit." I have not, in fact, invented any argument to attack, which is necessary for a straw man.
> Please don't make bad faith arguments like this. It stands out especially when it comes from someone who's first remarks were an objection to the Java/JS example on the grounds of category error.
Here is your straw man. I have not made any bad faith arguments, so you've invented one to attack instead.
> Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" would be like shortening "Burger King" to "burger".* It shouldn't be done, and it shouldn't be controversial to bring it up. It was a polite request, after all. or if that example bothers you, shortening "Taco Shack" to "shack", to use an example that will withstand any criticism that Burger King is not a burger,
Burger King is not a burger and Taco Shack is not a shack. You are suggesting that wiki is an abbreviation of Wikipedia, but because Wikipedia is a wiki your argument fails. And because these types of substitutions are common, the request was unreasonable.
Please demonstrate any false equivalence that I employed and demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed in claiming equivalence. Using wiki for Wikipedia, specifically because Wikipedia is a wiki, is the same kind of substitution as using plane for Boeing 737, because examples like these replace the specific with the general, which is incredibly common.
> What you just wrote is a decent argument against anyone taking issue with someone saying "the wiki" or even "my/our wiki" where it makes sense to. With respect to the topic at hand, however, that makes it a total strawman, because no one is taking issue with those things. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" is nothing like exercising the grammar of the English language to construct ordinary sentences involving "the bus" or "my truck".
Whether a definite or indefinite article is used makes no difference here, they merely indicate whether identity is known, and when missing they are assumed: "(the) wiki is not a proper citation." In English, we often use the general group in which the object belongs to replace the object, such as "vehicle" for "truck," and "truck" for "Ford," or "Internet" for "website" and "website" for "reddit." I have not, in fact, invented any argument to attack, which is necessary for a straw man.
> Please don't make bad faith arguments like this. It stands out especially when it comes from someone who's first remarks were an objection to the Java/JS example on the grounds of category error.
Here is your straw man. I have not made any bad faith arguments, so you've invented one to attack instead.
> Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" would be like shortening "Burger King" to "burger".* It shouldn't be done, and it shouldn't be controversial to bring it up. It was a polite request, after all. or if that example bothers you, shortening "Taco Shack" to "shack", to use an example that will withstand any criticism that Burger King is not a burger,
Burger King is not a burger and Taco Shack is not a shack. You are suggesting that wiki is an abbreviation of Wikipedia, but because Wikipedia is a wiki your argument fails. And because these types of substitutions are common, the request was unreasonable.
> Please demonstrate any false equivalence that I employed and demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed in claiming equivalence.
For all the reasons that I just said. If you dispute that, then any response by me (or anyone else) is already guaranteed to be futile.
> Burger King is not a burger
Gee, it's almost as if I already covered that.
> Taco Shack is not a shack
Bizarre claim, and a clear example of the futility involved here.
For all the reasons that I just said. If you dispute that, then any response by me (or anyone else) is already guaranteed to be futile.
> Burger King is not a burger
Gee, it's almost as if I already covered that.
> Taco Shack is not a shack
Bizarre claim, and a clear example of the futility involved here.
> For all the reasons that I just said. If you dispute that, then any response by me (or anyone else) is already guaranteed to be futile.
Your accusation was vague and your reply here equally unsupportive. You may claim anything you like, but if your claim is unsupported then it is unconvincing.
Your accusation was vague and your reply here equally unsupportive. You may claim anything you like, but if your claim is unsupported then it is unconvincing.
Taco Shack is not a taco.* It certainly is a shack, however. To try to claim with a straight face that it's not (as you did here) is possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen someone make on HN, ever.
Likewise, your defense that it's fine to arbitrarily omit "a"/"an" or "the" is what's truly unconvincing. To say, "I took a bus here" is acceptable. To say, "I took the bus here" would also be acceptable. Saying, "I took bus here", however, is definitely not a reasonable way to construct a sentence, despite your unsupported claims to the contrary. At best, it's a forgivable mistake that you might encounter from a non-native speaker, but in no way is it standard English. To argue otherwise (again, as you have done here) is bonkers and, like the Taco Shack example, suggests a commitment to never admitting to being wrong and a prioritization of that commitment over the truth.
* I suppose if we were operating under the rules that you insist exist, this could have been worded as "Taco Shack is not taco"
Likewise, your defense that it's fine to arbitrarily omit "a"/"an" or "the" is what's truly unconvincing. To say, "I took a bus here" is acceptable. To say, "I took the bus here" would also be acceptable. Saying, "I took bus here", however, is definitely not a reasonable way to construct a sentence, despite your unsupported claims to the contrary. At best, it's a forgivable mistake that you might encounter from a non-native speaker, but in no way is it standard English. To argue otherwise (again, as you have done here) is bonkers and, like the Taco Shack example, suggests a commitment to never admitting to being wrong and a prioritization of that commitment over the truth.
* I suppose if we were operating under the rules that you insist exist, this could have been worded as "Taco Shack is not taco"
Note that when you add "wiki" to a query on Google, you typically get a Wikipedia link first.
Depends on the query. The top result for “Star Trek wiki” is Memory Alpha, which is the Star Trek wiki. “Crusader Kings wiki” returns the official CK3 wiki, followed by the CK2 wiki, followed by a Wikipedia link.
If you Google things that don’t have their own wiki, though, you do tend to get Wikipedia.
If you Google things that don’t have their own wiki, though, you do tend to get Wikipedia.
[deleted]
this is like asking me not to call the encyclopedia britannica "the encyclopedia" since there are many other encyclopedias in existence
sure wikipedia is one wiki, but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki"
edit: lol ok fine I'm wrong, let me amend to, "wiki is an easily disambiguated term depending on the context of the subject, and if the subject is not your internal work project or self hosted fan site, you probably want to look it up on wikipedia.org"
sure wikipedia is one wiki, but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki"
edit: lol ok fine I'm wrong, let me amend to, "wiki is an easily disambiguated term depending on the context of the subject, and if the subject is not your internal work project or self hosted fan site, you probably want to look it up on wikipedia.org"
"but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki"
That is ambiguous. I would assume you were running a personal wiki project, and you meant that, or you meant the wiki at your place of work. This isn't like "flexing on the Gram" -- most people don't run a personal Instagram, so if you're flexing on the gram, as the rap lyrics say, then I can guess what you mean. But most of us use wikis at work, so we all deal with a large number of wikis, so simply saying "wiki" is ambiguous.
That is ambiguous. I would assume you were running a personal wiki project, and you meant that, or you meant the wiki at your place of work. This isn't like "flexing on the Gram" -- most people don't run a personal Instagram, so if you're flexing on the gram, as the rap lyrics say, then I can guess what you mean. But most of us use wikis at work, so we all deal with a large number of wikis, so simply saying "wiki" is ambiguous.
> this is like asking me not to call the encyclopedia britannica "the encyclopedia" since there are many other encyclopedias in existence
If you have a physical set and it's the only encyclopedia in the house, it might be fair. I've never heard anyone generically refer to Encyclopedia Britannica as simply "the encyclopedia" outside of this circumstance.
> sure wikipedia is one wiki, but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki"
Hard disagree. With thousands of specialized wikis and in-house corporate wikis, it can never really be assumed to mean Wikipedia specifically, unless you're already on Wikipedia.
If you have a physical set and it's the only encyclopedia in the house, it might be fair. I've never heard anyone generically refer to Encyclopedia Britannica as simply "the encyclopedia" outside of this circumstance.
> sure wikipedia is one wiki, but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki"
Hard disagree. With thousands of specialized wikis and in-house corporate wikis, it can never really be assumed to mean Wikipedia specifically, unless you're already on Wikipedia.
please do donate to the Internet Archive! right now up until the end of the year, all donations are matched 2-to-1 and the money actually goes towards the service while Wikipedia is overfunded and you’re basically only bankrolling the foundation.
Since we're on the topic of less than transparent fundraising, matched donations are also usually misleading. For the most part the matching donors are already planning to donate up to a certain amount regardless of other donations, and if the match from other people comes up short they'll donate the amount they planned to anyways.
This is not true in my experience. Matching donors donate up to the amount they state if, and only if, you received the donations to be matched. While there may be some nice donors who will donate above their pledge, it is in no way something the organization can count on. If a donor makes a pledge to match, it's solely up to the donor whether they donate above and beyond.
on the flip side a donor planning on donating $1m anyway may be persuaded to allow them to use it as a "matched" donation to try to get another $1m out of others.
Yes, but it is the kind of white lie that I think is morally ok? If people get a thrill out of “free money” and charity X gets more funding, not the worst thing in the world.
That’s how it starts. Pretty soon you’re clandestinely funding woke causes and undermining decades of trust:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33611094
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33611094
> woke causes
I wonder what, in your estimation, makes a specific cause a "woke" one?
I wonder what, in your estimation, makes a specific cause a "woke" one?
Does it make it better to say "political"? I'm fairly sure that is the implication.
For anyone considering donating, read this first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33611094
For anyone considering donating, read this first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33611094
[deleted]
I am not the parent comment here, and I do not know specifically what they meant.
However, I will say, it would not be the first time a charitable donation ended up going to lining pockets instead of doing the good it was intentioned for.
The BLM scandal and all the mansions is just one of the most recent examples that come to mind.
All of these huge companies and thousands of individual donors giving money to what they believed to be a just cause - only to end up buying mansions and sports cars for the organization leaders.
Another older example was the Red Cross shinanigans in Haiti.
These sort of things erode trust in opaque charitable organizations.
The BLM scandal and all the mansions is just one of the most recent examples that come to mind.
All of these huge companies and thousands of individual donors giving money to what they believed to be a just cause - only to end up buying mansions and sports cars for the organization leaders.
Another older example was the Red Cross shinanigans in Haiti.
These sort of things erode trust in opaque charitable organizations.
> However, I will say, it would not be the first time a charitable donation ended up going to lining pockets instead of doing the good it was intentioned for.
That has nothing to do with 'woke'ness though.
Wounded Warrior Project[1] or any other charity with poor ratings, can be candidates for this, including conservative and similar leaning groups. But your comment and examples at least imply, if not necessarily intentional, that this is a trait of 'woke causes', and not an issue across the entire spectrum.
[1] at least before they were forced to do a wholesale housecleaning after having one of the lowest percentages of funds donated to a 501(c)3 that reached or helped their designated recipients.
That has nothing to do with 'woke'ness though.
Wounded Warrior Project[1] or any other charity with poor ratings, can be candidates for this, including conservative and similar leaning groups. But your comment and examples at least imply, if not necessarily intentional, that this is a trait of 'woke causes', and not an issue across the entire spectrum.
[1] at least before they were forced to do a wholesale housecleaning after having one of the lowest percentages of funds donated to a 501(c)3 that reached or helped their designated recipients.
It's fine to accuse a charity of corruption. But when someone uses "woke" in that sense, I doubt that's really what they're trying to convey.
Interesting, this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered comments feigning ignorance of the meaning of “woke”.
In any case the surrounding threads have copious examples.
In any case the surrounding threads have copious examples.
I would interpret that as a genuine personal inquiry. “Woke” has become a nebulous word used to define whatever bogeyman the author feels threatens their way of life.
> “Woke” has become a nebulous word used to define whatever bogeyman the author feels threatens their way of life.
I don't think that is accurate. "Woke" still retains its original meaning of "aware of racial discrimination," and its subsequent generalized meaning of "aware of social inequalities." What happened was very similar to what happened with the word "liberal," which also retains its original meaning, namely, "tolerant," in that those threatened by equality or inexplicably opposed to awareness of inequality inscrutably use it as a pejorative. This doesn't make a lot of sense because "woke" used pejoratively strongly signals, "I am a racist and/or sexist and/or opposed to equality and/or opposed to awareness of inequality."
I don't think that is accurate. "Woke" still retains its original meaning of "aware of racial discrimination," and its subsequent generalized meaning of "aware of social inequalities." What happened was very similar to what happened with the word "liberal," which also retains its original meaning, namely, "tolerant," in that those threatened by equality or inexplicably opposed to awareness of inequality inscrutably use it as a pejorative. This doesn't make a lot of sense because "woke" used pejoratively strongly signals, "I am a racist and/or sexist and/or opposed to equality and/or opposed to awareness of inequality."
> This doesn't make a lot of sense because "woke" used pejoratively strongly signals, "I am a racist and/or sexist and/or opposed to equality and/or opposed to awareness of inequality."
You're confusion is imagining that we care that's what it signals.
You're confusion is imagining that we care that's what it signals.
It's difficult to guess what you're trying to convey here. Are you saying that you don't care if you represent yourself in a way that makes people around you assume the worst? Or you are racist/sexist and proud of it? Or you're so into the team-sports aspect of american politics that you just use those words in the same way as, like "Pats suck, go Bears!"?
Honest question - I've heard people using that line in all of those contexts.
Honest question - I've heard people using that line in all of those contexts.
I think that is an accurate take. I have just observed “woke” to indicate any manner of positions with which the author disagreed (eg environmental protection).
I didn't say I don't know what it means. I asked YOU what it means to YOU.
The way I use it, it means "alert to injustice in society, especially racism". But I suspect a lot of people on a certain political team use it to mean "liberal and stupid". There's a wide range of uses of the term, which is why I asked.
The way I use it, it means "alert to injustice in society, especially racism". But I suspect a lot of people on a certain political team use it to mean "liberal and stupid". There's a wide range of uses of the term, which is why I asked.
Meant in a merely descriptive way to describe the new breed of lefty extremists. In other words a bit of both of your meanings. This is a prime example of folks who think pushing their identity politics is a higher priority than ethics, and have gone a bit too far. This seems to happen with every movement, even well-intentioned ones.
Not meant pejoratively outside of how poorly this current example speaks of the movement.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33610704
Not meant pejoratively outside of how poorly this current example speaks of the movement.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33610704
Is clandestinely funding anti-woke causes any more, or less, nefarious in your opinion?
If it's the same, why did you choose only to call out that "side" of the spectrum?
If it's the same, why did you choose only to call out that "side" of the spectrum?
Clandestinely is more nefarious obviously. I'd have called out trumpers if they had been involved. Both-sides-ism is a waste of time when both-sides aren't involved.
Unfortunately, I think charitable organizations with resources have this down to a science, and probably know that approach will get them more increased donations than it will lose them donations.
I think it's a science of manipulation, and would hope that eventually it will bite them... but these sciences of manipulation are very effective. And pioneered by the industries that many of us work in, with all the A/B testing and funnel management etc. So if we want to point the finger...
There are organizations that I like and appreicate, but stopped donating to after they started spamming with me with 5-10 emails a week asking for increased donations, when I was already donating to them! I stopped. Even though I like the organization and think they do good work. but I bet they have correct reason to believe this spam will net them increased donations over all.
I think it's a science of manipulation, and would hope that eventually it will bite them... but these sciences of manipulation are very effective. And pioneered by the industries that many of us work in, with all the A/B testing and funnel management etc. So if we want to point the finger...
There are organizations that I like and appreicate, but stopped donating to after they started spamming with me with 5-10 emails a week asking for increased donations, when I was already donating to them! I stopped. Even though I like the organization and think they do good work. but I bet they have correct reason to believe this spam will net them increased donations over all.
Non-profit charities are required to file tax paperwork, and there are many scrapers for the information.
See https://www.charitynavigator.org/ or https://www.charitywatch.org/
Charity Navigator can be overly generous with their composite scores, but you can drill down to the specifics.
E.g. that WMF takes 25% of donations off the top for admin/advertising expenses: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703
As opposed to, say, the Atlanta Community Food Bank, which operates with <5% overhead: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/581376648
If you're going to donate, make sure they're actually going to the cause.
See https://www.charitynavigator.org/ or https://www.charitywatch.org/
Charity Navigator can be overly generous with their composite scores, but you can drill down to the specifics.
E.g. that WMF takes 25% of donations off the top for admin/advertising expenses: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703
As opposed to, say, the Atlanta Community Food Bank, which operates with <5% overhead: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/581376648
If you're going to donate, make sure they're actually going to the cause.
It really is. I guess their analytics predicted they'd gain more in income from certain people than they lose in offending people.
[deleted]
Watchwatcher(5)
I really like much of the IA's past work, but this latest battle with the publishers is just ill advised. If people worked long and hard on something, they deserve the right to prevent it from being given away for free.
That runs counter to the entire concept of a library. Which is what the Internet Archive is.
The current legal issue around the Internet Archive's library came to a head because IA decided to remove restrictions on lending. They changed from the "we have one copy, so we lend one copy" model that libraries follow to "we have a one copy, so everyone can have a copy at the same time" for a period of time.
Had they not done that, the publishers knew they faced an uphill battle because of the first-sale doctrine. But once Pandora's box was opened, the publishers saw their chance to stamp out the whole thing by arguing "well they did it once, what's to stop them from doing it again?"
IA made a well-intentioned but ill-advised decision.
Had they not done that, the publishers knew they faced an uphill battle because of the first-sale doctrine. But once Pandora's box was opened, the publishers saw their chance to stamp out the whole thing by arguing "well they did it once, what's to stop them from doing it again?"
IA made a well-intentioned but ill-advised decision.
Authors get paid for library books. (They often cost quite a bit more than the same book sold to an individual.) An author/publisher can choose not to sell to a particular library if they really want to.
This is not generally true in the USA, where the "first sale doctrine" gives libraries (or anyone else) the legal right to buy an ordinary consumer copy of a physical printed book, and lend it out (for free or rent) as many times as they want, without the permission of the copyright holder and without paying them an additional fee.
In the USA, if any library pays more for a "library" price, that's voluntary. They have the complete legal right to buy an ordinary copy from any consumer channel that will sell ot them (new or used re-sold) and lend it out. And this is not a special right of things classed as libraries, it's a right anyone has. Traditionally, when it comes to physical copies, anyway.
In other countries, the "first-sale doctrine" does not exist, and this may not be true. I think in Europe libraries do pay "licensing" fees to be able to loan out books, that get redistributed to copyright holders based on use statistics, sort of how music playing licensing does work in the USA too. So argument here about whether libraries really do this or not may just be confusion over the fact that things really do work differently in different countries.
I suppose that gives us the opportunity to compare... has the right to loan out legally purchased books without licenses damaged the incentive to write books in the USA compared to Europe? Like even back in pre-ebook days? I suspect not.
In the USA, if any library pays more for a "library" price, that's voluntary. They have the complete legal right to buy an ordinary copy from any consumer channel that will sell ot them (new or used re-sold) and lend it out. And this is not a special right of things classed as libraries, it's a right anyone has. Traditionally, when it comes to physical copies, anyway.
In other countries, the "first-sale doctrine" does not exist, and this may not be true. I think in Europe libraries do pay "licensing" fees to be able to loan out books, that get redistributed to copyright holders based on use statistics, sort of how music playing licensing does work in the USA too. So argument here about whether libraries really do this or not may just be confusion over the fact that things really do work differently in different countries.
I suppose that gives us the opportunity to compare... has the right to loan out legally purchased books without licenses damaged the incentive to write books in the USA compared to Europe? Like even back in pre-ebook days? I suspect not.
Libraries pay more for "library binding" copies of books, when available
They may choose to, because they are willing to pay more for the longer-lasting binding. Or it may help them remain on good terms with publishers. While I'm technically a librarian, I haven't worked in this area or at an institution where it's relevant for a long time now, so actually don't know personally how common this is.
But if libraries choose to pay more for a better binding, that is because of their determination that the value is worth it to them, not because there is any law that says they must to give more compensation to copyright holders. Nor is it proportionate to how many times they lend out the book or anything.
In the USA libraries are completely legally allowed to take a copy they bought legally anywhere at all, including a used booksale from someone else, and loan it out as many times as they want, without needing a license or to make any additional payments to original copyright holder. I am so so positive of this (although I am not a lawyer).
But if libraries choose to pay more for a better binding, that is because of their determination that the value is worth it to them, not because there is any law that says they must to give more compensation to copyright holders. Nor is it proportionate to how many times they lend out the book or anything.
In the USA libraries are completely legally allowed to take a copy they bought legally anywhere at all, including a used booksale from someone else, and loan it out as many times as they want, without needing a license or to make any additional payments to original copyright holder. I am so so positive of this (although I am not a lawyer).
Libraries pay the ordinary retail price (or less from a bulk discount). They sometimes buy books with (more expensive) sturdier binding, expecting it to be used more heavily.
Authors cannot stop libraries from buying their books and putting them on the shelf.
Or are you talking about ebooks?
Authors cannot stop libraries from buying their books and putting them on the shelf.
Or are you talking about ebooks?
They do, but publishers have been tightening the screws on libraries too.
Copyright protected work can only be lend for one person at the time.
>If people worked long and hard on something, they deserve the right to prevent it from being given away for free.
So FreeSoftware/OSS people don't work hard?
I think Ricard Stallman made a really good presentation why today's copyright is unfair for small authors but really good for the "harry potter".
>If people worked long and hard on something, they deserve the right to prevent it from being given away for free.
So FreeSoftware/OSS people don't work hard?
I think Ricard Stallman made a really good presentation why today's copyright is unfair for small authors but really good for the "harry potter".
> So FreeSoftware/OSS people don't work hard?
That's not a fair conclusion from the parent comment at all. Software developers _do_ have the right to prevent their work from being given away for free. Them _choosing_ to develop FOSS is them voluntarily waiving that right.
That's not a fair conclusion from the parent comment at all. Software developers _do_ have the right to prevent their work from being given away for free. Them _choosing_ to develop FOSS is them voluntarily waiving that right.
And most of the small authors think that copyright should not be longer then 5 years, the only one's against it are the big publishers, so as a small author you cannot choose if you want at least a bit money.
But yeah its not a completely fair comparison.
But yeah its not a completely fair comparison.
The GPL is not waiving that right. It's attaching a condition that any improvements must also be distributed too. So that's not free as in beer.
So libraries should not exist?
Authors get paid for library books. (They often cost quite a bit more than the same book sold to an individual.)
Why would libraries pay more for books when the first sale doctrine allows them to lend any book?
Perhaps you're thinking of e-books.
Perhaps you're thinking of e-books.
There are “library editions” of many books that have stronger binding to better hold up to many people reading it. These editions cost more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_binding
This comment thread gets to be part of today's lucky 10,000. :) (https://xkcd.com/1053/)
This comment thread gets to be part of today's lucky 10,000. :) (https://xkcd.com/1053/)
Sure, but the author isn't seeing a dime more because the library decided to pony up for the better book binding.
The point is that authors' revenue from books sold to libraries is the same as what they get from a retail sale.
The point is that authors' revenue from books sold to libraries is the same as what they get from a retail sale.
It’s sad that such a wonderful resource as Wikipedia is owned by borderline scammers.
[deleted]
I've been a stubborn Wikipedia defender and donator for the past couple years, but this new fundraising banner style is the first time Wikipedia has begun to lose sympathy for me. I hope to see much less of this in the future
I stopped giving money to wikipedia a few years back.
It seemed that as their endownment continued to grow their pleading became more desperate.
This rubs me the wrong way. I want my money to go to wikipedia, with the amount of money they now have my donation will go to side projects. That's not what I want to donate to, and also not what they are advertising in their banner.
This rubs me the wrong way. I want my money to go to wikipedia, with the amount of money they now have my donation will go to side projects. That's not what I want to donate to, and also not what they are advertising in their banner.
> It seemed that as their endownment continued to grow their pleading became more desperate.
Right, the feeling I get now across a lot of their efforts is that they're becoming increasingly addicted and intoxicated by looking at their account balances.
Right, the feeling I get now across a lot of their efforts is that they're becoming increasingly addicted and intoxicated by looking at their account balances.
The begging banner always have left a bad taste in my mouth. A small link on the bottom of the site 'donate' should have sufficed.
It wouldn't earn them as much money.
The begging banner is deliberate, it is a data-driven marketing campaign, not unlike more traditional internet ads. A good thing about Wikipedia is that they are transparent about it, if you care to look. [1]
Now, the question "do they need that much money?" remains.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising
The begging banner is deliberate, it is a data-driven marketing campaign, not unlike more traditional internet ads. A good thing about Wikipedia is that they are transparent about it, if you care to look. [1]
Now, the question "do they need that much money?" remains.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising
> A good thing about Wikipedia is that they are transparent about it, if you care to look. [1]
If only a link to this page was included in the banner...
If only a link to this page was included in the banner...
[deleted]
Seems reasonable for wikipedia to want more money year on year every one wants to see the platform grow. Obviously they need to cover more than just hosting costs trying to do anything for the public good results in you getting sued by every company thats trying to commercialise that good.
That being said the lack of transparency is alarming why not be public about it all? Sure some will use it against you but the people that actually care and fund them won't really care what its being spent on as long as the quality of service remains good.
That being said the lack of transparency is alarming why not be public about it all? Sure some will use it against you but the people that actually care and fund them won't really care what its being spent on as long as the quality of service remains good.
> every one wants to see the platform grow
No I certainly don't. Why would you like their "platform" to grow. They should stick with the core mission of running Wikipedia.
No I certainly don't. Why would you like their "platform" to grow. They should stick with the core mission of running Wikipedia.
What is surprising about all this is that it wouldn't take much effort at all to get fed up and fork Wikipedia. Surely Wales and company understand this danger.
Look up "Network Effects" ... ironically, probably on Wikipedia
What happens when the network of editors moves over to the new Wikipedia? The old one becomes stale and dies.
That won't happen because of network effects. Nobody wants to edit a site that nobody else reads.
[deleted]
Even if the networks will move over, a lot of links won't. Search engines won't put results from "VeryFreeCompletelyTransparentWiki.com" as a first result/Sidebar, they will put Wikipedia because the large user base can effectively prevent vandalism. Wether that's a good thing or not is up for debate
Networks don't move, individuals do. But individuals tend not to leave a large network for a small one.
Networks can connect. Old and new wikipedia can be connected together to share edits.
> the network of editors moves over to the new Wikipedia
oh please yes
oh please yes
This would be a disaster and is the worst possible outcome - you don't end up with a new, better wikipedia. You end up with two crappier versions of wikipedia.
I'm not saying it'd be good for anyone. I'm just saying that it seems Wales is playing with fire.
Funny thing is that Wikipedia used to run on fully sponsored servers at least in the European region, provided by educational organizations.
But they left because they wanted to be independent and they had plenty of sponsorship money anyway. And they still do. They get much more from business and government than they'll ever get from us.
Like the other poster above I also donate to archive.org instead which really does need it.
But they left because they wanted to be independent and they had plenty of sponsorship money anyway. And they still do. They get much more from business and government than they'll ever get from us.
Like the other poster above I also donate to archive.org instead which really does need it.
Again with this?
WMF gives a small fractional amount to some causes some people disagree with. Nearly every charity I donate to imperfectly spends their funds.
The question I have is: reading the title of this post, how many wikipedians are taking this "rebellious" stance? How many wikipedians don't care or don't notice?
WMF gives a small fractional amount to some causes some people disagree with. Nearly every charity I donate to imperfectly spends their funds.
The question I have is: reading the title of this post, how many wikipedians are taking this "rebellious" stance? How many wikipedians don't care or don't notice?
This is an organisation that seems to endlessly increase its costs when what I think many of us want is the ensured stability of Wikipedia. This does not cost $150m a year.
How much does it cost? And how much does it need to save to be able to operate in perpetuity? And how much should it be giving away to ensure that there's an environment of well educated people who can continue to tend to its needs in future generations?
I'm assuming you don't have the answers, I certainly don't. I'm also assuming they have a pretty good sense of what those answers are.
I'm assuming you don't have the answers, I certainly don't. I'm also assuming they have a pretty good sense of what those answers are.
There's a huge jump there. I don't agree that the average person donating to Wikipedia through these ads thinks they're donating to "ensuring there's an environment of well educated people", above and beyond providing a neutral, comprehensive and universally-editable encyclopaedia.
You're absolutely right I don't know how much it costs to operate in perpetuity. If your point is about building up a trust that's a great idea. I can't see anything in the plan about this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_...
You're absolutely right I don't know how much it costs to operate in perpetuity. If your point is about building up a trust that's a great idea. I can't see anything in the plan about this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_...
The average person is donating to the concept of Wikipedia. "I like this site, I'll toss them a couple bucks". They probably don't care how it's allocated at all.
Like all donations, it's an abstraction - you donate to the thing you see, but behind the abstraction is a complex bit of machinery you do not understand.
I donate to the world wildlife fund. I assume my donations help wildlife both concretely and abstractly, and that they continue to keep the WWF operational. I have no idea where my $50 actually goes, nor do I particularly care.
Same with Doctors Without Borders, or whatever else.
I assume charities know better than me their needs and finances.
Like all donations, it's an abstraction - you donate to the thing you see, but behind the abstraction is a complex bit of machinery you do not understand.
I donate to the world wildlife fund. I assume my donations help wildlife both concretely and abstractly, and that they continue to keep the WWF operational. I have no idea where my $50 actually goes, nor do I particularly care.
Same with Doctors Without Borders, or whatever else.
I assume charities know better than me their needs and finances.
<<I have no idea where my $50 actually goes, nor do I particularly care.
I hate to say this, but I think this is one reason why we anecdotally read reports of lottery winners relatively quickly returning to their original predicament. Some people are terrible at allocating resources. For Wikipedia, of all places, to take advantage of that is mildly.. well.. evil.
<<behind the abstraction is a complex bit of machinery you do not understand.
Not all people operate like that. Some like to understand where their money is going. If it is doing good, that is great! Can I see how you do it? Wait. This financial statement says you are not doing nearly as well as you just told me you did. Can you explain it to me?
It is a very different mindset. I restrict my donations to occasional EFF and IA, but I primarily focus on donating my time ( the nature of those varies as I am still searching for a way to make actual impact ).
I hate to say this, but I think this is one reason why we anecdotally read reports of lottery winners relatively quickly returning to their original predicament. Some people are terrible at allocating resources. For Wikipedia, of all places, to take advantage of that is mildly.. well.. evil.
<<behind the abstraction is a complex bit of machinery you do not understand.
Not all people operate like that. Some like to understand where their money is going. If it is doing good, that is great! Can I see how you do it? Wait. This financial statement says you are not doing nearly as well as you just told me you did. Can you explain it to me?
It is a very different mindset. I restrict my donations to occasional EFF and IA, but I primarily focus on donating my time ( the nature of those varies as I am still searching for a way to make actual impact ).
One of the comments states:
> Wikipedia's servers cost around £2 million a year. WMF's assets are over £230 million. See the 2021 Audit Report. If the existing assets are invested, then Wikipedia could run till the end of time and live comfortably off the investment returns with plenty to spare. However, WMF staff costs are nearly £68 million, and there's money thrown around in all directions, very little of which has anything to do with Wikipedia itself. The fundraising has nothing to do with keeping Wikipedia going, it is about making WMF richer and more powerful.
> Wikipedia's servers cost around £2 million a year. WMF's assets are over £230 million. See the 2021 Audit Report. If the existing assets are invested, then Wikipedia could run till the end of time and live comfortably off the investment returns with plenty to spare. However, WMF staff costs are nearly £68 million, and there's money thrown around in all directions, very little of which has anything to do with Wikipedia itself. The fundraising has nothing to do with keeping Wikipedia going, it is about making WMF richer and more powerful.
Ok, but servers are a small minority of their expenses. They pay 6 million a year in donation processing fees, 88 million in wages and benefits, 12 million in operating expenses, 16 million in professional services (presumably contract work), and 3 million in depreciating assets.
All told their expenses are 145 million a year, of which 10% is "awards and grants".
Focusing on the server costs is like saying an engineer only writes code. It takes much much more than servers to make a site.
All told their expenses are 145 million a year, of which 10% is "awards and grants".
Focusing on the server costs is like saying an engineer only writes code. It takes much much more than servers to make a site.
I think part of what people are upset about and pointing out is that these wages and operating expenses are far greater than they need to be, and have been inflating near exponentially.
Probably a huge amount of fat and bullshit jobs able to be cut without affecting the Wikipedia service at all.
Probably a huge amount of fat and bullshit jobs able to be cut without affecting the Wikipedia service at all.
The point I'm making is that they don't know that. It's all armchair CEOs. They don't have the information that WMF has, they aren't privy to the problems WMF faces.
You think if WMF could run with half the expenses they have today but not lower income they'd just choose to run the way they do? I guarantee you they are looking at cost cutting daily, like every other corporation.
You think if WMF could run with half the expenses they have today but not lower income they'd just choose to run the way they do? I guarantee you they are looking at cost cutting daily, like every other corporation.
> The point I'm making is that they don't know that.
We have a pretty strong indication though, since Wikipedia ran with significantly leaner staff not long ago, and Wikipedia wasn't fundamentally much less useful then compared to now.
If you look at the financial reports, in 2012[1] they paid almost exactly the same in internet hosting fees and other operating expenses as in 2022[2]. However the salary expenses ballooned to ~6.7x (adjusted for inflation).
[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/0/09/FINAL...
[2]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikim...
We have a pretty strong indication though, since Wikipedia ran with significantly leaner staff not long ago, and Wikipedia wasn't fundamentally much less useful then compared to now.
If you look at the financial reports, in 2012[1] they paid almost exactly the same in internet hosting fees and other operating expenses as in 2022[2]. However the salary expenses ballooned to ~6.7x (adjusted for inflation).
[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/0/09/FINAL...
[2]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikim...
Do you think WMF are actively trying to cut their own salaries? Or to increase them?
> You think if WMF could run with half the expenses they have today but not lower income they'd just choose to run the way they do?
Their own leadership has said, in as many words, that "demonstrably we are able to run with far less expenses than we have".
Their own leadership has said, in as many words, that "demonstrably we are able to run with far less expenses than we have".
Hell, they employ nearly 50 people just to coordinate some of the fundraising.
> I'm assuming you don't have the answers, I certainly don't.
Yeah you do: this is all in their financial reports. You can see exactly what it costs and what is needed. (Presumably that's what everyone reads before deciding to believe a random cry for money in an online banner ad.)
The costs for servers (with developers/admins that maintain them) are a tiny tiny fraction of the income. I'm fully in favor of also funding further development instead of only maintenance, but just look at the kind of things that more than half of the money goes to.
I last looked at this 2-3 years ago but simply from the fact that they're still collecting even more money annually than they already did 3 years ago (and the banners are more obnoxious if nothing else), they apparently have decided to do the opposite of starting to spend more appropriate and sustainable amounts.
Yeah you do: this is all in their financial reports. You can see exactly what it costs and what is needed. (Presumably that's what everyone reads before deciding to believe a random cry for money in an online banner ad.)
The costs for servers (with developers/admins that maintain them) are a tiny tiny fraction of the income. I'm fully in favor of also funding further development instead of only maintenance, but just look at the kind of things that more than half of the money goes to.
I last looked at this 2-3 years ago but simply from the fact that they're still collecting even more money annually than they already did 3 years ago (and the banners are more obnoxious if nothing else), they apparently have decided to do the opposite of starting to spend more appropriate and sustainable amounts.
Was Wikipedia much less good last year when they spent $116m? 5 years ago when they spent $70m? 10 years ago when they spent $30m?
What are they doing 6x more of compared to ten years ago? 80% more of since last year?
What are they doing 6x more of compared to ten years ago? 80% more of since last year?
> What are they doing 6x more of compared to ten years ago? 80% more of since last year?
For one, employing people to coordinate fundraising. Ten years ago there was 3-4 people involved, and now there's nearly 50 employees who work on raising funds... very Ouroboros-like.
For one, employing people to coordinate fundraising. Ten years ago there was 3-4 people involved, and now there's nearly 50 employees who work on raising funds... very Ouroboros-like.
> How much does it cost?
Surely no more than $20m/year. Hosting costs are $2m/year. $18m/year is plenty for the remaining staff you actually need.
If you look back through their accounts you can see that it did used to cost much much less than it does now.
Surely no more than $20m/year. Hosting costs are $2m/year. $18m/year is plenty for the remaining staff you actually need.
If you look back through their accounts you can see that it did used to cost much much less than it does now.
18m/year pays for maybe 40-60 engineers. An engineer might get paid 150k, but their salary doesn't include the cost of buildings, facilities, insurance, benefits, payroll, etc etc etc.
But then you aren't paying for legal, hr, recruiting, admins, leadership, data center workers, etc.
To say nothing of the global operations teams you need to ensure Wikipedia is compliant with local laws.
18m to run Wikipedia would be absolutely threadbare.
But then you aren't paying for legal, hr, recruiting, admins, leadership, data center workers, etc.
To say nothing of the global operations teams you need to ensure Wikipedia is compliant with local laws.
18m to run Wikipedia would be absolutely threadbare.
Wikipedia expenses were around that in 2011. What significant improvement has Wikipedia had ever since, now that it spends 10x more? There's more content sure, but that's the volunteers work.
> An engineer might get paid 150k
There's zero reason for Wikimedia to be paying SV salaries. Nor do they need 50 engineers.
There's zero reason for Wikimedia to be paying SV salaries. Nor do they need 50 engineers.
s/small fraction/many many more times than it spends on wikipedia, while claiming wikipedia is the thing being funded/.
I even agree with many of these causes (possibly all, but I've not researched them all), but Wikimedia is advertising a specifically scoped project and then actually running a meta-charity
I even agree with many of these causes (possibly all, but I've not researched them all), but Wikimedia is advertising a specifically scoped project and then actually running a meta-charity
Do those things help Wikipedia? Like, if more people receive a stem education worldwide (especially in areas not well served today), doesn't that improve the health of Wikipedia in 15-20 years as we see the beneficiaries of those programs reach adulthood?
The simple point is that the fundraising banner is intentionally misleading. People believe they are donating to the cause of keeping Wikipedia online and significantly less than half of their money is going to that.
Gee, I wonder how Wikimedia could make this practice ethical?
Maybe actually tell people it's going to those causes instead of Wikipedia?
Naaaaaaaaah
Maybe actually tell people it's going to those causes instead of Wikipedia?
Naaaaaaaaah
It's an extremely inefficient way of going about it. If they wanted to improve the health of Wikipedia, they could directly hire people to do that, and results would happen sooner.
It is an interesting if. Is there an indication that any of the ancillary grants by Wiki actually fund "stem education worldwide (especially in areas not well served today)"?
It isn't an issue of a 'fractional amount'. According to their 2021 financial statements that vast majority of the money they raise goes to salaries and wages to run 'programs'- work activities separate from the maintainance and management of the website Wikipedia. Note that these salaries are entirely separate from general and administrative salaries and fundraising salaries that might be more directly related to the health of Wikipedia.
These salaries (which is where almost all the money wiki raises goes) are used to fund these kind of projects: https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/
I'm sure these projects are goodwork, but when people see a banner add on wikipedia, a plea from wikipedia to keep wikipedia alive, and then click the button to support wikipedia they aren't purposefully supporting writing software to detect harassment in online communities, increasing the diversity of the volunteer pool, suing the NSA to stop internet surveillance, etc etc...
Wikimedia has access to a pile of money and they're growing their mission to match the pile of money. Unfortunately the size of that mission will always outpace the size of the pile of money, and it's a never ending feedback loop. giant 'mega-corp' charities are rarely as useful as smaller, mission-focused ones. I don't want the EFF to fight child poverty - that's what UNICEF is for. If the EFF started to do that tomorrow I would have to question how well focused and effective their leadership was.
I have been a regular donator to Wikipedia but after the last round of HN articles prompted me to read their financial statements I regret to say that I won't be again until they sharpen their focus.
I suspect the average donator to Wikimedia and the HN audience are a pretty big overlap - I think wikimedia has a huge problem here, even if we assume that it's just one of perception. If they opened their books and were a little more transparent with how program funding at wikimedia works to demonstrate that this money is in fact pushing wikipedia forward I would consider restarting donations and I'm sure other people would as well.
These salaries (which is where almost all the money wiki raises goes) are used to fund these kind of projects: https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/
I'm sure these projects are goodwork, but when people see a banner add on wikipedia, a plea from wikipedia to keep wikipedia alive, and then click the button to support wikipedia they aren't purposefully supporting writing software to detect harassment in online communities, increasing the diversity of the volunteer pool, suing the NSA to stop internet surveillance, etc etc...
Wikimedia has access to a pile of money and they're growing their mission to match the pile of money. Unfortunately the size of that mission will always outpace the size of the pile of money, and it's a never ending feedback loop. giant 'mega-corp' charities are rarely as useful as smaller, mission-focused ones. I don't want the EFF to fight child poverty - that's what UNICEF is for. If the EFF started to do that tomorrow I would have to question how well focused and effective their leadership was.
I have been a regular donator to Wikipedia but after the last round of HN articles prompted me to read their financial statements I regret to say that I won't be again until they sharpen their focus.
I suspect the average donator to Wikimedia and the HN audience are a pretty big overlap - I think wikimedia has a huge problem here, even if we assume that it's just one of perception. If they opened their books and were a little more transparent with how program funding at wikimedia works to demonstrate that this money is in fact pushing wikipedia forward I would consider restarting donations and I'm sure other people would as well.
The concern isn't that they are 'imperfectly spending the funds'. It's that they are at best lying by omission in their fundraising efforts.
No reasonable person who donated in response to a 'help keep wikipedia online' prompt would expect the money to be spent funding 'STEM as a tool for social justice'.
No reasonable person who donated in response to a 'help keep wikipedia online' prompt would expect the money to be spent funding 'STEM as a tool for social justice'.
If you rephrase that as, "10% of the donations we receive go to small grants in service of equity and education" I think most reasonable people would say, "oh, ok, I think most big charities do this".
WMF passes 10% of it's donations on to small projects and grants. A small number of those are focused on, e.g., racial equity.
WMF passes 10% of it's donations on to small projects and grants. A small number of those are focused on, e.g., racial equity.
Would you be fine if the WMF would give a "small fractional amount" to causes you oppose? If you agree that WMF should be able to give money to other people, you need to agree they give money to people you oppose, otherwise your morale boils down to "But He's Our Son of a B**"
I'm sure they do give to causes I oppose. They are still a net good.
I'm not sure any charity I donate to doesn't give to causes I oppose in some degree.
I'm not sure any charity I donate to doesn't give to causes I oppose in some degree.
It’s not “causes some people disagree with”. It’s diverting money, which was donated to support an encyclopaedia, to anti-scientific nonsense. It’s diverting money to the antithesis of the cause it was donated to. It’s like Greenpeace funding an oil drilling company.[1]
I used to donate every month. After discovering it I stopped.
[1]: Yeah, yeah, I wouldn’t be totally surprised.
I used to donate every month. After discovering it I stopped.
[1]: Yeah, yeah, I wouldn’t be totally surprised.
Can you give a list of the anti-scientific nonsense they are diverting money to?
I currently donate a monthly sum, but I might reconsider that depending on what they're using the money for.
I currently donate a monthly sum, but I might reconsider that depending on what they're using the money for.
> WMF gives a small fractional amount to some causes some people disagree with. Nearly every charity I donate to imperfectly spends their funds.
WMF's disagreeable outflows are like, 70-95% of their spending.
WMF's disagreeable outflows are like, 70-95% of their spending.
I hopped onto Mastodon, and threw money at our local instance (infosec.exchange)
Right now, they're seeing loads of x10 and above. And since Mastodon is inherently noncommercial, I'm glad to support the instance im on.
And it's so much more peaceful there. Fake viralness doesn't exist. Re-toots (re-tweets) don't exist as a intentional design ideal. And its chronological. No re-loading to see more forced psychological viral garbage for more forced interaction.
So far, it's calmer and much more pleasant than I had thought possible.
Right now, they're seeing loads of x10 and above. And since Mastodon is inherently noncommercial, I'm glad to support the instance im on.
And it's so much more peaceful there. Fake viralness doesn't exist. Re-toots (re-tweets) don't exist as a intentional design ideal. And its chronological. No re-loading to see more forced psychological viral garbage for more forced interaction.
So far, it's calmer and much more pleasant than I had thought possible.
[deleted]
I'm willing to give a little leeway with donations. I'd rather have Wikimedia run a surplus or embezzle the money than see Wikipedia having to count every penny. I pay $17 for Netflix and I also donate $17 for Wikipedia every month. My Wikipedia "subscription" is hands down the one I'd keep if money was tight.
I don't think anyone is opposed to your informed decision, the problem is that the fundraising banners don't give the information you and I are acting on. They are lies.
[deleted]
That reminded me of donating to WP this year. Done.
I don't care what their fundraisings are, I just know that they deserve a donation now and then.
(Also, they employ more than 500 people, and this is consistent with their donations volume, so I don't think they are burning money for nothing.)
I don't care what their fundraisings are, I just know that they deserve a donation now and then.
(Also, they employ more than 500 people, and this is consistent with their donations volume, so I don't think they are burning money for nothing.)
I don't go to wikipedia.org anymore, and use my browser to redirect all links to Wikiless.
Regardless of the reason, if a page I'm going to doesn't display the content I reasonably expected it to have, I consider that page broken, and try to find a replacement as soon as possible.
The cognitive load of cookie banners, newsletter prompts, paywalls, tutorials, and so on, is just not acceptable to me, and I choose to leave all of it on the other Web, the AOLWeb and FacebookWeb, the one which I rarely access, mostly by accident. The GoodWeb, the one with the content and fast, lightly formatted pages, is where I stay.
I vote with my browser, only allowing JS selectively, choosing to close the tab whenever the AOLWeb rears its head, using various proxies on the rare occasion AOLWeb has anything I actually want, clipping anything useful into my cliplog for others to access more easily.
It's refreshing, let me tell you.
Regardless of the reason, if a page I'm going to doesn't display the content I reasonably expected it to have, I consider that page broken, and try to find a replacement as soon as possible.
The cognitive load of cookie banners, newsletter prompts, paywalls, tutorials, and so on, is just not acceptable to me, and I choose to leave all of it on the other Web, the AOLWeb and FacebookWeb, the one which I rarely access, mostly by accident. The GoodWeb, the one with the content and fast, lightly formatted pages, is where I stay.
I vote with my browser, only allowing JS selectively, choosing to close the tab whenever the AOLWeb rears its head, using various proxies on the rare occasion AOLWeb has anything I actually want, clipping anything useful into my cliplog for others to access more easily.
It's refreshing, let me tell you.
Seeing news like this makes me sad initially because it feels like every "decent" tech company out there (Mozilla, Wikipedia come to mind) keeps getting sucked into culture wars that distract from their core missions.
Take a step back, and you realize that it's actually a very very positive thing to see this kind of news. We're seeing it because Wikipedians are not OK with this behavior, and they're trying to signal that to the folks running the show. I hope they listen more than Mozilla's management.
Take a step back, and you realize that it's actually a very very positive thing to see this kind of news. We're seeing it because Wikipedians are not OK with this behavior, and they're trying to signal that to the folks running the show. I hope they listen more than Mozilla's management.
It's not just furthering the culture war; they've even funded an organization (SeRCH) that's all about peddling unscientific, unencyclopedic woo-woo (about their "intersectional scientific method" and "hyperspace") to vulnerable minority folks who are trying to get involved with real, actual science. An outrageous betrayal of Wikipedia's core mission.
That's part of the culture war, "intersectional" in this context is an academic term rooted in the postmodern philosophy at the center of far left ideology. Intersectionality in the sense of Foucault posits that ways of knowing, like science, are socially constructed (along with other norms you may have heard about, like gender identity) and since they are socially constructed they are culturally relative. Since cultures are all equal in value under the ideology of intersectionality, traditional ways of knowing are considered equal to those held up by Western society, like science.
You see, science is actually eurocentric, so supporting other ways of knowing is choosing the side in the culture wars that says we trust science because it's white and society is racist, therefore we must find a new "intersectional" scientific method
I'm so sorry I explained this. I don't have the energy to find citations since my posts on HN always get flagged but I assure you that funding choice is absolutely part of furthering the culture war lol
You see, science is actually eurocentric, so supporting other ways of knowing is choosing the side in the culture wars that says we trust science because it's white and society is racist, therefore we must find a new "intersectional" scientific method
I'm so sorry I explained this. I don't have the energy to find citations since my posts on HN always get flagged but I assure you that funding choice is absolutely part of furthering the culture war lol
That's a pretty severe mischaracterization of intersectionality in general. Intersectionality refers to the fact that you can't analyze human experiences as linear terms (being black, being a woman) and that you must consider the effects of being some combination of categories. As an example, intersectionality claims that being both black and a woman brings separate challenges than the additive combination of being black and being a woman.
That's all there is to intersectionality, any conclusions you make beyond that are your interpretation of intersectionality, not the general consensus of the "far left".
That's all there is to intersectionality, any conclusions you make beyond that are your interpretation of intersectionality, not the general consensus of the "far left".
>That's all there is to intersectionality
That's really not "all there is" to intersectionality. You are repeating the motte-and-bailey of far-left ideologues wherein you fall back on the official/original definition of the term, conveniently ignoring that its meaning has changed over time, and has been coopted.
To be clear: I'm being charitable in my interpretation, and assuming you are not intentionally doing this.
That's really not "all there is" to intersectionality. You are repeating the motte-and-bailey of far-left ideologues wherein you fall back on the official/original definition of the term, conveniently ignoring that its meaning has changed over time, and has been coopted.
To be clear: I'm being charitable in my interpretation, and assuming you are not intentionally doing this.
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-intersectionality/ clarifies how the notion of intersectionality is generally interpreted in a Foucaldian way by most people who engage with it. This "interpretation" is not just parent post's but widespread enough to call it a consensus.
You're going to quote James Lindsay, the guy who refers to critical theory as 'race marxism'? This source is so biased Ma'at's feather never had a chance.
Lindsay is an academic and his arguments are out there for you to rebut if you wish. Attacking his character doesn't dismiss his ideas even though the left wishes as much.
It appears many do not know the actual definition of ad hominem.
The definition of the term is out there to be looked up.
[deleted]
Don’t play coy. Intersectionality is a framework for dismantling the status quo. From wikipedia:
> Crenshaw used intersectionality to display the disadvantages caused by intersecting systems creating structural, political, and representational aspects of violence against minorities in the workplace and society.[15] Crenshaw explained the dynamics that using gender, race, and other forms of power in politics and academics plays a big role in intersectionality.
It’s not just the idea that multiple identities can be at play at once. It’s a tool in the postmodern toolbox.
Nobody even needed intersectionality to explain the idea that humans can’t be reduced to a single identity (that’s just common sense) until 3rd wave feminists convinced us as much in the first place.
> Crenshaw used intersectionality to display the disadvantages caused by intersecting systems creating structural, political, and representational aspects of violence against minorities in the workplace and society.[15] Crenshaw explained the dynamics that using gender, race, and other forms of power in politics and academics plays a big role in intersectionality.
It’s not just the idea that multiple identities can be at play at once. It’s a tool in the postmodern toolbox.
Nobody even needed intersectionality to explain the idea that humans can’t be reduced to a single identity (that’s just common sense) until 3rd wave feminists convinced us as much in the first place.
Lots of businesses have a front of the house (customer-facing roles) and a back of the house (warehouse, etc.). In the South, many businesses only hired white people in the front of the house, and only hired men in the back. You argue that it's "just common sense," but it was widely accepted that these practices were neither neither racist nor sexist because the business does hire some women (in the front) and some black guys (in the back). But if you were a black woman, you were shit out of luck.
It might be obvious now, but it took intersectional thought for people to begin to acknowledge these less overt forms of discrimination.
It might be obvious now, but it took intersectional thought for people to begin to acknowledge these less overt forms of discrimination.
> It might be obvious now, but it took intersectional thought for people to begin to acknowledge these less overt forms of discrimination.
It really didn't. I was raised in conservative evangelicalism and was never exposed to "intersectional" thought, but it was obvious to me that someone in multiple disadvantaged categories had it worse than someone who was only in one of them.
It was also obvious to me that any hiring system which a priori debarred a given category of people at the start was discriminatory.
Intersectional thought undoubtedly has helped some people figure these things out, but it really isn't necessary to understand these problematic behaviors and situations.
It really didn't. I was raised in conservative evangelicalism and was never exposed to "intersectional" thought, but it was obvious to me that someone in multiple disadvantaged categories had it worse than someone who was only in one of them.
It was also obvious to me that any hiring system which a priori debarred a given category of people at the start was discriminatory.
Intersectional thought undoubtedly has helped some people figure these things out, but it really isn't necessary to understand these problematic behaviors and situations.
Is there any evidence that common sense is either common or sensical?
That's false I fear. Intersectionality hasn't much to do with Foucault. It's a framework for analyzing multiple levels of discrimination occuring at the same time (say for someone having both a physical disability and mental illness). You could have just linked to wikipedia ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
IMO there's quite a bit to criticize in that approach, but calling it postmodernist relativism doesn't really fit.
IMO there's quite a bit to criticize in that approach, but calling it postmodernist relativism doesn't really fit.
Foucault is often considered the father of the ideas that underpin intersectionality, at least in the academic sense.
Check out his wikipedia and read the section Influence and reception, specifically Critiques and engagements > Social constructionism and human nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault
Check out his wikipedia and read the section Influence and reception, specifically Critiques and engagements > Social constructionism and human nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault
Here’s a sample of real life I’ve found through SeRCH Foundation (the entity that WMF is reportedly channeling my money to) website: https://conversations.vanguardstem.com/a-practical-guide-to-...
This [intersectional] approach requires both student and mentor to acknowledge that true professional development, incorporating belonging, requires affirmation, not assimilation.
(The other striking example of affirmation, not assimilation I’ve seen in a textbook for future school teachers enrolled in SFSU credential program. There was a chapter in the textbook on how to recognize signs of a student belonging to a youth band culture - and how to respect and affirm it. No, I am not kidding.)
This [intersectional] approach requires both student and mentor to acknowledge that true professional development, incorporating belonging, requires affirmation, not assimilation.
(The other striking example of affirmation, not assimilation I’ve seen in a textbook for future school teachers enrolled in SFSU credential program. There was a chapter in the textbook on how to recognize signs of a student belonging to a youth band culture - and how to respect and affirm it. No, I am not kidding.)
“Youth band culture” should be “youth gang culture”, sorry for stepping on a “false friend of the interpreter”: “gang” is “banda” in Russian.
> socially constructed (along with other norms you may have heard about, like gender identity) and since they are socially constructed they are culturally relative.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-construction-natur...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-institutions/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-ontology/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-soci...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-ontology/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-construction-natur...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-institutions/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-ontology/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-soci...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-ontology/
This post checks out. Roughly. The problem isn’t with the idea that there can be other ways of knowing out there to explore, it’s with the total rejection of science because it’s somehow innately white and thus undeniably racist. Even if you believe knowledge is entirely socially constructed, to dismiss one construct simply because of the perceived social identity (remember race is a construct, too) of it’s progenitors is where it leaves the realm of academia and becomes part of the culture war zeitgeist.
Rather ironically, it would imply that Muslims in the medieval age weren't doing "science", and therefore the Wikipedia article on it[1] is inaccurate and should be removed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islami...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islami...
Foucault and Duchamp are the two boogeymen of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Can you provide links to any of this? I'm also unable to find any org called SeRCH, perhaps I mis-spelt it.
edit: I repeat my request more strongly. I've looked more and even "intersectional scientific method" gets almost nothing except a couple of posts on twitter claiming the same and a website https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wikipedia-is-a-source-of-... which doesn't back anything up - are you affiliated with either of these?
I am wondering if you are deliberately spreading FUD
edit: I repeat my request more strongly. I've looked more and even "intersectional scientific method" gets almost nothing except a couple of posts on twitter claiming the same and a website https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wikipedia-is-a-source-of-... which doesn't back anything up - are you affiliated with either of these?
I am wondering if you are deliberately spreading FUD
Parent post is on target. Here is the website for the SeRCH organization:
https://www.vanguardstem.com/serch
https://www.vanguardstem.com/serch
and where is the 'unscientific, unencyclopedic woo-woo'?
And where is the evidence it's related to wikipedia?
And where is the evidence it's related to wikipedia?
> And where is the evidence it's related to wikipedia?
To WMF. Right there on their webpage. They are proud of it:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/08/wikimedia-fo...
To WMF. Right there on their webpage. They are proud of it:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/08/wikimedia-fo...
Brill. It's only taken an hour to get the first solid piece of info. Now, where's the "unscientific, unencyclopedic woo-woo" and hyperspace?
can you offer more information? I am interesting about this, but quickly search did not display anything related.
theserchfoundation.org They reportedly have a YouTube channel with long boring videos about their silly stuff.
It’s great that the WP editors seem mostly united on this. It won’t matter though, WMF wants their money and will get the banners in the end.
Agreed. I cut my Wikipedia donations out when I learned how they were spending my money.
What culture war? Is this some American thing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war#2014%E2%80%93prese... - not necessarily just an American thing, but as an American it does feel that way when talking to friends in other countries and seeing memetics carry different meanings.
Maybe I'm ignorant but I still don't really understand it. There is a picture of some protest with someone wielding an actual Nazi flag... Which is pretty fucked up, but it's also sort of hilarious to see it next to someone wearing a hippie straw hat, another person wearing a bicycle helmet and then, what I am assuming is another ultra right wing idiot with a viking shield.
I'm Danish, I wonder what that those people would do if they knew that the viking culture they are appropriating was actually pretty "liberal". Homosexuality wasn't an issue, neither were mixing races or religions. They just recently discovered an Islamic Viking lord in Sweden.
Anyway. If one side of the "culture war" is Nazis, then why is it a war?
Don't get me wrong. It's not like we didn't have our share of village idiots who thought Bill Gates put Microchips in the Covid vaccines and thought the Face Masks were the end of democracy here in Denmark, but the vast majority of people who thought that Face Masks were stupid still wore them with the reasoning that they wouldn't hurt, even if they didn't help, and basically everyone above 18 got vaccinated.
On a side note, I do wish our own village idiots would come up with their own conspiracies though. I mean, why couldn't our Queen be behind the Microchips instead of Bill Gates?
I'm Danish, I wonder what that those people would do if they knew that the viking culture they are appropriating was actually pretty "liberal". Homosexuality wasn't an issue, neither were mixing races or religions. They just recently discovered an Islamic Viking lord in Sweden.
Anyway. If one side of the "culture war" is Nazis, then why is it a war?
Don't get me wrong. It's not like we didn't have our share of village idiots who thought Bill Gates put Microchips in the Covid vaccines and thought the Face Masks were the end of democracy here in Denmark, but the vast majority of people who thought that Face Masks were stupid still wore them with the reasoning that they wouldn't hurt, even if they didn't help, and basically everyone above 18 got vaccinated.
On a side note, I do wish our own village idiots would come up with their own conspiracies though. I mean, why couldn't our Queen be behind the Microchips instead of Bill Gates?
Wait, I didn't see anything in the thread about this at all?
EDIT: I've really really searched, where is the culture war topics everyone in this thread is talking about? This sounds like editors being upset about fundraising banners since WMF is financially well off.
EDIT: I've really really searched, where is the culture war topics everyone in this thread is talking about? This sounds like editors being upset about fundraising banners since WMF is financially well off.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund
This is not linked immediately in the twitter thread or in the rfc that I see when I click the link on twitter. The rfc understandably is long, so there's a lot to read and this equity fund is not one of the key focuses of the OP, so I still don't understand why it is being discussed here.
Potential explanation: was the link changed?
Potential explanation: was the link changed?
No, the Knowledge Equity Fund was the topic of another recent viral Twitter thread by @echetus that someone mentioned here in this discussion a few hours ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33609524
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33609524
well... it seems mathematically inevitable: they have to constantly avoid corruption, so if there's a (say) 2% chance per year then over 30 years then there's a 45% chance of going to the dark side.
the society solution is similar to how the body fights diseased cells: sure, try to avoid the corruption but also setup systems to replace corrupted companies/institutions.
the society solution is similar to how the body fights diseased cells: sure, try to avoid the corruption but also setup systems to replace corrupted companies/institutions.
> Seeing news like this makes me sad initially because it feels like every "decent" tech company out there (Mozilla, Wikipedia come to mind) keeps getting sucked into culture wars that distract from their core missions.
Do you know if there is a good write-up anywhere of exactly why these organisations keep getting captured by this ideology?
It feels like it just came out of nowhere and took over, and we are all expected to agree with the whole thing, otherwise we are labelled as bigoted, evil, etc.
I know it's associated with being politically on the left, but personally, as a left-winger in a more traditional (class-based, economic) sense, I am baffled as to how it's been quietly switched to all this woke gibberish. I certainly didn't see it coming.
Do you know if there is a good write-up anywhere of exactly why these organisations keep getting captured by this ideology?
It feels like it just came out of nowhere and took over, and we are all expected to agree with the whole thing, otherwise we are labelled as bigoted, evil, etc.
I know it's associated with being politically on the left, but personally, as a left-winger in a more traditional (class-based, economic) sense, I am baffled as to how it's been quietly switched to all this woke gibberish. I certainly didn't see it coming.
I don't claim to know, but this article may be part of a start? It was an interesting read to me. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-o...
>I know it's associated with being politically on the left, but personally, as a left-winger in a more traditional (class-based, economic) sense, I am baffled as to how it's been quietly switched to all this woke gibberish. I certainly didn't see it coming.
The word on the street is that this has been pushed by the people who control Wall Street and mainstream media to subvert the Occupy Wall Street movement and the class war momentum it was gaining before and in 2011.
The word on the street is that this has been pushed by the people who control Wall Street and mainstream media to subvert the Occupy Wall Street movement and the class war momentum it was gaining before and in 2011.
Any movement that believes they can immanentize the eschaton[1] is going to use any and all means at its disposal to do so. If all truth is relative [2] and competing lenses bring different goods (<aside>but from what absolute perspective do we call them goods?</aside>) then having more of them is IMPORTANT, right?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton [2]: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-bias/
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton [2]: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-bias/
>"keeps getting sucked into culture wars that distract from their core missions."
I am conflicted because I believe in the Unix philosophy of "do one thing and do it well". Yet, from a 'culture war' standpoint the winning strategy appears to be intersectionality and saturating the movement's messaging in as many organizations and institutions as possible.
I am conflicted because I believe in the Unix philosophy of "do one thing and do it well". Yet, from a 'culture war' standpoint the winning strategy appears to be intersectionality and saturating the movement's messaging in as many organizations and institutions as possible.
Winning what?
And what exactly "winning" means to you?
Shaping public perception and forcing subjects to be discussed in realms not typically political or traditionally considered polarized.
The dynamic here is fairly straightforward. When you have new growth industries like tech, there are a lot of badly-protected resources available. There is a class of people (often called the "professional managerial class", or "PMCs") who specialize in moving in and consuming these badly-protected resources. The most successful tactics for this kind of strategy come from leftist thinkers in the mid-to-late 20th century, so most of these people come from leftist backgrounds. That's why mozilla, wikimedia, etc. always have their resources parasitized towards hard left-leaning causes - because those people have the best institutional capture tactics.
[deleted]
Wikimedia has also grown its headcount exponentially over the past few years. They have almost 1000 staff per linkedin, including a large HR/recruiting team. They're obviously setting up for growth. Which leads me to believe they'll abandon their mission and invest heavily into the culture wars.
https://nitter.net/echetus/status/1579776106034757633 - that's all you need to read.
They're funneling tens of millions of dollars of donations into the US culture war.
They're funneling tens of millions of dollars of donations into the US culture war.
It feels a bit cherry-picked... and I counted $500k of examples listed. The more I read of the rant, the more I felt that the author is trying to manipulate me.
> Unfortunately, the lab experiment went horribly wrong, killing the poor creatures before the research could be concluded
Feels like there must be more to the story... and was a million dollars spent on this? Or more like $5000? Again, feels like they're trying too hard to incite outrage. (Perhaps that's the way on Twitter)
> Unfortunately, the lab experiment went horribly wrong, killing the poor creatures before the research could be concluded
Feels like there must be more to the story... and was a million dollars spent on this? Or more like $5000? Again, feels like they're trying too hard to incite outrage. (Perhaps that's the way on Twitter)
The referenced essay, "Wikipedia has cancer", is far more detailed and less emotionally charged (title notwithstanding) than the Twitter thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
I suggest interpreting the Twitter thread as trying to convince you to read the full article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
I suggest interpreting the Twitter thread as trying to convince you to read the full article.
But it isn't, the original "Wikipedia has cancer" article has no connection whatsoever to these "culture wars" screeches. This Twitter thread is trying to tie it's critique over $500k of the hundred million budget to a well established different criticism to leech off legitimacy for it's partisan-infested shitposting.
Well, there is money on the line. Lots of money based on the statements linked in parents post. If I were to read it cynically, I would comment that someone, who was expecting to see a donation did not so they decided to start an all out information war with Wiki over this.
That said, even if cherry picked, the example provided is sufficiently damning for me to refrain from donating if it was determined to be true ( I am not a donor to that cause so I have no horse here ).
<<Feels like there must be more to the story..
I agree with this wholeheartedly. There is a concerted effort to go after Wiki for one reason or another. The situation they find themselves in is not new, but has only recently became an issue in public eye. And I am saying this as a person, who is leaning towards saying 'Wiki does not NEED more money; other charities should get a slice'.
That said, even if cherry picked, the example provided is sufficiently damning for me to refrain from donating if it was determined to be true ( I am not a donor to that cause so I have no horse here ).
<<Feels like there must be more to the story..
I agree with this wholeheartedly. There is a concerted effort to go after Wiki for one reason or another. The situation they find themselves in is not new, but has only recently became an issue in public eye. And I am saying this as a person, who is leaning towards saying 'Wiki does not NEED more money; other charities should get a slice'.
The thread you provide is overly alarmist. Wikipedia giving a few millions to social justice groups isn't "funneling" much first compared to political financing as a whole, and is not "culture war."
I would urge people looking at this thread to think about the idea of "culture war," who is selling and profiteering from making it a front page issue (it's not).
I would urge people looking at this thread to think about the idea of "culture war," who is selling and profiteering from making it a front page issue (it's not).
If I donate to Wikipedia, I expect that my donation will go to Wikipedia, not to unknown external groups. That's a bait and switch. According to the twitter thread, $22.9 million was given in such grants. That's almost 10x what Wikipedia is paying for hosting. That's not "funneling." That's taking the whole pie.
It's a donation, not an investment. There is no obligation on Wikimedia's part to do specific actions on your behalf.
You can expect money to be used in some ways, sure, but it's not like WM uses 50% of your donation on vanity projects.
Personally, I wish WM would invest more in the quality of non-English articles. French "toponymie" sections tend to be brigaded for whatever reasons for instance. French linguists wage wars apparently.
You can expect money to be used in some ways, sure, but it's not like WM uses 50% of your donation on vanity projects.
Personally, I wish WM would invest more in the quality of non-English articles. French "toponymie" sections tend to be brigaded for whatever reasons for instance. French linguists wage wars apparently.
If the money is being sent elsewhere, it means they are receiving more than they can manage. That changes the fundraising message. If a friend said please help me with my medical bills, then you later find out a portion of the money was spent on something unrelated, you are either going to give them less money the next time around or nothing.
> That changes the fundraising message.
And this is exactly the problem everyone has had with Wikipedia's WMF-fundraising messages for years.
Any banner that says "This donation is needed for Wikipedia" is objectively false.
Wikipedia itself does not need donations.
And the WMF isn't even spending 50% of those donations it does receive on Wikipedia.
And this is exactly the problem everyone has had with Wikipedia's WMF-fundraising messages for years.
Any banner that says "This donation is needed for Wikipedia" is objectively false.
Wikipedia itself does not need donations.
And the WMF isn't even spending 50% of those donations it does receive on Wikipedia.
Sure, but there's also no obligation to donate to Wikimedia in the first place, and it's quite reasonable to decide that if the organization is flush enough with money that it can donate it to outside organizations, it doesn't need more. (And it certainly shouldn't imply it needs more to keep the lights on.)
> There is no obligation on Wikimedia's part to do specific actions on your behalf.
That’s the whole point of nonprofits?
From Wikipedia (ha!):
> Key aspects of nonprofits are accountability, trustworthiness, honesty, and openness to every person who has invested time, money, and faith into the organization. Nonprofit organizations are accountable to the donors, founders, volunteers, program recipients, and the public community.
That’s the whole point of nonprofits?
From Wikipedia (ha!):
> Key aspects of nonprofits are accountability, trustworthiness, honesty, and openness to every person who has invested time, money, and faith into the organization. Nonprofit organizations are accountable to the donors, founders, volunteers, program recipients, and the public community.
And if they pay tons of other foundations that aren't them, with the money I donated to them, then they're not getting my money anymore. Or probably a lot of peoples'.
> It's a donation, not an investment. There is no obligation on Wikimedia's part to do specific actions on your behalf.
Certainly.
But WMF's banners begging for donations strongly imply otherwise. It's deceptive.
Certainly.
But WMF's banners begging for donations strongly imply otherwise. It's deceptive.
> There is no obligation on Wikimedia's part to do specific actions
Uh, people have gotten in a lot of trouble in the past for claiming to raise money for specific causes and using that money for something else. I'm guessing Wikimedia is on the legal side of this fairly gray area, but as a blanket statement, you're mistaken: Wikimedia is very much under a specific legal obligation to use funds collected through charitable fundraising for that charity.
Uh, people have gotten in a lot of trouble in the past for claiming to raise money for specific causes and using that money for something else. I'm guessing Wikimedia is on the legal side of this fairly gray area, but as a blanket statement, you're mistaken: Wikimedia is very much under a specific legal obligation to use funds collected through charitable fundraising for that charity.
You're right. They don't use 50% on vanity projects. They use way more than that. Their donation income last year was around $150 million and their hosting costs were $2.4 million. Let's say their necessary engineering / admin cost was $20 million (a massive overestimate). That's >80% on BS.
I think you misunderstand what Wikimedia is and does. It's not just Wikipedia and hosting. It is also a lot of research into their Wikidata free knowledge database (look it up) for instance.
It requires a lot of people and core knowledge to develop and run. To some extent Wikimedia is a research company too.
It requires a lot of people and core knowledge to develop and run. To some extent Wikimedia is a research company too.
a semantic web holdover project that nobody has heard of or uses is tens of millions of dollars per year?
it is sad to say, but it is obvious that the general good name of the wikipedia project is parasitized by nonprofit sector careerists.
it is sad to say, but it is obvious that the general good name of the wikipedia project is parasitized by nonprofit sector careerists.
[deleted]
> Let's say their necessary engineering / admin cost was $20 million (a massive overestimate)
On this site, you will find many who will breathlessly insist that the only way to run a website at scale is through top tier engineering solutions developed by teams of highly paid engineers. I am not sure why the calculus changes so much for a non profit. Elsewhere in this thread, someone noted that they have $8 million in processing fees just for their donations.
I have no idea what is the right number they should be spending, but I know their costs are much higher than servers and bandwidth.
On this site, you will find many who will breathlessly insist that the only way to run a website at scale is through top tier engineering solutions developed by teams of highly paid engineers. I am not sure why the calculus changes so much for a non profit. Elsewhere in this thread, someone noted that they have $8 million in processing fees just for their donations.
I have no idea what is the right number they should be spending, but I know their costs are much higher than servers and bandwidth.
Their 2021 personnel costs were nearly $70 million, plus another $12 million for consulting. Their awards and grants budget was about $10 million.
Their engineering/devops/pm personal costs was $70M?
It is genuinely interesting to me[1]. Is there a better listing available somewhere else?
Programs totals are: $69,371,450 I was expecting to administrative totals to be higher: $11,531,675
[1]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie...
Programs totals are: $69,371,450 I was expecting to administrative totals to be higher: $11,531,675
[1]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie...
It may not legally meet the definition, but it feels like fraud.
It's a conflict of interest, no matter your politics, when an organization is supposed to be a neutral purveyor of knowledge. (unless I somehow misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, which is possible)
Just want to point out that "neutral" doesn't always mean apolitical, even though it may be convenient to think so. Hypothetically, if in a two party system there is a "burn and ban the books" party, and a "let's really not burn the books" party, the moral obligation of a neutral purveyor of knowledge is to do everything in its power to stop the "burn the books" club. How Wikipedia is interpreting that can be questioned, but not the fact that it should try to further the cause for its existence.
So far, I've seen both sides of the aisle look to ban books -- but only one of the sides is banning books targeting children sexuality.
Can you please provide an example of one of these books that is "targeting children sexuality"?
A title will suffice.
A title will suffice.
Not OP, but most of the controversy has been about age restrictions on the books "Gender Queer: A Memoir" which contains images of graphic scenes of gay sex and oral sex as well as a girl encouraged to “taste” herself by her own siblings or “Lawn Boy” which describes a man talking approvingly to his friend about having oral sex with a grown man when he was only in fourth grade. I'm not aware of any 'bans' per se, but the books have been removed from some school libraries or made subject to age restrictions.
There was another list going around that was said to be satire that people retweeted seemingly unironically: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/florida-book-bans-schools-...
There was another list going around that was said to be satire that people retweeted seemingly unironically: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/florida-book-bans-schools-...
Based on your descriptions, it's hard for me to conclude that these books are "targeting children sexuality" as the OP put it. Teens are--shock of shocks!--sometimes sexually active, even by choice. My brother was sexually active in the 4th grade. Is it that weird for literature to represent those kinds of experiences? I can see where one would make it generally unavailable to the very young, or maybe only with parental permission, but does this seem like a project to "turn kids gay" (as alleged by some one star amazon reviews)? No, lol.
> My brother was sexually active in the 4th grade.
I think a lot of people would find 9-10 years old a bit young for sex. One is also generally not a 'teenager' until 13 and indeed many of the age restrictions are for materials like these books with respect to pre-teens.
I think a lot of people would find 9-10 years old a bit young for sex. One is also generally not a 'teenager' until 13 and indeed many of the age restrictions are for materials like these books with respect to pre-teens.
I think 9-10 years old is a bit young for sex. Did my brother? Apparently not! No one was making any claims about the ages of teenagers, just providing an anecdote that consensual sexual activity (insofar as two 4th graders can consent) can happen at ages where us older folks think it is inappropriate.
Age restrictions are arbitrary. Are there some 16-year-olds I'd trust more with a vote than 25 year olds? Yes.
In any case, and to reiterate my prior point, none of this seems to be "grooming" or "pedophilia."
Age restrictions are arbitrary. Are there some 16-year-olds I'd trust more with a vote than 25 year olds? Yes.
In any case, and to reiterate my prior point, none of this seems to be "grooming" or "pedophilia."
Grooming generally consists of showing kids porn, drugging them and then raping them and making them feel guilt over their own abuse so that they do not disclose it.
So it's understandable that people are concerned by people who want to give sexually explicit material to preteens.
And some authors of children's works have long attracted controversy, like Piers Anthony who had that hotline to contact him in his books (1-800-HI-PIERS) and who wrote extensively about child sexuality both in children's books (the "adult conspiracy" in Xanth) and quite explicitly in his adult works, like Firefly which has explicit sex involving a 5 year old girl.
Quotes of that and some similar works of his can be found here, you have been warned:
https://litreactor.com/columns/themes-of-pedophilia-in-the-w... https://hradzka.livejournal.com/392471.html
I think it's fair to be concerned about such things, and I say that as someone who read much of the Xanth series as a teenager and only figured out how damned creepy it was a very long time afterwards.
Note that I do not claim to have any proof that he's a pedophile, nor do I have any evidence of him harming any kids. But at the same time, I think it's fair for people to want to keep their children away from dirty old men like him and I wouldn't give any kids of mine a Xanth book.
So it's understandable that people are concerned by people who want to give sexually explicit material to preteens.
And some authors of children's works have long attracted controversy, like Piers Anthony who had that hotline to contact him in his books (1-800-HI-PIERS) and who wrote extensively about child sexuality both in children's books (the "adult conspiracy" in Xanth) and quite explicitly in his adult works, like Firefly which has explicit sex involving a 5 year old girl.
Quotes of that and some similar works of his can be found here, you have been warned:
https://litreactor.com/columns/themes-of-pedophilia-in-the-w... https://hradzka.livejournal.com/392471.html
I think it's fair to be concerned about such things, and I say that as someone who read much of the Xanth series as a teenager and only figured out how damned creepy it was a very long time afterwards.
Note that I do not claim to have any proof that he's a pedophile, nor do I have any evidence of him harming any kids. But at the same time, I think it's fair for people to want to keep their children away from dirty old men like him and I wouldn't give any kids of mine a Xanth book.
It seems to me that both of the books you cited actively promote not feeling guilt about what you seem to allege is grooming...wouldn't that undermine your argument? In fact, it seems that the more kids are armed with appropriate sexual education and--importantly--consent education, the less vulnerable they will be to sexual abuse. [0]
And perhaps you have been so blinded by your moral panic, but you appear to not have been reading my posts: I agree with you that texts like this should be restricted for younger kids. (I haven't stated this, but I vehemently disagree with outright bans that make them unavailable to all.) I merely contend that this is not in fact grooming or pedophilia, and that what the right is engaged in is yet another example of the moral panics they gin up to gain political power. (See: war on drugs, satanic panic, et. al.[1])
The right is weaponizing this panic, and ultimately conflating pedophilia with the LGBTQ community. See: countless anti-drag legislation, armed militias showing up at pride events, et. al.
The fact remains that most child predation happens by a person the child knows [2]
Basically to sum up: I agree with you on restricting the availability of books with sexually explicitly content in regards to young kids. I disagree with outright bans. Kids are sexually active creatures--whether anyone likes it or not. Lack of education about this topic leads to suboptimal outcomes: teen pregnancy, sexual violence, etc. These books don't strike me as grooming or pedophilia, and in fact, they seem to be the basis of a moral panic being used to gain political power.
[0] https://mcasa.org/newsletters/article/comprehensive-sex-educ...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic#:~:text=A%20moral%....
[2] https://vets4childrescue.org/identifying-predators
And perhaps you have been so blinded by your moral panic, but you appear to not have been reading my posts: I agree with you that texts like this should be restricted for younger kids. (I haven't stated this, but I vehemently disagree with outright bans that make them unavailable to all.) I merely contend that this is not in fact grooming or pedophilia, and that what the right is engaged in is yet another example of the moral panics they gin up to gain political power. (See: war on drugs, satanic panic, et. al.[1])
The right is weaponizing this panic, and ultimately conflating pedophilia with the LGBTQ community. See: countless anti-drag legislation, armed militias showing up at pride events, et. al.
The fact remains that most child predation happens by a person the child knows [2]
Basically to sum up: I agree with you on restricting the availability of books with sexually explicitly content in regards to young kids. I disagree with outright bans. Kids are sexually active creatures--whether anyone likes it or not. Lack of education about this topic leads to suboptimal outcomes: teen pregnancy, sexual violence, etc. These books don't strike me as grooming or pedophilia, and in fact, they seem to be the basis of a moral panic being used to gain political power.
[0] https://mcasa.org/newsletters/article/comprehensive-sex-educ...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic#:~:text=A%20moral%....
[2] https://vets4childrescue.org/identifying-predators
Its weird for you defend children sexuality and then bring up an anecdotal point to defend it. Your brother being sexually active in the 4th grade (10 years old by my estimation) is not a good thing.
I am just pointing out that the age of onset of sexual activity is a distribution, and that nothing nefarious needs to happen to make it so, even at the tail ends. While I would not want my kids (who are older than 4th grade) to be sexually active at their current age, it is important to note that nothing bad happened in my brother's case.
In a related issue: is banning books going to lead to fewer bad outcomes? Unlikely.
Just out of curiosity, at what age do you think it is appropriate for a human to be sexually active by choice?
In a related issue: is banning books going to lead to fewer bad outcomes? Unlikely.
Just out of curiosity, at what age do you think it is appropriate for a human to be sexually active by choice?
I think it's a pretty bold exaggeration to go from "banning books from school curricula" or even "from school libraries" to "banning books period". Conservative attempts to restrict sex education are misguided, but no books are actually being banned. Personally, I tend to feel betrayed when I'm warned of a horrible thing happening and investigate to find out it just isn't so.
I love the idea that neutral means "status quo" and not the absence of bias, which is far from being the status quo in most cases.
Knowledge acquisition is not neutral per se. Wikipedia's goal is to be a peer-to-peer encyclopedia. It's not, and never will be perfect.
The best thing you and I can do, instead or beyond donating, is to read Wikipedia and point out places with issues, if not become editors outright.
The best thing you and I can do, instead or beyond donating, is to read Wikipedia and point out places with issues, if not become editors outright.
Wikipedia is NPoV but that doesn't mean their funding org has to be.
Wikipedia is not a PAC, they are not NARAL or LPUS or YAF or Center for American Progress.
It isnt alarmist to notice that Nice, Professional, Educated people have been guiding institutions that are ostensibly neutral (Wikipedia, or at risk of being spicy, the ACLU) taking great pains to support a worldview that is popular with only 8% of the US population, let alone the population of the world (https://hiddentribes.us/). They are doing so at the expense of their stated mission, in Wikipedia's case - this means taking money that could be used for hosting endowments, translations, original research and using it to forward the worldview and cultural dominance of a very small group.
It isnt alarmist to notice that Nice, Professional, Educated people have been guiding institutions that are ostensibly neutral (Wikipedia, or at risk of being spicy, the ACLU) taking great pains to support a worldview that is popular with only 8% of the US population, let alone the population of the world (https://hiddentribes.us/). They are doing so at the expense of their stated mission, in Wikipedia's case - this means taking money that could be used for hosting endowments, translations, original research and using it to forward the worldview and cultural dominance of a very small group.
I don't think most of the donors know the money is used for things other than Wikipedia and that Wikimedia is very well off. This is an even bigger ethical lapse than funnelling money into charities people might not agree with.
God this shit it tiresome, giving money people doing social justice isn't funneling money into some "culture war" -- at best you could say that the groups involved see the greatest opposition to their mission is political but these groups aren't political except as a means to an end. They would, (and do, I'm part of one) support politicians on both sides of the aisle so long as they support their mission.
You would be surprised how amenable Republicans at the local level, who don't have to keep up appearances on Twitter, are to social justice -- doubly when someone in their family is a member of one of those disadvantaged groups.
You don't get to say "I don't like this so I'm going to say it's political and then demand you stay out of politics." Literally everything is political.
You would be surprised how amenable Republicans at the local level, who don't have to keep up appearances on Twitter, are to social justice -- doubly when someone in their family is a member of one of those disadvantaged groups.
You don't get to say "I don't like this so I'm going to say it's political and then demand you stay out of politics." Literally everything is political.
See I am not American and don't care about American culture war, Republican Democratican, or whatever you guys are using as an excuse to burn down buildings.
It's plain wrong to put banner ads in third world countries like Brazil and India, sounding like wikipedia doesn't have money to run their servers.
It's plain wrong to funnel that money to executives.
People who make wikipedia great aren't even involved with this. They have enough money to run servers, and a potential donation doesn't create additional content. They are trying hard to hide that fact with some clever wording.
This is textbook example of __dark pattern__ which highly privacy focused people love to point out when a bootstrapped startup collects telemetry data from their little application.
The Wikipedia fundraising effort is sounds like a metric driven C suite executive desperately trying to make charts "stonk".
It's plain wrong to put banner ads in third world countries like Brazil and India, sounding like wikipedia doesn't have money to run their servers.
It's plain wrong to funnel that money to executives.
People who make wikipedia great aren't even involved with this. They have enough money to run servers, and a potential donation doesn't create additional content. They are trying hard to hide that fact with some clever wording.
This is textbook example of __dark pattern__ which highly privacy focused people love to point out when a bootstrapped startup collects telemetry data from their little application.
The Wikipedia fundraising effort is sounds like a metric driven C suite executive desperately trying to make charts "stonk".
Would you feel the same way if Wikimedia funded groups acting against social justice?
That depends , if they took a principled position that, say trans rights groups were censoring notable science re: gender and sexuality and donated to FIRE - an organization that is specifically devoted to maintaining the academy as a place of inquiry, but incidentally opposes social justice missions, that seems like it could be in keeping with Wikipedia's wider mission and legitimate.
However, I'd feel like sponsoring the Ben Shapiro superpac would be obviously over the line - not because they're "conservative" or "against social justice", but because the way in which it opposes "social justice" is not an incidental aspect of protecting freedom of information.
Similarly, funding the pre-2015 ACLU could have a similar argument made - even though they had a liberal bent well before the Harvard amicus brief.
However, I'd feel like sponsoring the Ben Shapiro superpac would be obviously over the line - not because they're "conservative" or "against social justice", but because the way in which it opposes "social justice" is not an incidental aspect of protecting freedom of information.
Similarly, funding the pre-2015 ACLU could have a similar argument made - even though they had a liberal bent well before the Harvard amicus brief.
No because there’s a difference between doing good and doing bad, even if that’s subjective.
There is. Bad is doing what you want, good is doing what I want.
"Social justice" is the opposite of justice, and therefore evil :)
You didn't think that through, did you? It's almost impossible to define good vs bad without it being subjective.
You killed someone. That's bad. Except they were dying of a terminal disease, so now it's good. Except you still killed someone, so that's bad.
You killed someone. That's bad. Except they were dying of a terminal disease, so now it's good. Except you still killed someone, so that's bad.
[deleted]
Depends, is the funding literally just for “fuck these people in particular who have social justice missions” or do you really mean “donating to groups whose missions I don’t agree with and who in due course end up opposing social justice groups.” Because the former is just mean while the latter is fine.
Quoting from your source:
>In the west, an advanced industry of NGOs, charities, and foundations has evolved which funds so much of the weirdness in our daily lives. A caste of activist-professionals have emerged, which inevitably capture any non-profit with spare cash. This is what is sometimes called The Blob: a powerful but inconspicuous force that has given us the dysfunction of the 21st century
Foolish me, I thought it was Gilded Age-level income inequality, and its subsequent funding of authoritarianism that was giving us the dysfunction of the 21st century. Good thing we have this crack journo to tell us it's...
checks notes
...Non-Profit Organizations!
>In the west, an advanced industry of NGOs, charities, and foundations has evolved which funds so much of the weirdness in our daily lives. A caste of activist-professionals have emerged, which inevitably capture any non-profit with spare cash. This is what is sometimes called The Blob: a powerful but inconspicuous force that has given us the dysfunction of the 21st century
Foolish me, I thought it was Gilded Age-level income inequality, and its subsequent funding of authoritarianism that was giving us the dysfunction of the 21st century. Good thing we have this crack journo to tell us it's...
checks notes
...Non-Profit Organizations!
[deleted]
What's this "US culture war"?
>What's this "US culture war"?
Post-modernist deconstruction of what is viewed as "white people culture" (meritocracy, high-trust societies, traditional gender roles and family) inspired by the Frankfurt School[0] of philosophy and older concepts[1].
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam
Post-modernist deconstruction of what is viewed as "white people culture" (meritocracy, high-trust societies, traditional gender roles and family) inspired by the Frankfurt School[0] of philosophy and older concepts[1].
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam
Ah, so a racist dogwhistle?
[deleted]
many posters here have no problem with Wikimedia/Mozilla/etc redirecting the money to political activists.
I'd just like to remind you what happened when Brendan Eich had donated $1000 of his own damn money to a cause you found disagreeable.
I'd just like to remind you what happened when Brendan Eich had donated $1000 of his own damn money to a cause you found disagreeable.
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No one was upset that he donated from his own money. It was never portrayed as a breach of fiduciary duty. What upset people is that he's a homophobe. No one wanted to work for him, have the fruits of their labor used to undermine theirs or their friends' human rights, or use software stewarded by a homophobic leader.
Sorry, I'm out of the loop on this one. What happened?
Brendan Eich donated $1000 in 2008 to support "Prop 8" in California. Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment that required the state to only recognize marriage between one man and one woman.
In 2014, this donation came to light after he was appointed CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. Much outrage ensued and Eich was more or less forced to resign.
In 2014, this donation came to light after he was appointed CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. Much outrage ensued and Eich was more or less forced to resign.
... and California Prop. 8 passed by a majority of voters in 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
... and the courts struck it down as unconstitutional:
> In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,[6] since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis.
> In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,[6] since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis.
[deleted]
He was appointed as Mozilla's CEO in March 2014, it turned out he had donated a whopping $3000 to movements against gay marriage in 2008 and despite promising to support LGBT causes at Mozilla, he was effectively forced to step down in April 2014. These days he runs Brave, which isn't flawless but is doing relatively well.
Which is in somewhat stark contrast to some comments here which seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia's donations are fine because they're only ~$500k.
Which is in somewhat stark contrast to some comments here which seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia's donations are fine because they're only ~$500k.
What?
yucky(5)
There's a firefox extension called "Defund Wikipedia" which works very well to block these messages.
I personally use Britannica.
I personally use Britannica.
So dad that no one looks like to be willing to fork Wikipedia/wmf.
I would be happy to make a donation to it and have the original wmf rot.
I would be happy to make a donation to it and have the original wmf rot.
There are countless Wikipedia forks. To a first approximation, they all suck.
The Spanish Wikipedia had a considerable mutiny around 2011, when all admins quit en masse and moved to their own fork, but looks like they gave up the ghost around 2016:
http://enciclopedia.us.es/index.php/Plantilla:Art%C3%ADculo_...
The only successful wiki fork I'm aware of is Wikivoyage (a Wikimedia project) from Wikitravel, which was bought by a company that proceeded to cram it full of monkey punch ads and alienate its entire userbase.
The Spanish Wikipedia had a considerable mutiny around 2011, when all admins quit en masse and moved to their own fork, but looks like they gave up the ghost around 2016:
http://enciclopedia.us.es/index.php/Plantilla:Art%C3%ADculo_...
The only successful wiki fork I'm aware of is Wikivoyage (a Wikimedia project) from Wikitravel, which was bought by a company that proceeded to cram it full of monkey punch ads and alienate its entire userbase.
It would need software to support governance by the volunteers who actually maintain it, rather than what exists now.
These "benevolent dictatorships" all devolve into regular dictatorships after the benevolent dictator leaves (or finds a new partner who promises to make them rich), and the ivy MBAs show up with top tier salary expectations and a vision for what to do with the brand that has little or no relationship with what the brand became successful doing.
It's of course a collective action problem. The reason that wikipedia can be plundered for cash (such a precious thing, so much management risk) is the same reason Elsevier and others can collect billions on the backs of unpaid researchers and reviewers.
These "benevolent dictatorships" all devolve into regular dictatorships after the benevolent dictator leaves (or finds a new partner who promises to make them rich), and the ivy MBAs show up with top tier salary expectations and a vision for what to do with the brand that has little or no relationship with what the brand became successful doing.
It's of course a collective action problem. The reason that wikipedia can be plundered for cash (such a precious thing, so much management risk) is the same reason Elsevier and others can collect billions on the backs of unpaid researchers and reviewers.
Wikipedia is one of the worst things that was ever launched on the web. Many people say that it's reliable, except in cases of controversy. That's a spin. A more honest way of describing it is that it's a system designed to accumulate trust by providing people with trivial information and then spectacularly fail them when the information is critically important for some society-wide issue. The failures aren't unfortunate mishaps, they are inevitable by design.
I'd say it's foolish to turn to an encyclopedia, which by definition is merely meant to impart knowledge not much deeper than introductory, for information of critical importance.
(Fun trick: use this URL to turn on the summary headers that're why I know how many people are in the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(propos... )
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics