Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation(diff.wikimedia.org)
diff.wikimedia.org
Stepping Down as CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/02/04/stepping-down-as-ceo-of-the-wikimedia-foundation/
251 comments
> Wikipedia may have been an amazing idea in the beginning.
> I would gladly pay for an encyclopedia written by actual experts.
While you're entitled to your opinion, this is a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side".
I'm not a fan of the Wikipedia internal politics, but as a user, Wikipedia is one of the best showcases of the Internet and in my opinion the greatest collaboration project in human history.
For the first time we have knowledge available to all, for (almost) free. You want to pay because you're privileged, but that's not the way of improving humanity as a whole, rich and poor, privileged and stuck in a mud hut with a crappy phone.
Of course we can do better, but I find it incredibly dismissive not to recognise the incredible achievement Wikipedia is.
Blame the fact that as a species we're quite tribalistic and selfish, not the collective effort we're making while trying the hardest limit our biases and shortcomings as much as (humanly) possible.
> I would gladly pay for an encyclopedia written by actual experts.
While you're entitled to your opinion, this is a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side".
I'm not a fan of the Wikipedia internal politics, but as a user, Wikipedia is one of the best showcases of the Internet and in my opinion the greatest collaboration project in human history.
For the first time we have knowledge available to all, for (almost) free. You want to pay because you're privileged, but that's not the way of improving humanity as a whole, rich and poor, privileged and stuck in a mud hut with a crappy phone.
Of course we can do better, but I find it incredibly dismissive not to recognise the incredible achievement Wikipedia is.
Blame the fact that as a species we're quite tribalistic and selfish, not the collective effort we're making while trying the hardest limit our biases and shortcomings as much as (humanly) possible.
I used to be big on OSS and free for all (maybe because I'm an incredible cheapskate) but I changed my mind.
Every service provided for free is maintained by someone working for free.
After being on the maintainer side, working my ** off and not getting anything but more work without recognition or even a "thank you", I can't say I'm happy or positive towards OSS or services that can't sustain themselves. The human cost can't be ignored.
At the same time, working for free is rarely conducive of high quality, even when good engineers are behind it. Even when the quality is good, you can't expect maintenance.
Most of the OSS I use is either unmaintaned, of questionable quality or fake OSS maintained by business to attract/retain developers. There are famous exceptions in OSS (eg. Linux) driven by a few exceptional (and well off) individuals, but that's not the majority of the community. Students doing CV building are another segment of people doing OSS and hoping to get paid in recognition.
If it wasn't for the low level OSS got us used to, it would be easier to have a market of small independent developers selling software and maintaining it.
The same goes for wiki.
After being on the maintainer side, working my ** off and not getting anything but more work without recognition or even a "thank you", I can't say I'm happy or positive towards OSS or services that can't sustain themselves. The human cost can't be ignored.
At the same time, working for free is rarely conducive of high quality, even when good engineers are behind it. Even when the quality is good, you can't expect maintenance.
Most of the OSS I use is either unmaintaned, of questionable quality or fake OSS maintained by business to attract/retain developers. There are famous exceptions in OSS (eg. Linux) driven by a few exceptional (and well off) individuals, but that's not the majority of the community. Students doing CV building are another segment of people doing OSS and hoping to get paid in recognition.
If it wasn't for the low level OSS got us used to, it would be easier to have a market of small independent developers selling software and maintaining it.
The same goes for wiki.
[deleted]
Honestly I feel where you’re coming from, I used to think exactly like you. But I slowly came to my current sad realization.
Right now I do believe that free wrong info is actually more damaging than paid correct info. But I am open to and wish for a third option or a solution which is more inclusive and less "for the privileged".
Right now I do believe that free wrong info is actually more damaging than paid correct info. But I am open to and wish for a third option or a solution which is more inclusive and less "for the privileged".
Could you cite specific examples of wrong or actually harmful information?
That would give more credence to your arguments.
Maybe also link to your rejected contributions to show that you are not just disgruntled because your edits were reverted.
I do agree that there are lots of inaccuracies in articles, but having Wikipedia with at least somewhat helpful information is infinitely better than having nothing at all.
That would give more credence to your arguments.
Maybe also link to your rejected contributions to show that you are not just disgruntled because your edits were reverted.
I do agree that there are lots of inaccuracies in articles, but having Wikipedia with at least somewhat helpful information is infinitely better than having nothing at all.
Political content is a landmine, articles are often locked because vandals are often indistinguishable from those with better information but still controversial.
One example: Britishfinance/"Ireland as a tax haven"[1]
Summary: A user, Britishfinance (believed to be Paddy Cosgrave, disgruntled founder of the web summit, a major EU tech event that moved from Ireland to Lisbon as the Irish government wouldn't give him what he wanted) spent about a year primarily editing articles related to Ireland to make a link of claims about the country being a tax haven the most prominent feature of them. Case in point, look at the overview for the article on Ireland after the user edited it [2]. It's since been rolled back somewhat by other wikipedia editors who felt that was a disproportionate amount of space given to that discussion.
But Wikipedia isn't so well equipped to handle this kind of dispute.
1. Ireland certainly has benefited from its tax policies, including both competitive but undisputed to be the right of the country, like having a lower corporate headline tax rate than its neighbours, and
2. Ireland has been involved in tax loopholes, such as the now defunct double irish/dutch sandwich stuff
3. You can find sourced articles for all of this.
So at what point does putting this information as the most prominent information in a wide variety of Ireland related articles cross from being just adding facts to encyclopedia articles to being politically motivated? When one side is an active wikipedia admin and the other side is a bunch of casual editors or users who don't edit, who gets the benefit of the doubt?
1: https://old.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/bgyfet/til_theres_...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Irela...
Summary: A user, Britishfinance (believed to be Paddy Cosgrave, disgruntled founder of the web summit, a major EU tech event that moved from Ireland to Lisbon as the Irish government wouldn't give him what he wanted) spent about a year primarily editing articles related to Ireland to make a link of claims about the country being a tax haven the most prominent feature of them. Case in point, look at the overview for the article on Ireland after the user edited it [2]. It's since been rolled back somewhat by other wikipedia editors who felt that was a disproportionate amount of space given to that discussion.
But Wikipedia isn't so well equipped to handle this kind of dispute.
1. Ireland certainly has benefited from its tax policies, including both competitive but undisputed to be the right of the country, like having a lower corporate headline tax rate than its neighbours, and
2. Ireland has been involved in tax loopholes, such as the now defunct double irish/dutch sandwich stuff
3. You can find sourced articles for all of this.
So at what point does putting this information as the most prominent information in a wide variety of Ireland related articles cross from being just adding facts to encyclopedia articles to being politically motivated? When one side is an active wikipedia admin and the other side is a bunch of casual editors or users who don't edit, who gets the benefit of the doubt?
1: https://old.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/bgyfet/til_theres_...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Irela...
All very well and true, but isn't this also a problem in closed encylopedias?? Surely even a paid editor has her biases, and at the very least would have to make a judgement call on whether or not to include that information in the opening paragraph and so on. Wikipedia actually has the advantage here as the discussion is completely open and you can see the all arguments and the process that led to a decision.
Should I believe that the Republic of Ireland's wikipedia entry had an issue with how it talked about taxes, but now wikipedia has corrected that issue?
Yeh if you read the talk pages (which are hard to find and many people wouldn’t even know about) you will find so many people pushing an agenda rather than trying to adhere to some neutrality. Small subtle changes designed to push someone’s world view.
I think it’s so rare these days to find people who can remain objective and leave their opinions at the door. Everyone seems fueled by rage, it’s like their political views are their purpose in life.
I think it’s so rare these days to find people who can remain objective and leave their opinions at the door. Everyone seems fueled by rage, it’s like their political views are their purpose in life.
> at least somewhat helpful information is infinitely better than having nothing at all
Maybe, at least as long as we still have a good ratio between reliable and unreliable info (whatever that ratio may be). But as long as someone can piggy-back on this reputation, and most people simply take all that info for granted, the effect of a disingenuous Wiki article is far higher than your average FB "fake news". It's that implicit trust that makes a Trojan horse more dangerous.
There is no action being taken to make this process of correcting information more open and transparent, and out of the hands of a few people. Especially since it's been shown in the past that this kind of power was sold for money in PR campaigns, or used for revenge edits.
Maybe, at least as long as we still have a good ratio between reliable and unreliable info (whatever that ratio may be). But as long as someone can piggy-back on this reputation, and most people simply take all that info for granted, the effect of a disingenuous Wiki article is far higher than your average FB "fake news". It's that implicit trust that makes a Trojan horse more dangerous.
There is no action being taken to make this process of correcting information more open and transparent, and out of the hands of a few people. Especially since it's been shown in the past that this kind of power was sold for money in PR campaigns, or used for revenge edits.
> the effect of a disingenuous Wiki article is far higher than your average FB "fake news"
Wikipedia doesn't profit by weaponizing misinformation. That's FB's business model.
All those people who stormed the capital. You think they were FB users or Wiki users? The thought of them diligently reading encyclopedia entries and becoming radicalized has me cackling.
Wikipedia doesn't profit by weaponizing misinformation. That's FB's business model.
All those people who stormed the capital. You think they were FB users or Wiki users? The thought of them diligently reading encyclopedia entries and becoming radicalized has me cackling.
Well, they could have been reading conservapedia
Sure. The article for Bill Ayers describes him as an "elementary education theorist." That's not what he's notable for.
And the article for John Wilkes Booth describes him as an "American stage actor" even though that's not what he's known for. If you keep reading the article, however, it's almost completely about what he is known for (a statement true for both cases). That's just standard wikipedia formatting.
"Standard wikipedia formatting" being burying the lead is not a compelling defense. It's damn near misleading.
I find "an American stage actor who assassinated President Abraham Lincoln" to be a ridiculous introduction; it should read "an American assassin who killed President Abraham Lincoln" -- the man's profession is completely irrelevant; he is notable for this one act.
It isn't even consistently applied: Ted Kaczynski is listed as a domestic terrorist, Sirhan Sirhan is "a Palestinian Christian militant," but then Charles Guiteau is a "writer and lawyer."
I find "an American stage actor who assassinated President Abraham Lincoln" to be a ridiculous introduction; it should read "an American assassin who killed President Abraham Lincoln" -- the man's profession is completely irrelevant; he is notable for this one act.
It isn't even consistently applied: Ted Kaczynski is listed as a domestic terrorist, Sirhan Sirhan is "a Palestinian Christian militant," but then Charles Guiteau is a "writer and lawyer."
> I find "an American stage actor who assassinated President Abraham Lincoln" to be a ridiculous introduction; it should read "an American assassin who killed President Abraham Lincoln"
One sentence fragment conveys that Lincoln was assassinated, the assassin's nationality, and the assassin's profession in 67 characters. The other conveys that Lincoln was assassinated and the assassin's nationality in 58 characters.
You like the wrong sentence. It's stylistically kooky, too: you need to point out that an assassin killed someone? That doesn't feel a little redundant to you?
> the man's profession is completely irrelevant
Hardly. But mostly it's strange that you'd want wikipedia to make that determination for you. It's not necessary.
> "Standard wikipedia formatting" being burying the lead is not a compelling defense.
Burying the lede would involve putting the information you're burying somewhere other than the middle of the first sentence of the first paragraph.
One sentence fragment conveys that Lincoln was assassinated, the assassin's nationality, and the assassin's profession in 67 characters. The other conveys that Lincoln was assassinated and the assassin's nationality in 58 characters.
You like the wrong sentence. It's stylistically kooky, too: you need to point out that an assassin killed someone? That doesn't feel a little redundant to you?
> the man's profession is completely irrelevant
Hardly. But mostly it's strange that you'd want wikipedia to make that determination for you. It's not necessary.
> "Standard wikipedia formatting" being burying the lead is not a compelling defense.
Burying the lede would involve putting the information you're burying somewhere other than the middle of the first sentence of the first paragraph.
Maybe you missed the part where I wrote about their notability rules. Boothe was notable because of an assassination. At no point was his stage career even worth mentioning.
Booth assassinated Lincoln in the theater while Lincoln was attending Booth's play and the fact everyone there knew he was an actor contributed directly to his escape from the scene. Just because you are uninterested in context does not make it irrelevant.
[deleted]
Ted Kaczynski hasn't been anything other than a domestic terrorist since 1969 when he dropped out of academia at the ripe old age of 27. Sirhan Sirhan didn't have a profession, as far as I can tell he was working at a health food store when he assasinated RFK, and has spent the past 53 years incarcerated for it.
Charles Guiteau had a long career prior to assassinating Garfield, as did Booth before assassinating Lincoln. While both committed assassinations, there was no point in time where you could have hired either to assassinate someone for you, it wasn't either of their professions.
Charles Guiteau had a long career prior to assassinating Garfield, as did Booth before assassinating Lincoln. While both committed assassinations, there was no point in time where you could have hired either to assassinate someone for you, it wasn't either of their professions.
My whole point here is that their professions are not noteworthy, relevant, or interesting, but Wikipedian bureaucracy causes them to be mentioned, and I think it's dumb.
I think, if you looked a bit closer, you'd find that Wikipedia is more opinionated about certain topics than others. On Wikipedia, Ted Kaczynski is a domestic terrorist first, and a mathematician second, but Bill Ayers is an education theorist first, and a domestic terrorist second. I don't really see any "standard" here. To my eyes, the bias is fairly consistent - somewhat left of American center plus a little bit of libertarian - not dissimilar to hacker news.
I mention Bill Ayers specifically because I asked a friend if they had heard of the Weather Underground recently and they said "sounds familiar, remind me?" And I said "Google Bill Ayers" and they paused and then said "the elementary education theorist?" And I said "lol, yeah, that's funny." That first sentence is what shows in Google results on mobile devices - it matters.
I mention Bill Ayers specifically because I asked a friend if they had heard of the Weather Underground recently and they said "sounds familiar, remind me?" And I said "Google Bill Ayers" and they paused and then said "the elementary education theorist?" And I said "lol, yeah, that's funny." That first sentence is what shows in Google results on mobile devices - it matters.
He was part of the weather underground years ago, he has spent decades as an education theorist since then. Education theorist is his current profession. Ted Kaczynski abandoned his mathematics career in 1969 when he was 27, and has spent the past 40 years either bombing people or serving time for doing so.
Similarly, Donald Trump is described as an American politician and the 45th president in his opening sentence, with discussion of his past in business and as a media personality reserved for later in the article. The standard wikipedia introduction is to list common aliases, nationality, and their current/last profession.
I will also note that on my mobile device if you google Bill Ayers, the first two sentences of his wikipedia article come up. The entire second sentence is about his involvement in the Weather Underground.
Similarly, Donald Trump is described as an American politician and the 45th president in his opening sentence, with discussion of his past in business and as a media personality reserved for later in the article. The standard wikipedia introduction is to list common aliases, nationality, and their current/last profession.
I will also note that on my mobile device if you google Bill Ayers, the first two sentences of his wikipedia article come up. The entire second sentence is about his involvement in the Weather Underground.
That seems to be a problem with Google as much as Wikipedia.
What examples do you have of this? I also feel Wikipedia is a success, but I'd like any data points of failures as well.
There is plenty of paid correct info out there. You just need to look in the field of data that you're interested in.
I'm pretty sure the days of a general data encyclopedia are past us. The amount of data to gather to make it useful is going to insanely expensive, and will in general be available from many sources for free, thereby decreasing its value.
I'm pretty sure the days of a general data encyclopedia are past us. The amount of data to gather to make it useful is going to insanely expensive, and will in general be available from many sources for free, thereby decreasing its value.
I think if you just read the articles without following the footnotes you can easily get the impression that Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia. The writing quality is often pretty good, which unfortunately makes it more deceptive as to information quality.
> For the first time we have knowledge available to all, for (almost) free
That’s fantastic unless that ‘knowledge’ is wrong. We can get that kind of knowledge on Facebook.
That’s fantastic unless that ‘knowledge’ is wrong. We can get that kind of knowledge on Facebook.
Of course Wikipedia has some unique problems due to its fundamental structure, but on the whole it is roughly as accurate as other Encyclopedias [1]. But not every study agrees [2]. See also [3]. It seems to be also be field dependent, and I have to say that personally, as a mathematician, I have never seen anything wrong in any article about mathematics.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249362832_Compariso...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249362832_Compariso...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
I don't know that I've ever seen anything strictly _wrong_ in an article about mathematics, but I've certainly seen articles giving equations without defining what any of the variables are and using using very field-specific notation without defining or referencing it, making them impossible to read unless you know enough about the topic to reverse-engineer what they're talking about.
And I'm not talking something like using a Dirac delta without referencing it; I'm talking about pretty esoteric notation that is really only relevant to the topic of the article.
And of course plenty of the math articles are just not very coherently written (and yes, plenty are quite good).
And I'm not talking something like using a Dirac delta without referencing it; I'm talking about pretty esoteric notation that is really only relevant to the topic of the article.
And of course plenty of the math articles are just not very coherently written (and yes, plenty are quite good).
I'll go ahead and admit that I'm a dummy: I find anything related to math on Wikipedia to be an incomprehensible nightmare. There's a consistent failure, in my view, to consider the audience. It's like people are writing to impress a technical in-group rather than to inform the general public.
Maybe I should try the Simple English pages instead. :-/
Maybe I should try the Simple English pages instead. :-/
I think you're spot on, for what it's worth. The context for my comment above is that I have a math PhD, and even then a lot of the articles are an unnecessarily tough read. For the general public they are pretty impenetrable...
Can you point to a few examples just to make sure we are talking about the same thing? I use wikipedia for math, physics and engineering topics frequently and generally do not have too much trouble understanding it, possibly with a few cross-referenced articles.
I have seen occasional weird writing, but this is usually either some esoteric subject or just an initial writeup on a narrow topic -- that is, an inexperienced author trying to fill a void, not someone staking out territory or looking for recognition. Just my experience.
I have seen occasional weird writing, but this is usually either some esoteric subject or just an initial writeup on a narrow topic -- that is, an inexperienced author trying to fill a void, not someone staking out territory or looking for recognition. Just my experience.
If I had examples off the top of my head, I would have cited them. I'll see if I can find time to do some digging through my browser history, but this is a multi-hour endeavor that you're asking for here, so I might not be able to get to it.
And to be clear, I am not talking about people staking out territory or looking for recognition. I am talking about articles being so badly written they are functionally indistinguishable from being "wrong". Yes, you can decipher them with enough outside knowledge and some other references, but it's pretty tough. And this is not a majority of mathematics articles by any means. But the problem is that if you don't know enough you can't tell whether you're looking at such an article or not, unfortunately...
P.S. I just took a quick look at just my recent-ish Wikipedia edits, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limit_superior_an... was correcting a small but obviously wrong claim. Which is, to be clear, not the sort of issue I was referring to in my comment about badly-written articles.
And to be clear, I am not talking about people staking out territory or looking for recognition. I am talking about articles being so badly written they are functionally indistinguishable from being "wrong". Yes, you can decipher them with enough outside knowledge and some other references, but it's pretty tough. And this is not a majority of mathematics articles by any means. But the problem is that if you don't know enough you can't tell whether you're looking at such an article or not, unfortunately...
P.S. I just took a quick look at just my recent-ish Wikipedia edits, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limit_superior_an... was correcting a small but obviously wrong claim. Which is, to be clear, not the sort of issue I was referring to in my comment about badly-written articles.
Will definitely second math articles (some, not all) having a "X is the result of X'ing" circular definition antipattern coursing through them.
But I suppose that's an epistemological question, as to whether an article is a definition or an educational method.
But I suppose that's an epistemological question, as to whether an article is a definition or an educational method.
Every time the post title contains "wikipedia" out come the same complaints. I say what I always say: can you please point out a specific incident where you saw wrong information, tried to correct it, and were overturned?
It's an important question. Sometimes I see rejection of actual good material,so it happens. Often it's well-meaning noobs running afoul of either the essential complexity (encyclopedias are hard) or the incidental complexity (Wikipedia's a bit of a beast). And sometimes it's people who are sure that THEY ARE RIGHT and HOW DARE THOSE PEOPLE. So we always need to look at specific incidents.
If you are a deployment engineer/Windows desktop dev, check out the article on installers. [1] Most of those are obsolete, small and pretty much useless. The one we've been using for 15 years is not listed. Check out the article history. Every time someone tries to update it and add modern, actually useful tools, someone else comes from the woodwork and deletes it. Some of the deletionists don't know what a repackager is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_installation_software#...
Just an example, in my area of expertise. Some of the rejected edits were mine.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_installation_software#...
Just an example, in my area of expertise. Some of the rejected edits were mine.
I looked at the last year or so of edits and didn't see anything obviously problematic. What edits specifically concern you?
OK, digging through recent history, the 12:23, 22 October 2020 deletion removed tools like Advanced Installer, InstallAware and RayPack. These are tools that actual deployment engineers, repackagers and Windows software developers use every day to do our job. They are also recommended by Microsoft for MSIX. [1]
I have no idea why they don't meet Wikipedia's "notability" criteria or why such a 10 or 20 years old tool has or hasn't its own page - and I don't care. The list left (other than InstallShield and WiX) is a joke and you can plainly see that none of those editors has any expertise in the field. The end result is that that article is useless or worse for anyone reading it. Which I thought was the whole point of Wikipedia.
[1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/msix/desktop/deskto...
I have no idea why they don't meet Wikipedia's "notability" criteria or why such a 10 or 20 years old tool has or hasn't its own page - and I don't care. The list left (other than InstallShield and WiX) is a joke and you can plainly see that none of those editors has any expertise in the field. The end result is that that article is useless or worse for anyone reading it. Which I thought was the whole point of Wikipedia.
[1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/msix/desktop/deskto...
Got it. The edit somewhat cryptically refers to WP:WTAF, which is an essay titled "Write the Article First"; its point is basically that one shouldn't litter articles with references to things that aren't actual pages.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Write_the_article_fi...
That you don't care about core Wikipedia values means that your attempts to edit it will always be frustrating for you. I get that they can be mysterious to outsiders, but unfortunately they're necessary. In particular Wikipedia isn't a place for people with expertise to come write things. It's a place where people with no particular expertise use expert material elsewhere to create an encyclopedia. That means every item must be traceable to reliable sources (which they call verifiable) and articles must have enough sourced material that you can write a basic article from it (which is what they call notable).
If you are an expert on this, then I'd suggest you write a signed article in some publication with a reasonable editorial apparatus, or in some other way that qualifies as a Wikipedia reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
Then you can mention the article on the talk page and a Wikipedia editor can look at incorporating the material. Or if you think a reliable source already exists, try mentioning that. But no, you can't just put in things you think are true on Wikipedia if you don't have sources. Because however much it might help for this specific case, allowing that generally would quickly make Wikipedia a garbage heap.
That you don't care about core Wikipedia values means that your attempts to edit it will always be frustrating for you. I get that they can be mysterious to outsiders, but unfortunately they're necessary. In particular Wikipedia isn't a place for people with expertise to come write things. It's a place where people with no particular expertise use expert material elsewhere to create an encyclopedia. That means every item must be traceable to reliable sources (which they call verifiable) and articles must have enough sourced material that you can write a basic article from it (which is what they call notable).
If you are an expert on this, then I'd suggest you write a signed article in some publication with a reasonable editorial apparatus, or in some other way that qualifies as a Wikipedia reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
Then you can mention the article on the talk page and a Wikipedia editor can look at incorporating the material. Or if you think a reliable source already exists, try mentioning that. But no, you can't just put in things you think are true on Wikipedia if you don't have sources. Because however much it might help for this specific case, allowing that generally would quickly make Wikipedia a garbage heap.
There was extensive discussion on the talk page about criteria for inclusion and one of those criteria is that only software that has a dedicated wikipedia page or with citations showing notability should be included on the list. It doesn't matter that you know something belongs on a list, you need to show that it belongs on the list.
Which I'm sure is a reaction to self-promoters trying to edit the page in hopes of boosting their thing to prominence. People who don't edit Wikipedia have no idea how much of a problem spamming attempts are. This can easily lead to beleaguered editors who are inclined to stomp on anything that looks like it might possibly be spam. That's a terrible experience for well-meaning first-time contributors and I'd love to see it improve. But I get how they end up that way.
I don't really bother to contribute to any prominent pages on main Wikis, because in my experience it almost always required fighting with people with huge egos following arcane rules and procedures which they certainly took a lot of time to design and develop but which don't seem like productive use of my time, especially when people who designed them are going to fight me on every step.
There are some younger and less entrenched projects where one could make a difference without wasting time on BS (like Wikidata or Wiktionary) and there are less popular areas which aren't controlled by wikifeudals, but changing something otherwise requires too much effort for what it's worth, IMHO.
And yes, if there's any conflict of interest (usually political or ideological), the only thing you can trust is the links, and even those should be presumed to be selected in a biased manner. Of course, this also applies to any random article in 99.999% of the press, so it goes... It's still a valuable resource for topics not consumed with public controversy.
There are some younger and less entrenched projects where one could make a difference without wasting time on BS (like Wikidata or Wiktionary) and there are less popular areas which aren't controlled by wikifeudals, but changing something otherwise requires too much effort for what it's worth, IMHO.
And yes, if there's any conflict of interest (usually political or ideological), the only thing you can trust is the links, and even those should be presumed to be selected in a biased manner. Of course, this also applies to any random article in 99.999% of the press, so it goes... It's still a valuable resource for topics not consumed with public controversy.
> in my experience it almost always required fighting with people with huge egos following arcane rules and procedures which they certainly took a lot of time to design and develop but which don't seem like productive use of my time
This echoed my experience before I left a Wikipedia project (one of its language variant). I have been vocal with the direction one of its most active admin is trying to head the project to, as well as the not-so-positive treatment of inexperienced users. Many of the legitimate complaints against this admin was pretty much ignored or stalled. Ultimately, I decided that it's not worth my efforts to try to push for a more friendly environment, and I have decided to leave. I still help with some offline activities and movement-related function, but chances for me to return to being the contributors again are slim.
This echoed my experience before I left a Wikipedia project (one of its language variant). I have been vocal with the direction one of its most active admin is trying to head the project to, as well as the not-so-positive treatment of inexperienced users. Many of the legitimate complaints against this admin was pretty much ignored or stalled. Ultimately, I decided that it's not worth my efforts to try to push for a more friendly environment, and I have decided to leave. I still help with some offline activities and movement-related function, but chances for me to return to being the contributors again are slim.
> I don't really bother to contribute to any prominent pages
That's one of the secrets for being left alone. Improving jealously-guarded pages - or bio pages that are overseen by PR folk - is like walking on thin ice.
Stay away from politics and celebs. There are lots (millions!) of pages in hundreds of topics that have been rated as high-importance and need lots of TLC ... and don't attract turf-guarders. There are lots of pages where people have added 'citation needed' (so easy) ... when they could have just added a good citation instead. Correct a spelling. Clarify a passage. Add a high-quality external link ... might save someone some research and let them spend that time improving the article. Might be better than the article will ever be. None of those are likely to attract attention, all improve the article.
Start small, build over time. You can draft something in a sandbox, then ask for an opinion before you invest hours. Yep, there are (many, many) rules - and they change over time. There are pages where you can ask for help. If someone reverts something, calmly discuss it. A copy of your work is never gone, it's in the history. Come back in a year and try it again!
That's one of the secrets for being left alone. Improving jealously-guarded pages - or bio pages that are overseen by PR folk - is like walking on thin ice.
Stay away from politics and celebs. There are lots (millions!) of pages in hundreds of topics that have been rated as high-importance and need lots of TLC ... and don't attract turf-guarders. There are lots of pages where people have added 'citation needed' (so easy) ... when they could have just added a good citation instead. Correct a spelling. Clarify a passage. Add a high-quality external link ... might save someone some research and let them spend that time improving the article. Might be better than the article will ever be. None of those are likely to attract attention, all improve the article.
Start small, build over time. You can draft something in a sandbox, then ask for an opinion before you invest hours. Yep, there are (many, many) rules - and they change over time. There are pages where you can ask for help. If someone reverts something, calmly discuss it. A copy of your work is never gone, it's in the history. Come back in a year and try it again!
The thing is, I'd like to help, but I'm not dedicated that much as to mount a multi-year siege campaign to fix some error in Wikipedia, even if I know it's wrong. Life is short, TODO list is ever-growing and I have only so much attention to be spent on fighting petty bureaucrats. I just know Wikipedia is not to be trusted in any controversial subject, because the advertised idea of finding truth by consensus is false in practice - it's pushing the point of whoever knows the arcane bureaucracy best and is most obsessed and out-games everybody. The factual truth plays very small role in these games.
That last bit was intended to be humor, smsm42. Although it can be fun.
I totally understand not having the time. I research a lot, and WP's very helpful. So I like to pay back, and if it takes me an hour to discover something, I might add that. Takes a minute. Stick a cite next to a couple of sentences, 99.8% solid. (Unless they have a secretary keeping an eye on their bio. ;-)
Look, anything you have time to improve ... 5 minutes ... can be helpful. I gave several examples. Adding a bit here and there is unlikely to attract 'petty bureaucrats'. They exist, but so do bees. I might hear from someone twice a year, and one of them will be a thanks. It's not like it was 10 years ago.
Anybody who complains, easy to look at their qualifications. Logged in or anonymous? How many edits lately? Sound reason for revert? If not revert back ... and walk away. If so, then: that's collaboration for ya.
When it comes to controversy, WP can be a best bet, in the citations. MANY eyes look those pages over.
I totally understand not having the time. I research a lot, and WP's very helpful. So I like to pay back, and if it takes me an hour to discover something, I might add that. Takes a minute. Stick a cite next to a couple of sentences, 99.8% solid. (Unless they have a secretary keeping an eye on their bio. ;-)
Look, anything you have time to improve ... 5 minutes ... can be helpful. I gave several examples. Adding a bit here and there is unlikely to attract 'petty bureaucrats'. They exist, but so do bees. I might hear from someone twice a year, and one of them will be a thanks. It's not like it was 10 years ago.
Anybody who complains, easy to look at their qualifications. Logged in or anonymous? How many edits lately? Sound reason for revert? If not revert back ... and walk away. If so, then: that's collaboration for ya.
When it comes to controversy, WP can be a best bet, in the citations. MANY eyes look those pages over.
> Wikipedia may have been an amazing idea in the beginning. Then it got taken over by a bunch of entrenched editors more interested in their own power than the accuracy of the pages' information.
Then there are also the people with ideological axes to grind, and the community's seeming belief that it's fine to merely reform a problematic user to just the barest level of acceptability.
Unless you find some forgotten corner, being a Wikipedia editor requires an inhuman level of patience or obsessiveness, which probably ends up turning off a huge number of potential contributors.
Then there are also the people with ideological axes to grind, and the community's seeming belief that it's fine to merely reform a problematic user to just the barest level of acceptability.
Unless you find some forgotten corner, being a Wikipedia editor requires an inhuman level of patience or obsessiveness, which probably ends up turning off a huge number of potential contributors.
Wikipedia also has the Stack Overflow problem of 'deletionists' (who mark everything as already described somewhere else, or not notable).
I've encountered this on both of those sites.
A Wikipedia deletionist resulted in a movie going without an article for months, despite my efforts to at least give it a stub page. The film was by no means an obscure arthouse production or anything like that, the not noteworthy objection was pure nonsense. Someone other than me eventually won that battle.
A StackOverflow deletionist deleted my question, fortunately after I got a decent answer, on the grounds that it was a duplicate of an existing question. The explanations in the answers were indeed similar, but the symptoms were quite different, especially from the point of view of someone who doesn't already know the answer. (It turned out I had made a false assumption about the way parentheses are treated in regex. Unlike in many contexts in many languages, it doesn't only affect precedence.)
A Wikipedia deletionist resulted in a movie going without an article for months, despite my efforts to at least give it a stub page. The film was by no means an obscure arthouse production or anything like that, the not noteworthy objection was pure nonsense. Someone other than me eventually won that battle.
A StackOverflow deletionist deleted my question, fortunately after I got a decent answer, on the grounds that it was a duplicate of an existing question. The explanations in the answers were indeed similar, but the symptoms were quite different, especially from the point of view of someone who doesn't already know the answer. (It turned out I had made a false assumption about the way parentheses are treated in regex. Unlike in many contexts in many languages, it doesn't only affect precedence.)
For more on what's wrong with this, see gwern's "In Defense of Inclusionism" [0], an essay on this topic.
[0]: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
[0]: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
I would expect that to happen and be appropriate since eventually most questions will have been asked and most articles written. If you put aside information on new things in the world, those two sites are approaching a "finished" state so there's surely not much of value that anyone can add anymore. Of course, they may still be overzealous in deleting.
[deleted]
> I would gladly pay for an encyclopedia written by actual experts, I see a tremendous value in something like that, but alas the market was killed by the free Wikipedia.
There are definitely pros and cons. My wife is a professional musician and teacher so at home we have a copy of the "New Grove" encyclopedia of music, which is the industry standard "proper encyclopedia" for music. Each article is written by a specific expert in that subject, This leads to them being tremendously detailed and informative. The downside is the process of compliation is slow and so even if you have a subscription to the electronic version it will be behind (sometimes years behind) the very latest research.
There are definitely pros and cons. My wife is a professional musician and teacher so at home we have a copy of the "New Grove" encyclopedia of music, which is the industry standard "proper encyclopedia" for music. Each article is written by a specific expert in that subject, This leads to them being tremendously detailed and informative. The downside is the process of compliation is slow and so even if you have a subscription to the electronic version it will be behind (sometimes years behind) the very latest research.
That's true, but including the very latest research isn't really what encyclopedias are for—there are other places for that.
Yes, like Wikipedia.
I was quite happy to see one of my projects mentioned on Wikipedia for the first time, in the reCAPTCHA article. I've discovered it from the list of referring sites shown by GitHub Insights, and then the mention disappeared.
Looking at the edit history of the article, someone added it a year ago, and then 204.132.216.84 has decided recently that a genuinely informative section must be removed from the article, because they thought it's "self-promotion for browser extension".
Dear 204.132.216.84, you're wrong.
Looking at the edit history of the article, someone added it a year ago, and then 204.132.216.84 has decided recently that a genuinely informative section must be removed from the article, because they thought it's "self-promotion for browser extension".
Dear 204.132.216.84, you're wrong.
Then add it back? Or at least engage in discussion in the Talk page and find a compromise, like rewording.
Btw, I'm a user of your extension ;)
Btw, I'm a user of your extension ;)
Hi, I'm glad you found it useful! I don't feel that strongly about the issue to make a case for it, it was just a bit sad to see an article become less informative because of an editor's paranoia, and me being denied immortality :P.
As a chemical engineer, I must say that I was never disappointed with the content of the Wikipedia pages. Of course, as I have spent 3h/day for the past 15 years improving fluid phase equilibria calculations for the chemical industry, I see where the articles have limits for this stuff, but what is available is sound.
I would be interested in knowing your field of expertise where you find errors.
I would be interested in knowing your field of expertise where you find errors.
If you try using Wikipedia as a research aid in almost any field and try to follow footnotes a lot of the time you will wind up with broken links or a garbage source. It's not that there are not some Wikipedia pages that are not good. It is the case that it's very challenging to tell when a page is good or bad without following the footnotes. Sometimes you will find a good source, but at least in my experience most of the time you will try to follow citations and see it ends in either 404 or a trash pit.
There are also lots of situations like if you are looking for things such as statistics related to a war, if you use Wikipedia to start your research you will wind up clicking through to all kinds of trash sources that waste your time when there are compendiums of statistics through either government reports or print references that you could have just used with library access in a fraction of the time that you spent sifting through a sea of web feces.
There are also lots of situations like if you are looking for things such as statistics related to a war, if you use Wikipedia to start your research you will wind up clicking through to all kinds of trash sources that waste your time when there are compendiums of statistics through either government reports or print references that you could have just used with library access in a fraction of the time that you spent sifting through a sea of web feces.
You can still pay for Encyclopædia Britannica if you really want to.
Just read articles in several languages on historic events. You'll see how they differ and draw your own conclusions.
And the maths articles only make sense if you already understand them, which restricts their usefulness somewhat.
[deleted]
> Today I can see mistakes and inaccurate info in every niche I am familiar with.
Do you have any examples?
Do you have any examples?
> Today I can see mistakes and inaccurate info in every niche I am familiar with. Because of that, I cannot trust it on subjects I know nothing about
Just like HN comments :)
Just like HN comments :)
If you want to pay, just sent $5-10/mo donation to Wikimedia. If more people did this I think it would help. I find it a fair price.
> Then it got taken over by a bunch of entrenched editors
You're assuming this is not enabled and supported by the WikiMedia foundation. I believe you are wrong. That is, what you see when you try to edit values are those "entrenched editors", but those are just the front lines.
Certainly, some policy and customs are set by virtue of being an active editor; but more fundamental and site-scale issues are just as certainly discussed, decided and acted upon - infrastructurally - by the foundation.
You're assuming this is not enabled and supported by the WikiMedia foundation. I believe you are wrong. That is, what you see when you try to edit values are those "entrenched editors", but those are just the front lines.
Certainly, some policy and customs are set by virtue of being an active editor; but more fundamental and site-scale issues are just as certainly discussed, decided and acted upon - infrastructurally - by the foundation.
I have heard people voice concerns similar to yours. Could you please provide some examples of mistakes and inaccurate info?
Wikipedia has always suffered from inaccuracies. IME it's gotten better, not worse, over the past few years.
I don't read many of the politically interesting articles though, maybe that's what you're complaining about? Wikipedia has never been the right platform for that though.
I can easily imagine ways that wikipedia could be better, but the reality is that compared to any other online resource, it is the best. I wish it were less political sometimes, but when I look at any other online resource, they are way more polarized. Periodically I read something (usually in HN) about wikipedia controversy, and I admit to some trepidation about their ability to stay objective as they have become so widely consulted (i.e. powerful), but if compared to any other real-world existing resource, given the current state of the internet, actually they are often by far the best.
The fact that wikipedia works at all is nothing short of a miracle!
There are some inventions where I'm like "Ahh, if only I had thought of that" and wikipedia is NOT one of those. I'm totally confident that even if I had thought of it there's no way I'd believe for 1 second that it would work.
Wikipedia is a wonder of the world.
There are some inventions where I'm like "Ahh, if only I had thought of that" and wikipedia is NOT one of those. I'm totally confident that even if I had thought of it there's no way I'd believe for 1 second that it would work.
Wikipedia is a wonder of the world.
> For now, I want to share with you why I’m moving on, and what comes next.
I read this twice just to make sure I didn't miss something, and I don't actually see a reason why.
I read this twice just to make sure I didn't miss something, and I don't actually see a reason why.
> I read this twice just to make sure I didn't miss something, and I don't actually see a reason why. I don't actually see a reason why.
(Stated right in the sixth paragraph.) I’m going to take a break, and a research fellowship, as a place to think about what’s next. It’s hard to think about your future when you’re fully in your present, and for the past seven years, I’ve been fully present for this movement. But as I look around, I see global challenges such as polarization, inequality, and climate change, as well as opportunities for generational renewal and optimism. As a Wikimedian, I lean toward optimism, and plan to head in that direction.
(Stated right in the sixth paragraph.) I’m going to take a break, and a research fellowship, as a place to think about what’s next. It’s hard to think about your future when you’re fully in your present, and for the past seven years, I’ve been fully present for this movement. But as I look around, I see global challenges such as polarization, inequality, and climate change, as well as opportunities for generational renewal and optimism. As a Wikimedian, I lean toward optimism, and plan to head in that direction.
That's not really a reason why, it's the (vague) plan going forward.
They want a break from their present situation so they can concentrate on planning for their future plans since it's hard to plan for the future when they are fully involved in the present. That's why. Not vague at all.
Can I ask, why are you using "they"? The article lists the author's name as Katherine Maher and you can see a picture of a woman when you click it.
Edit: her wikipedia page also uses "she" and "her" etc throughout.
Edit: her wikipedia page also uses "she" and "her" etc throughout.
I know when I talk about someone I don't know I use "they". It isn't to do with not knowing preferred pronouns, more like a type of formal speech about an unknown person. Maybe it is a regional/dialect thing?
I would read an article about a person, and then still talk about them/they rather than he/her. I think it is tied to them being unfamiliar, as I wouldn't do that with a celebrity.
If i replace she in op's line "She wants a break" it feels like they are writing about someone more familiar to them. "They" implies distance between the observer and observed.
If i replace she in op's line "She wants a break" it feels like they are writing about someone more familiar to them. "They" implies distance between the observer and observed.
That may be what you think is going on, but isn't necessarily true. They might have been forced out, or quit because of stress or interpersonal conflict. There is no 'because' in the former CEO's statement.
OP didn't ask what was true. Just what the stated reason was. The CEO did state reasons. Can't believe I have to say this on HN, "because" is implied.
You inferred this motive, from the former CEO's plan. The CEO did not explicitly state that they were quitting because they wanted time and space to plan their future.
> The CEO did not explicitly state that they were quitting because they wanted time and space to plan their future.
Yes they did.
Yes they did.
Which word in their statement indicates causation? I generally look for the word 'because'.
Natural language tends to assume the receiver of the message shares sufficient context with the emmiter as to be able to infer their communicative intention even if it lacks some key word, or logical stepping stone.
seriously, this is a common problem online for some reason.
Why do so many people try to act as if implication isn't a thing in online interactions?
Why do so many people try to act as if implication isn't a thing in online interactions?
To me, that is "what comes next." If she didn't leave, she wouldn't need to think about her future, because her future would be "keep doing this."
You're right, it's not there.
There's vague paragraph about some plans going forward, but nothing that says why she is actually leaving. -- a disappointment, considering this was my only motive for reading the article...
If my reading of the statement was correct, the reason given was this:
"As for me, I’m going to take a break, and a research fellowship, as a place to think about what’s next. It’s hard to think about your future when you’re fully in your present, and for the past seven years, I’ve been fully present for this movement. But as I look around, I see global challenges such as polarization, inequality, and climate change, as well as opportunities for generational renewal and optimism. As a Wikimedian, I lean toward optimism, and plan to head in that direction."
"As for me, I’m going to take a break, and a research fellowship, as a place to think about what’s next. It’s hard to think about your future when you’re fully in your present, and for the past seven years, I’ve been fully present for this movement. But as I look around, I see global challenges such as polarization, inequality, and climate change, as well as opportunities for generational renewal and optimism. As a Wikimedian, I lean toward optimism, and plan to head in that direction."
Probably the actual reason is conflict with the board, or being fed up / burned out with running the operation.
Or perhaps "just" the wisdom to understand that organisations need a change in leadership from time to time, and that such change is best made (as stated) at a time when the organisation is strong and the pressures low. Every leader eventually runs out of steam.
My own opinion is that leaders ought to pre-announce their resignation date on the day they take the job in the first place, and that date should be not more than 5 years after they start. Five years on and you're running on empty. Time to move on.
My own opinion is that leaders ought to pre-announce their resignation date on the day they take the job in the first place, and that date should be not more than 5 years after they start. Five years on and you're running on empty. Time to move on.
There are a lot of family owned small and medium businesses. Their leaders do it their whole lives long. I like that.
I didn't know my Wikipedia donations funded parties in Accra, Berlin and Chandigarh. I think that should be been in the fundraising statement.
I have no connection to and don't know Wikimedia Foundation, and the context for these references is not totally clear. (Maybe it was related to these https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_20/Events.)
Regardless, do you really begrudge the CEO visiting these places?
I get where you're coming from: it's easy to roll your eyes and dismiss this kind of thing as political correctness, pointless "diversity and inclusion" work, pandering to liberal friends etc.
But step back: Wikipedia aims to be the world's encyclopedia. I'm as much in awe as anyone of what a fairly narrow group of pretty obsessive contributors has been able to achieve (I just checked: I've made five tiny edits in 15 years, so not me). But Wikipedia will never succeed in its aim unless it has active contributors in places like Accra, Berlin and Chandigarh.
I honestly don't remember what the donation banners have said in past years. Did they imply they were funding servers and bandwidth only? Maybe they did. But if you actually believe in the mission of Wikipedia, you have to consider that servers and bandwidth will not be enough and that community—maybe including the odd party—is a core part of it.
In that respect, I'm not sure it's too helpful to lump it with Mozilla.
Regardless, do you really begrudge the CEO visiting these places?
I get where you're coming from: it's easy to roll your eyes and dismiss this kind of thing as political correctness, pointless "diversity and inclusion" work, pandering to liberal friends etc.
But step back: Wikipedia aims to be the world's encyclopedia. I'm as much in awe as anyone of what a fairly narrow group of pretty obsessive contributors has been able to achieve (I just checked: I've made five tiny edits in 15 years, so not me). But Wikipedia will never succeed in its aim unless it has active contributors in places like Accra, Berlin and Chandigarh.
I honestly don't remember what the donation banners have said in past years. Did they imply they were funding servers and bandwidth only? Maybe they did. But if you actually believe in the mission of Wikipedia, you have to consider that servers and bandwidth will not be enough and that community—maybe including the odd party—is a core part of it.
In that respect, I'm not sure it's too helpful to lump it with Mozilla.
Wikipedia doesn't need that kind of attention. Writing for Wikipedia is like journalism, it is not automatically better just because you have more eyeballs.
What kind of people do you want to attract? Do you think the best writers are attracted by the best parties?
Wikipedia has loads of contributors in Germany. That is because of a long history of German intellectualism, it is not because Wikimedia is throwing parties. If Wikimedia were as global as you suggest, where are the parties in Iran and Russia? Are these parties without alcohol? I hope so, because we wouldn't want to exclude the muslim world, right?
I say this as a Wikipedia contributor since 2005 with 16k edits.
What kind of people do you want to attract? Do you think the best writers are attracted by the best parties?
Wikipedia has loads of contributors in Germany. That is because of a long history of German intellectualism, it is not because Wikimedia is throwing parties. If Wikimedia were as global as you suggest, where are the parties in Iran and Russia? Are these parties without alcohol? I hope so, because we wouldn't want to exclude the muslim world, right?
I say this as a Wikipedia contributor since 2005 with 16k edits.
> Are these parties without alcohol? I hope so, because we wouldn't want to exclude the muslim world, right?
What? They aren't a fraternity, so I don't think drinking is mandatory.
If you look at any large organization it has these kinds of frivolous events. Among other things, they let the leadership get a sense of the social environment and how it reacts to some of their ideas with less filtering. I personally don't attend most of these events, but it is really a silly direction to assume everything that is not technically necessary is a waste of money.
What? They aren't a fraternity, so I don't think drinking is mandatory.
If you look at any large organization it has these kinds of frivolous events. Among other things, they let the leadership get a sense of the social environment and how it reacts to some of their ideas with less filtering. I personally don't attend most of these events, but it is really a silly direction to assume everything that is not technically necessary is a waste of money.
Most large orgs don't beg for my money after I've already given them my time for free though.
Should they have put logic into their banner ads and email to exempt any logged-in user who ever made an edit?
If you have a new point to make, it's best to make it as a top level comment rather than trying to prop yourself up as opposing a point someone never made.
If you have a new point to make, it's best to make it as a top level comment rather than trying to prop yourself up as opposing a point someone never made.
Wikimedia is free for its users and doesn't do ads, you need to pay the server bills and find development somehow.
It absolutely does, and Wikipedia gets my donation yearly for that. However there are legitimate questions about how much/few of that is dedicated to its core tasks: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has...
Right, it is not like most large orgs. So the excuse "most large orgs throw parties" is not a good one, imo.
Though tbh "other orgs do it" is never a good argument, but it is especially bad here.
Though tbh "other orgs do it" is never a good argument, but it is especially bad here.
I've attended a bunch of Wikimedia/Wikimania conferences. These are held on a shoestring budget, and any drinking and dancing is on participants' own dime.
WMF's per-employee T&E cost is apparently $7k/year. Working in sales at a company you've heard of, I've flown single flights and attended single dinners that cost more than that.
WMF's per-employee T&E cost is apparently $7k/year. Working in sales at a company you've heard of, I've flown single flights and attended single dinners that cost more than that.
I've been involved with some non-profit organizations that do work in post conflict countries, mostly Africa.
From my experience, these organizations throw parties because they have to. This is how non-profits fundraise. I don't think there is a non-profit organization on the planet that has a significant impact and is funded only by small individual donations. Money is raised by throwing a party, presenting all the great work you're doing, and getting rich people drunk so they either give you right there and then or secure you a meeting with someone who will on the spot.
These events are funded by your small donations.
This sounds like a horrible amount of overhead, and it is, but that's how the world works. Most NGOs will say they have very small overhead, something silly like 5%, but that's because they don't count fundraising as overhead, or they put fundraising events into "programming" which again doesn't count as overhead.
From my experience, these organizations throw parties because they have to. This is how non-profits fundraise. I don't think there is a non-profit organization on the planet that has a significant impact and is funded only by small individual donations. Money is raised by throwing a party, presenting all the great work you're doing, and getting rich people drunk so they either give you right there and then or secure you a meeting with someone who will on the spot.
These events are funded by your small donations.
This sounds like a horrible amount of overhead, and it is, but that's how the world works. Most NGOs will say they have very small overhead, something silly like 5%, but that's because they don't count fundraising as overhead, or they put fundraising events into "programming" which again doesn't count as overhead.
Because shame is a shitty motivator, and for some people it shuts them down entirely.
You get many more people to participate by giving them hope for a better future, whatever form you’re pandering to.
Asking people to help divert a disaster smells of lack of planning, too. Even if it’s not your disaster you’re cleaning up, people start to wonder if they need to go up the chain to prevent the next one instead of fixing the current one.
You get many more people to participate by giving them hope for a better future, whatever form you’re pandering to.
Asking people to help divert a disaster smells of lack of planning, too. Even if it’s not your disaster you’re cleaning up, people start to wonder if they need to go up the chain to prevent the next one instead of fixing the current one.
Yeah, I wish there were a way to support just Wikipedia. I don't really care about a lot of Wikimedia Foundation's other pet projects, but the way they phrase their banners and emails, you'd think we are always a razor's edge from Wikipedia servers shutting off...
You can support just Wikipedia by contributing ;)
I think that Wikipedia just doesn't need that much money. If people just let them fail their fundraising goals, the core service will likely continue to get the same budget, but they'll cut their pet projects and parties.
I think that Wikipedia just doesn't need that much money. If people just let them fail their fundraising goals, the core service will likely continue to get the same budget, but they'll cut their pet projects and parties.
I tried contributing and there are so many entrenched "don't touch my stuff" senior editors or moderators that it's often hard to do much of anything depending on where you are. I gave up after spending 40+ hours attempting to help clean up little known articles of a genre of music only to have 90% of what I did get reversed even though I am very confident it was within wikipedia guidelines. I was also harassed and accused of racism (by the subject of the article) after nominating his article for deletion because it didn't meet notability requirements.
Sadly this is not what happened with Mozilla.
Isn't it? Mozilla has cut or spun-off basically everything other than Firefox.
The most prominent project on mozilla.org at time of writing is Mozilla VPN. Pocket also gets substantial screen space dedicated: https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/
Fair, though I would argue that those services are much more closely tied to the core experience of Firefox (and in particular the promise of safer, more private internet access) than something like Sunbird ever was.
Pocket and Mozilla VPN are prominent because they drive revenue which is useful to limit dependency on Google, thus greatly helping Firefox.
Pocket generates revenue for Mozilla.
[deleted]
Same as with me and Mozilla then:
I deeply dislike that these four things happens almost simultaneously :
- firing the people who create their biggest contributions to the free and open web ab also their main source of income
- supporting other efforts all over the place
- begging for money from the "community"
- while brushing me of in tje comments when I ask about progress on a 4 year old bug
I deeply dislike that these four things happens almost simultaneously :
- firing the people who create their biggest contributions to the free and open web ab also their main source of income
- supporting other efforts all over the place
- begging for money from the "community"
- while brushing me of in tje comments when I ask about progress on a 4 year old bug
- and the boss paying herself massive salary while Mozilla is dying
You can support Servo Project independently now :
https://crowdfunding.lfx.linuxfoundation.org/projects/servo
While it doesn't directly contribute to Firefox itself (for now) I think this is worth supporting
You can support Servo Project independently now :
https://crowdfunding.lfx.linuxfoundation.org/projects/servo
While it doesn't directly contribute to Firefox itself (for now) I think this is worth supporting
> You can support Servo Project independently now :
Already do :-)
As for her salary, I won't make a point out of that: she has already negotiated orders of magnitude more than that in income to Mozilla.
Already do :-)
As for her salary, I won't make a point out of that: she has already negotiated orders of magnitude more than that in income to Mozilla.
i have felt the same many times... i think the "bug in the program" is: donation doesnt give you a vote/ownership.
i sort of feel like an interesting experiment might be an idea where donating above a certain amount (say 5 dollars) should give someone "a years ownership" and a vote in major policy decisions for that year, sort of like a consumer cooperative
also, in that model, a company couldnt just buy more shares and get more votes (like a stock)... that might be a better model... maybe
i sort of feel like an interesting experiment might be an idea where donating above a certain amount (say 5 dollars) should give someone "a years ownership" and a vote in major policy decisions for that year, sort of like a consumer cooperative
also, in that model, a company couldnt just buy more shares and get more votes (like a stock)... that might be a better model... maybe
And a few wikipedia-like sites: wiktionary and wikidata in particular.
[deleted]
They also spent $2.8m on travel and conferences in 2019 [0], which is more than they spent on internet hosting...
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim... (page 13)
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim... (page 13)
That doesn't include salaries of the people who run it - and WMF doesn't just rent servers from AWS, like it's in fashion now, they run everything by themselves from the bare metal up, and they run it over multiple data centers over the globe. This probably also doesn't include the cost of the hardware (this likely is part of "depreciation and amortization" since the cost of a server usually is amortized over several years).
And if you've been on any of those conferences (it's not hard to get in, there are a lot of people invited) - they aren't exactly luxury affairs, they usually happen in a library or university and constitute of a crowd of geeks sitting in groups arguing or staring at computer screens, or sometimes presenting slides to other geeks. Those aren't exactly lavish affairs. Of course, some people get their hotel bill and travel paid for, but given those people help building such enormous site as Wikipedia, it's not that huge of an expense.
And if you've been on any of those conferences (it's not hard to get in, there are a lot of people invited) - they aren't exactly luxury affairs, they usually happen in a library or university and constitute of a crowd of geeks sitting in groups arguing or staring at computer screens, or sometimes presenting slides to other geeks. Those aren't exactly lavish affairs. Of course, some people get their hotel bill and travel paid for, but given those people help building such enormous site as Wikipedia, it's not that huge of an expense.
This seems like the typical HN meme of looking at something and assuming the technical piece is all there is to it.
Wikipedia's biggest challenge over the years hasn't been building or hosting its website. It's been convincing the world that an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone on the Internet is a credible and neutral source of information.
One of the ways you do that is by speaking at conferences, traveling to meet with people, etc.
Wikipedia's biggest challenge over the years hasn't been building or hosting its website. It's been convincing the world that an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone on the Internet is a credible and neutral source of information.
One of the ways you do that is by speaking at conferences, traveling to meet with people, etc.
The only reason I checked was because of Jimmy Wales' past controversy regarding use of the foundation's credit card [0]:
> Wool wrote that Wales had asked the foundation to reimburse him for costly items like a $1,300 dinner for four at a Florida steakhouse. Wool alleged that at one point Wales was short on receipts for $30,000 in expenses before settling the matter with the foundation's lawyer and paying the organization $7,000.
> Wool added that Wales' foundation credit card was taken away in 2006.
[0] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-acc...
> Wool wrote that Wales had asked the foundation to reimburse him for costly items like a $1,300 dinner for four at a Florida steakhouse. Wool alleged that at one point Wales was short on receipts for $30,000 in expenses before settling the matter with the foundation's lawyer and paying the organization $7,000.
> Wool added that Wales' foundation credit card was taken away in 2006.
[0] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-acc...
14 years ago, and sounds like they handled it well.
> It's been convincing the world that an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone on the Internet is a credible and neutral source of information.
This is not wikimedia's job at all. The public can decide if they trust the content.
This is not wikimedia's job at all. The public can decide if they trust the content.
Are you suggesting that in the face of existing encyclopedia companies, generations of people who had always used print encyclopedias, and the general public still figuring out what the internet is all about, Wikimedia should be restrained from answering criticisms or making a case for their value?
That seems... odd.
That seems... odd.
Eh, Wikipedia is 20 years old, and has been a top 20 site for the past 15 years. At this point, they don't have much serious competition. Britannica stopped printing physical encyclopedias in 2012.
The WMF can certainly make their case and answer criticisms, but there are cost-efficient ways of doing that. I don't see much value in funding parties, conferences, etc. for a product that has already dominated in most markets.
The WMF can certainly make their case and answer criticisms, but there are cost-efficient ways of doing that. I don't see much value in funding parties, conferences, etc. for a product that has already dominated in most markets.
Most markets? That’s a very privileged view. Research by the WMF in 2019 shows incredibly low rates of awareness in large parts of the world. I doubly you will read it, nor to I seek to argue this with you, but here are the findings: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_Readers/Awareness#Awaren...
> That’s a very privileged view
> I doubly you will read it
Why do you feel the need to use ad hominems rather than simply making your point?
> Research by the WMF in 2019 shows incredibly low rates of awareness in large parts of the world
I wasn't claiming that Wikipedia is near peak global usage. My point was that there is no meaningful competition left, so usage should grow organically, as it did for EN-WP back when the WMF had a shoestring budget.
Can you identify some markets where Wikipedia is losing ground to an inferior competitor with more aggressive marketing? I'm not sure there are any.
> I doubly you will read it
Why do you feel the need to use ad hominems rather than simply making your point?
> Research by the WMF in 2019 shows incredibly low rates of awareness in large parts of the world
I wasn't claiming that Wikipedia is near peak global usage. My point was that there is no meaningful competition left, so usage should grow organically, as it did for EN-WP back when the WMF had a shoestring budget.
Can you identify some markets where Wikipedia is losing ground to an inferior competitor with more aggressive marketing? I'm not sure there are any.
The conferences are not to suppress competition, it's to enable cooperation. Wikis are very distributed projects, and conferences are the only place where people could get together, discuss things, exchange experiences and ideas, and so on. And no, it's not the same via teleconference or mailing lists, those do exist but it's completely different mode of operation.
Yes, in the US at least, wikimedia has been very effective. That doesn't seem like "most markets" to me. In fact, not so much the rest of the world at all, and even in the US, now does not seem like the time to stop and let that decline.
Maybe my wording was a bit strong, but the US is a pretty small minority of Wikipedia's usage. If we look at article counts, about 12% of articles are in English (5.8M of 49.3M): https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesTotal.htm
Right, so more than twice as much as #2 (2.3M), at least in December 18.
And more recently, the US has more than four times as many pageviews as #2 (4B to Japan's 1B)[0].
So no, I don't think the work is done outside the US, and I think maintaining a leading position doesn't happen automatically, so I don't think the work is entirely done inside the US, either.
0. https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects/reading/page-view...
And more recently, the US has more than four times as many pageviews as #2 (4B to Japan's 1B)[0].
So no, I don't think the work is done outside the US, and I think maintaining a leading position doesn't happen automatically, so I don't think the work is entirely done inside the US, either.
0. https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects/reading/page-view...
Which is 3% of their total expenses that year.
Considering how much exposure and grants conferences can bring to a non-profit, it seems fair.
I can understand that, but the more surprising thing was that hosting is even less...
Hosting a static site doesn't sound that expensive, plus they're likely not paying for a premium & costly cloud provider like AWS/Azure.
Wikimedia isn't completely static…
Okay, sure - but many, many more reads than writes. That is cheaper to implement with caching, CDN, etc.
How do they spend so little on internet hosting? They're one of the top 10 websites in the world. Are servers and bandwidth really that cheap? It's not like it's all text either - they serve images, audio, and video too.
Anyone know if someone donates hosting resources to them? I simply cannot imagine serving that much traffic on < $3m.
Anyone know if someone donates hosting resources to them? I simply cannot imagine serving that much traffic on < $3m.
It's because a large portion of traffic to Wikipedia, that is a response to google serving a search request with results involving Wikipedia, is served to the client with a Knowledge Graph box. A large portion of viewers ingest the text of the Knowledge Graph box and don't click through to a page served by Wikipedia's servers.
Wikipedia counts that as "their" traffic? I'd find that surprising.
I think that what etc-hosts is saying is that it's traffic to Wikipedia-information that isn't reflected as traffic that Wikimedia has to pay for.
I.e. that it has siphoned off a whole bunch of pageloads that otherwise would have cost money.
I.e. that it has siphoned off a whole bunch of pageloads that otherwise would have cost money.
Is that all that bad considering that Wikipedia is arguably one of the most important organisations on earth?
If it was as corrupt as the NRA (which is why NY is moving to dissolve them), then I would agree with the sentiment but a few million sounds about right (About 9k per employee)
If it was as corrupt as the NRA (which is why NY is moving to dissolve them), then I would agree with the sentiment but a few million sounds about right (About 9k per employee)
For profit entities use parties to bond teams and accomplish a goal. Non profit entities ought to have that freedom as well.
They are welcome to, just declare it upfront.
I have a hard time imagining something more destructive to the ability to run an organization than putting forward all managerial initiatives for public consent, just in case some portion of the public disagrees with that choice. Talk about design by committee.
> Talk about design by committee.
aka Wikipedia.
aka Wikipedia.
>I have a hard time imagining something more destructive to the ability to run an organization
How about eroding public trust? I can think of a lot more. Perhaps your imagination is subject to a hidden bias.
How about eroding public trust? I can think of a lot more. Perhaps your imagination is subject to a hidden bias.
Yeah, not going to happen, and for good reason.
This is really no different than people who whine about what people receiving public assistance buy. It is an attempt to leverage money in to control, and it is gross.
If you don't like what Wikimedia does, don't give them money. If you do, great, but donations don't buy line-item veto privileges.
This is really no different than people who whine about what people receiving public assistance buy. It is an attempt to leverage money in to control, and it is gross.
If you don't like what Wikimedia does, don't give them money. If you do, great, but donations don't buy line-item veto privileges.
What does "declaring it upfront" look like, what are you asking for? Like, a copy of their budget before donating? I think you can probably get that?
Wikimedia budgets are pretty public btw. Much more public than for many other NGOs, IMO. But I think the poster wants personal explanation of every single expense and a line-item veto power for their $30 or however much they donated. This of course is impossible for any organization. In fact, it's good that it's not possible - imagine how would it be to run the organization of this size subject to the whims of any random commenter on the internet.
I can't find any line-item in the Foundation Audit Reports named "parties" though. Is it under "other operating expenses"? How can I know how much of those $9M was spent on parties?
Do you want a line-item for how much they spend on office coffee-per-person too? Surely parties can't be the only thing you are concerned about.
There does seem to be a line "Special event expense, net". I would guess parties go in there? It was reported as around $300K, or 0.2% of expenses, in the most recent fiscal year.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikim..."
I cannot tell you how much they spend on office coffee though. I bet they're wasting it on unecological kuerigs and gourmet brands. It's probably a reason not to donate.
There does seem to be a line "Special event expense, net". I would guess parties go in there? It was reported as around $300K, or 0.2% of expenses, in the most recent fiscal year.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikim..."
I cannot tell you how much they spend on office coffee though. I bet they're wasting it on unecological kuerigs and gourmet brands. It's probably a reason not to donate.
It really depends how much the coffee costs. Like with Putin's palace, people wouldn't complain about the toilet brushes if they weren't gold-coated. Is the coffee bought from Mahers cousin? Sure, I'd like to know that.
Parties do not have to be funded by the company. During my lifetime, I never went to a company-funded party. But I have been doing fine, funding my own parties. What do you need? A stereo and a disco ball. Anyway, how can you spend $9M on stereos and disco balls? It warrants scrutiny.
Parties do not have to be funded by the company. During my lifetime, I never went to a company-funded party. But I have been doing fine, funding my own parties. What do you need? A stereo and a disco ball. Anyway, how can you spend $9M on stereos and disco balls? It warrants scrutiny.
And how can we know how much the coffee costs without a line-item?
It is clear you don't trust how wikimedia is going to use your money, so you shouldn't donate to them. Nobody is forcing you, certainly.
I don't think any line-items or "declaring it up front" is going to satisfy you though. Most people don't seem to agree with you. I don't think it's really a reporting or "declaring it up front" issue.
Where is your "$9 million" figure coming from though?
It is clear you don't trust how wikimedia is going to use your money, so you shouldn't donate to them. Nobody is forcing you, certainly.
I don't think any line-items or "declaring it up front" is going to satisfy you though. Most people don't seem to agree with you. I don't think it's really a reporting or "declaring it up front" issue.
Where is your "$9 million" figure coming from though?
I think the $9m they're talking about is the 2019 expense for "other operating expenses" in that budget statement you linked.
It's... probably not the category that's relevant, since they're complaining about parties that happened at conferences, which would presumably be accounted under "travel and conferences" which is just $3m for 2019.
"Other operating expenses" _would_ probably include things like a staff party, based on the definition at the end of the document, but that's not where the complaint started. More to the point, it also includes "facility expenses, funding of the Wikidata project, staff related expenses, insurance and personal property tax expenses, and other general administrative expenses", so claiming it as a party slush fund feels rather weird when it's almost certainly the category that includes things like office rent.
(I know nothing at all about the WMF's accounting practices, so I'm just reading the document and extrapolating.)
It's... probably not the category that's relevant, since they're complaining about parties that happened at conferences, which would presumably be accounted under "travel and conferences" which is just $3m for 2019.
"Other operating expenses" _would_ probably include things like a staff party, based on the definition at the end of the document, but that's not where the complaint started. More to the point, it also includes "facility expenses, funding of the Wikidata project, staff related expenses, insurance and personal property tax expenses, and other general administrative expenses", so claiming it as a party slush fund feels rather weird when it's almost certainly the category that includes things like office rent.
(I know nothing at all about the WMF's accounting practices, so I'm just reading the document and extrapolating.)
I'm not sure where the idea that there were fancy parties came from in the first place?
Just the line "so many memories of so much dancing, from Accra to Berlin to Chandigarh"? When I read that, i was imagining her dancing just in clubs or at someone's house with other wikipedians, in the evening after a conference or meeting. I certainly do expect the CEO of wikimedia to do international travel to meetings and conferences of various sorts, it is a global organization! When I travel for conferences and meetings, there is usually entertainment in the evenings, whether formal (part of the program) or informal (people going out on their own with fellow meeting/conference attendees). That's a normal thing, I think?
But maybe the complainer has more info to think there were expensive parties going on? (I also expect wikimedia to have banquets and parties and such, yes, around the world, so that wouldn't especially disturb me, but not sure where the idea even came from).
Just the line "so many memories of so much dancing, from Accra to Berlin to Chandigarh"? When I read that, i was imagining her dancing just in clubs or at someone's house with other wikipedians, in the evening after a conference or meeting. I certainly do expect the CEO of wikimedia to do international travel to meetings and conferences of various sorts, it is a global organization! When I travel for conferences and meetings, there is usually entertainment in the evenings, whether formal (part of the program) or informal (people going out on their own with fellow meeting/conference attendees). That's a normal thing, I think?
But maybe the complainer has more info to think there were expensive parties going on? (I also expect wikimedia to have banquets and parties and such, yes, around the world, so that wouldn't especially disturb me, but not sure where the idea even came from).
I think you should assume that every charitable organization you are donating to might throw the occasional party for their administrative employees and will certainly throw parties to attract donations.
Having worked for both a small and a mid-size charity (~50, ~500 employees), and known people at others, in my experience an annual "staff party" or similar is usually fairly low-key. People are very aware that the money comes from donations.
Why have the party at all? Because spending €20 or whatever per employee/volunteer on an annual party has benefits beyond increasing everyone's salary by that amount: job satisfaction, employee/volunteer retention, knowledge sharing etc.
Fundraising events are parties for the guests, but work for the charity staff. (Attend the party, introduce Rich Person X to Foreign Princess Y who promotes our work and went to the same university, mention the proposed project in Country Z if she doesn't, etc.)
Why have the party at all? Because spending €20 or whatever per employee/volunteer on an annual party has benefits beyond increasing everyone's salary by that amount: job satisfaction, employee/volunteer retention, knowledge sharing etc.
Fundraising events are parties for the guests, but work for the charity staff. (Attend the party, introduce Rich Person X to Foreign Princess Y who promotes our work and went to the same university, mention the proposed project in Country Z if she doesn't, etc.)
None of this is in contrast with what I'm saying, no? I would expect an international organization (like Wikimedia) to throw small "staff" parties all over the world, and maybe the CEO would come to some of those to give members at that location recognition.
[deleted]
If you read the book of the book Work Rules! of Laszlo Bock (HR in google) you will learn that parties and group binding is appreciated more than salary by workers.
So if you see from the money side of things, you can get/keep (more) highly talented people for less money.
So if you see from the money side of things, you can get/keep (more) highly talented people for less money.
>parties and group binding is appreciated more than salary by workers
I'd be surprised if this is true for more than a tiny fraction of workers. Given the high salaries at Google, maybe it's more true there than at other places.
I'd be surprised if this is true for more than a tiny fraction of workers. Given the high salaries at Google, maybe it's more true there than at other places.
If you’re only in it for the money, you are a mercenary in all but title.
People quit because nothing at the company is enough to make them stay. “Enough” is a complex thing and often the oddest details can be the last straw.
I like to go to going away parties for people and listen to their reasons for leaving. I doubled down on better onboarding experiences when I noticed how often people were uncomfortable from day one on the job and they never shook that feeling. At a good employer, the only one who expects anything from you in your first week is yourself, but those feelings of alienation can stick around.
You don’t have to go to the parties, but other people need to. And really, you should go too. You’re missing out and driving yourself to burnout.
In nonprofits, burnout is the boogeyman.
People quit because nothing at the company is enough to make them stay. “Enough” is a complex thing and often the oddest details can be the last straw.
I like to go to going away parties for people and listen to their reasons for leaving. I doubled down on better onboarding experiences when I noticed how often people were uncomfortable from day one on the job and they never shook that feeling. At a good employer, the only one who expects anything from you in your first week is yourself, but those feelings of alienation can stick around.
You don’t have to go to the parties, but other people need to. And really, you should go too. You’re missing out and driving yourself to burnout.
In nonprofits, burnout is the boogeyman.
Yes, I'm only in it for the money. So are almost all other workers. I've been to work parties. I'm a very social person but work parties never did much for me because you can't talk freely at them. I don't need work parties. If I want to go party with coworkers, I can organize that myself, I don't need the organization to do it for me. Or I can go party with people who are not coworkers. I do understand that maybe some people are too shy to party outside of work, but I think that they would probably benefit from becoming less shy. Work parties at almost all organizations are not events where people can really be themselves, and I don't think it's a good idea to have all your eggs in the one basket of work anyway. But as for people who like work parties, I'm certainly not saying they shouldn't go to them. More power to them.
I seem to find a lot of people on HN who aren't just in it for the money.
Mind you, they wouldn't do this for free, and the money certainly helps. A lot. But it's not enough.
Mind you, they wouldn't do this for free, and the money certainly helps. A lot. But it's not enough.
HN probably disproportionately attracts people who are well-off enough that they can afford to be choosy about work. There also might be some bias because working just for the money is the default and working for things other than the money is the exception, so people in the latter category are more likely to write about it than people in the former category. Also, some people who claim to be working for more than just the money might just be saying what they want to be true rather than what is true. It's not that they're consciously lying, cause there would be little reason to do that on HN, it's more that to believe that they are working for more than the money makes them feel good. Also, admitting that you're working just for the money is taboo in a large subset of corporate culture and, while there is not much reason to avoid violating the taboo on HN, the taboo may nonetheless spill over into outside-of-work thinking.
I'm currently working for the money[1]. I still couldn't tell you if it's crushing or liberating. Given the Pandemic, all options are on the table. I know I've invested about 800 hours in a passion project in the last year, which may turn into 2 or hopefully not 3 this year. I don't know if that would have happened if I loved my job, pandemic or no pandemic.
I think the working for more than money thing goes back to the 'do what you love for a living' advice that many of us think is actually pretty bad. Or at least a good way to get exploited, and ultimately burnt out.
1. I have relatives whose lives fall apart if they aren't working. One ended up working through retirement despite not needing the money. I appear to be somewhat similar. So I say I'm working 'for the money' but it's also to keep the wheels from falling off.
I think the working for more than money thing goes back to the 'do what you love for a living' advice that many of us think is actually pretty bad. Or at least a good way to get exploited, and ultimately burnt out.
1. I have relatives whose lives fall apart if they aren't working. One ended up working through retirement despite not needing the money. I appear to be somewhat similar. So I say I'm working 'for the money' but it's also to keep the wheels from falling off.
why do so many companies throw holiday parties then? according to the top few google results, a typical company party costs somewhere in the vicinity of $75/head. they could instead just add $75 (minus additional tax liabilities) to everyone's bonus and call it a day. is it just to be nice, or do executives believe that throwing a few parties is a cheaper way to boost retention?
I don't know. I can think of some possible reasons, for example: the people who decide to have a company party do want to be nice, and/or maybe they want to party themselves, and/or maybe they see it as an opportunity to get publicity and network, and/or maybe they do it because other companies do it and so it's just "what is done", and/or maybe they do it because they think it'll raise morale and team bonding.
But I don't know. Maybe someone who has personal insight into the matter can chime in.
But I don't know. Maybe someone who has personal insight into the matter can chime in.
>If you read the book of the book Work Rules! of Laszlo Bock (HR in google) you will learn that parties and group binding is appreciated more than salary by workers.
it is written by an HR - it is their job to sell such a proposition and they get recognition for supposedly successfully substituting larger expenses like salaries by the lower expenses like the parties.
> get/keep (more) highly talented people for less money.
exactly - HR is trying to sell themselves as those magicians who can do it, who can beat the power of raw compensation by some tricks and gimmicks and thus supposedly save company money.
it is written by an HR - it is their job to sell such a proposition and they get recognition for supposedly successfully substituting larger expenses like salaries by the lower expenses like the parties.
> get/keep (more) highly talented people for less money.
exactly - HR is trying to sell themselves as those magicians who can do it, who can beat the power of raw compensation by some tricks and gimmicks and thus supposedly save company money.
Sadly just like Mozilla. Most of these charities are a lavish waste.
Yeah, afaik firefox development is carried out by mozilla corporation (the for-profit subsidiary of mozilla), but your donations goes to mozilla foundation, which spends the money on "advocacy".
“Lavish waste” my arse.
You people will be dissatisfied so long as there is a nonprofit worker out there who isn’t subsisting on gruel.
You people will be dissatisfied so long as there is a nonprofit worker out there who isn’t subsisting on gruel.
https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-fdn-201...
Unless I'm misreading something, 64% of their expenses in 2018 went to salaries.
Unless I'm misreading something, 64% of their expenses in 2018 went to salaries.
And that tells you what exactly? Do you think they should spend less on salaries, or more? What should they spend on instead/what should they cut?
I think I can agree to disagree with most people replying, I consider it highly misleading that they prod users to donate when using Firefox, and don't mention that Firefox is not funded by donations: https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/
A few years ago, I certainly thought the funds went to development. And I can't say I'm a big fan of most of their initiatives (most of which have been abandoned Google-style).
A few years ago, I certainly thought the funds went to development. And I can't say I'm a big fan of most of their initiatives (most of which have been abandoned Google-style).
[deleted]
Hypothetically, Development funds would be ... salaries. Misleading presentation seems to me as a different issue than "but they spend X% on salaries", so where did you want to go with that.
Can you answer the question that was posed? Is the amount of spending on salaries too high, or too low? It’s impossible to tell what point you are trying to make.
I'm sorry, on further consideration, you're right about the salaries.
I think with some charities (like feeding children), my expectation would be that the salaries would be very low, and the costs of providing the "good" would be the bulk of the expense.
But in the case of an advocacy/software platform, you're right that salaries would be expected to be a large part of the expense.
As someone who's used Firefox for close to 20 years, their recent activities have left a sour taste in my mouth, and I suppose I'm a bit biased as a result. For the last five years as everyone switched to Chrome, I continued to use Firefox, and encouraged others to use the same.
I believe that the Firefox project has been somewhat mismanaged, which has resulted in a large drop in users. For example, they could have started including an ad blocker by default - they would probably have killed Brave's business that way. If they care so much about privacy, it seemed like a no-brainer.
I guess I was reaching for reasons that their budget was lavish... but that wasn't true. My real concern is with the fact that donations to the organization don't, and cannot, go to the browser.
When I first saw a notice to donate in my browser years ago, I certainly thought my money was going to development. They want to encourage an "open web", privacy, etc, and I think those goals are all very important. The continued dominance of Firefox was probably the best way to actually achieve those goals.
Talk is cheap, and I'm a bit sad that the browser share is now dwindling. We have many other organizations making blog posts/activism for the open web, but Firefox was the only one actually doing something about it, which is 1000x as valuable as far as I'm concerned.
So when they encouraged me to donate, and I thought it went to development, and realized it was going towards this kind of "activism", I felt betrayed and tricked. I still stand by that sentiment. We have plenty of activists and journalists who fight for the open web via words - all for free.
I feel that by existing, Firefox took up most of the market share for that, and by encouraging donations, they created a desert for other browsers to rise up. If another organization had forked Firefox and taken over with hundreds of millions in donations, I doubt the market share would have dropped so sharply. For example, they wouldn't have been "forced" to do privacy-bad things like selling ads on the new tab page. By claiming to be "the" privacy-focused browser, they soured any efforts to make a new one.
And now it's probably too late: https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope....
All this to say, I'm mostly sad about it. I miss Firefox, and I wish we had a strong fighter still in the arena. I'm doubtful Firefox can turn it's product and reputation around at this point given their corporate structure. Cheers.
I think with some charities (like feeding children), my expectation would be that the salaries would be very low, and the costs of providing the "good" would be the bulk of the expense.
But in the case of an advocacy/software platform, you're right that salaries would be expected to be a large part of the expense.
As someone who's used Firefox for close to 20 years, their recent activities have left a sour taste in my mouth, and I suppose I'm a bit biased as a result. For the last five years as everyone switched to Chrome, I continued to use Firefox, and encouraged others to use the same.
I believe that the Firefox project has been somewhat mismanaged, which has resulted in a large drop in users. For example, they could have started including an ad blocker by default - they would probably have killed Brave's business that way. If they care so much about privacy, it seemed like a no-brainer.
I guess I was reaching for reasons that their budget was lavish... but that wasn't true. My real concern is with the fact that donations to the organization don't, and cannot, go to the browser.
When I first saw a notice to donate in my browser years ago, I certainly thought my money was going to development. They want to encourage an "open web", privacy, etc, and I think those goals are all very important. The continued dominance of Firefox was probably the best way to actually achieve those goals.
Talk is cheap, and I'm a bit sad that the browser share is now dwindling. We have many other organizations making blog posts/activism for the open web, but Firefox was the only one actually doing something about it, which is 1000x as valuable as far as I'm concerned.
So when they encouraged me to donate, and I thought it went to development, and realized it was going towards this kind of "activism", I felt betrayed and tricked. I still stand by that sentiment. We have plenty of activists and journalists who fight for the open web via words - all for free.
I feel that by existing, Firefox took up most of the market share for that, and by encouraging donations, they created a desert for other browsers to rise up. If another organization had forked Firefox and taken over with hundreds of millions in donations, I doubt the market share would have dropped so sharply. For example, they wouldn't have been "forced" to do privacy-bad things like selling ads on the new tab page. By claiming to be "the" privacy-focused browser, they soured any efforts to make a new one.
And now it's probably too late: https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope....
All this to say, I'm mostly sad about it. I miss Firefox, and I wish we had a strong fighter still in the arena. I'm doubtful Firefox can turn it's product and reputation around at this point given their corporate structure. Cheers.
This is exactly it. Somehow providing something for free means that every cent someone throws at you is scrutinized.
> Sadly just like Mozilla.
Hmm. Maher earned about 375K in 2018 for presiding over a foundation with 145M in assets. I don't feel that's exorbitant in any way.
Looking through https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim..., wikimedia has enough income from investments to keep the wikipedia site running indefinitely should donations collapse.
I don't like these big budgets for foundations and groups for the public interest either, but in my opinion Wikimedia definitely shouldn't be compared to Mozilla here.
Hmm. Maher earned about 375K in 2018 for presiding over a foundation with 145M in assets. I don't feel that's exorbitant in any way.
Looking through https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim..., wikimedia has enough income from investments to keep the wikipedia site running indefinitely should donations collapse.
I don't like these big budgets for foundations and groups for the public interest either, but in my opinion Wikimedia definitely shouldn't be compared to Mozilla here.
I mean, if you really want to see the schedule for WikiIndaba 2017 that took place in Accra, here you go.
http://2017.wikiindaba.net/index.php/Programme
Try not to tear the armrests off your chair in rattles of indignation.
http://2017.wikiindaba.net/index.php/Programme
Try not to tear the armrests off your chair in rattles of indignation.
My chair doesn't have armrests, I do not squander my money like they do. I dedicate my time to editing Wikipedia, where is my reward?
> There will be live performances, karaoke and some pleasant taste of good music. This night promises to be super fun filled. Are you ready to sing and dance in representation of your country at a thrilling battle with the Ghanaians?
Yes, please invite me to your next party. I am a fun person.
> There will be live performances, karaoke and some pleasant taste of good music. This night promises to be super fun filled. Are you ready to sing and dance in representation of your country at a thrilling battle with the Ghanaians?
Yes, please invite me to your next party. I am a fun person.
Perhaps you should invest yourself by getting a chair with armrests.
[deleted]
> We have a deep and stable financial position that will help us grow and protect us from any storm, and the trust in our projects has never been higher.
They earned 9 millions more than last year, from 120 millions to 129 millions, and spent 21 millions more, from 91 millions to 112 millions [1], with an increase of 10 millions in "awards and grants". The donations grew by 10 millions. If I read the financial statement correctly (feel free to correct me, I'm not an expert), they currently have 180 millions in assets, which means if donations stop they can't even last two years. I don't see how this is a "deep and stable financial position that will help us grow and protect us from any storm".
Edit: as tux3 pointed out in their comment [2] there is a Wikipedia Endowment. I think I can now agree on the "deep and stable financial position".
[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikim...
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028968
They earned 9 millions more than last year, from 120 millions to 129 millions, and spent 21 millions more, from 91 millions to 112 millions [1], with an increase of 10 millions in "awards and grants". The donations grew by 10 millions. If I read the financial statement correctly (feel free to correct me, I'm not an expert), they currently have 180 millions in assets, which means if donations stop they can't even last two years. I don't see how this is a "deep and stable financial position that will help us grow and protect us from any storm".
Edit: as tux3 pointed out in their comment [2] there is a Wikipedia Endowment. I think I can now agree on the "deep and stable financial position".
[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikim...
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028968
Most nonprofits can't last long "if donations stop". Why would they stop? I give every year and so do many others.
Indeed, and I'm not sure it would be a defensible position to just be stashing your donated funds into a gigantic rainy day war chest— the money is there to spend on growing and fortifying the service in other ways, so it should be spent.
The proper way for non-profits to do this is to start an endowment fund, which provides consistent residual income that can help fund operations. Usually by identifying specific large donors who would wish to be named in the fund.
It looks as though they do indeed have such a fund:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/15/wikipedia...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/15/wikipedia...
I guess we’re “disrupting” foundations too.
I'm not sure I understand your meaning?
Endowments and foundations are different things with different objectives. Many foundations may have endowments of their own, and may use them to issue grants to non-profits. From a legal and financial perspective though, there's a difference between a non-profit having an endowment itself which provides restricted funds for specific operational activities vs how foundations typically create and structure endowments for external giving.
Both concepts have been around for decades, so I don't think either is particularly disruptive.
Endowments and foundations are different things with different objectives. Many foundations may have endowments of their own, and may use them to issue grants to non-profits. From a legal and financial perspective though, there's a difference between a non-profit having an endowment itself which provides restricted funds for specific operational activities vs how foundations typically create and structure endowments for external giving.
Both concepts have been around for decades, so I don't think either is particularly disruptive.
My Japanese colleague told me with no humor, that I should never work for free, end of sentance. I was at the offices of $Giant_90s_NonProfit when a group from Japan was on tour of the two story office in San Francisco. They were full of energy and had questions, but someone told me the reason they sent a large and important group for the tour, is that they have no "non-profit" in Japan.
I suspect that the non-profit goodwill in the USA is changing a lot in the last year.
I suspect that the non-profit goodwill in the USA is changing a lot in the last year.
I think you do have to ask yourself if the need for the charity can outlast its time in the sun.
The Red Cross needs to stay frosty all the time. They get money every time there’s a disaster, but the money to deal with the current disaster needs to have already been spent before the checks clear. If we haven’t had a big disaster in a while, we all know there’s one coming, because they always come, and when that shoe finally drops it might be huge. But donations are down because nothing is blowing up.
We still need Wikipedia even if someone cures cancer. Because you don’t cure cancer, you cure a cancer, the moment you’ve cured two or three, an avalanche of money will arrive to fix the others. Money that might have gone to something else like the Red Cross, WWF, PP, Wikipedia, or really all of the above.
The Red Cross needs to stay frosty all the time. They get money every time there’s a disaster, but the money to deal with the current disaster needs to have already been spent before the checks clear. If we haven’t had a big disaster in a while, we all know there’s one coming, because they always come, and when that shoe finally drops it might be huge. But donations are down because nothing is blowing up.
We still need Wikipedia even if someone cures cancer. Because you don’t cure cancer, you cure a cancer, the moment you’ve cured two or three, an avalanche of money will arrive to fix the others. Money that might have gone to something else like the Red Cross, WWF, PP, Wikipedia, or really all of the above.
It's funny, because the Red Cross is famously one of the least effective deals in charity.
I think they are running a charity on hard mode. If I were feeding homeless people (any year except last year), I have a pretty good idea of what I have to accomplish and for how many people. I could run a pretty lean operation.
Meanwhile RC “has to” stash supplies 12 hours from everywhere in the world and then let most of them rot. Their overheads are huge, even before you get into any discussion of mismanagement.
Meanwhile RC “has to” stash supplies 12 hours from everywhere in the world and then let most of them rot. Their overheads are huge, even before you get into any discussion of mismanagement.
You can Google to quickly get a bunch of different articles about how ineffective the Red Cross is; we don't need to recapitulate them all here, it's just a little funny that they were your example of an obvious recurring charity donation.
If I have a real point here, it's that people all have different definitions of what important charities are.
If I have a real point here, it's that people all have different definitions of what important charities are.
If you're making a simile it's good to pick something everyone has heard of.
I'm honestly not sure I've ever donated money to RC. UNHCR, yes, RC I don't think so.
I'm honestly not sure I've ever donated money to RC. UNHCR, yes, RC I don't think so.
> You can Google to quickly get a bunch of different articles about how ineffective the Red Cross is
Do you have a particular one in mind? I found [0] but as far as I can see, GiveWell.org doesn't advise against donating to them in general.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/05/red-cross-hait...
Do you have a particular one in mind? I found [0] but as far as I can see, GiveWell.org doesn't advise against donating to them in general.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/05/red-cross-hait...
Something like a global pandemic that removes their job?
When I hear “Foundation” and “stable financial position” I think endowment.
They seem to be making the same mistake as the Mozilla foundation. You’re living on your nest egg instead of the interest. Spending 4 times as much as you should.
They seem to be making the same mistake as the Mozilla foundation. You’re living on your nest egg instead of the interest. Spending 4 times as much as you should.
The foundation set up a Wikipedia Endowment some five years ago, which has now reached 90MM of a 100MM goal.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
Is that enough to pay salaries and hosting costs? Sounds like the dividends will only cover 20% of their current expenses if they stop making grants. At it is it’s less than 10% of their burn rate.
That’s a very excellent start but I suspect someone will want to grow that later on. In fact they’re at 90% of their goal and less than 60% of their target date, so they could be looking for $150M as the stretch goal.
That’s a very excellent start but I suspect someone will want to grow that later on. In fact they’re at 90% of their goal and less than 60% of their target date, so they could be looking for $150M as the stretch goal.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of this project. I have edited my comment to include it.
Why should Wikimedia need a significant nest egg?
What do you do with the money, when people have stopped valuing Wikimedia enough that they are no longer paying for it to exist?
What do you do with the money, when people have stopped valuing Wikimedia enough that they are no longer paying for it to exist?
Donations are not a zero sum game but they aren’t terribly elastic either. Try as you might, every dollar you get as a donation is taking some of that money from someone else.
There will be times when Wikipedia is not sexy, but taken for granted. That’s when you need the endowment.
There will be times when Wikipedia is not sexy, but taken for granted. That’s when you need the endowment.
If Wikipedia becomes unfashionable to the extent it is highly dependent on its savings, it will no be longer valued for being Wikipedia (by definition).
It might be valued as an institution with modest economic power, which doesn't seem to me to add anything to the world that isn't already there.
2 years of all current spending as a cushion seems like plenty to me (for Wikipedia, which has not faced any unexpected financial shocks, even in 2020). If you can't navigate shocks and downward trends with that cushion, then you probably ought not to exist.
It might be valued as an institution with modest economic power, which doesn't seem to me to add anything to the world that isn't already there.
2 years of all current spending as a cushion seems like plenty to me (for Wikipedia, which has not faced any unexpected financial shocks, even in 2020). If you can't navigate shocks and downward trends with that cushion, then you probably ought not to exist.
Only if you believe that market economies are always efficient.
Plenty of things have a huge impact on your life and yet nobody wants to pay for them. They're important, but they're not important. If you have an endowment, you don't have to keep wrestling with keeping the two in sync.
Plenty of things have a huge impact on your life and yet nobody wants to pay for them. They're important, but they're not important. If you have an endowment, you don't have to keep wrestling with keeping the two in sync.
I think our perspectives are different because I'm thinking about what the board of Wikimedia might look like later: when it controls a bunch of money but is essentially dying as a service.
I imagine a political mess, of people trying to extract personal benefit from the remaining endowment.
I imagine a political mess, of people trying to extract personal benefit from the remaining endowment.
No law of physics says they must continue pouring tens of millions into outreach programs if all revenue ceases. Hosting wikipedia is their one true cost and is relatively tiny compared to everything else they spend money on.
Hosting wikipedia accounts for roughly 2% of their total expenses. I've been donating annually, but it would be nice to have the option for the entirety of my donations go only to running wikipedia and none of it going to wikimedia's discretionary spending.
I do think it's hard to draw the line there, just because "running wikipedia" is kinda fuzzy and could mean different things to different people.
There's pure hosting costs (servers and bandwidth), then there's staff to maintain those servers, staff to handle legal issues around a large community-contributed project, staff to do moderation and other community-relations work, staff to improve the mediawiki software that wikipedia runs on, staff to manage administrative stuff for those other staff, etc.
There's room to debate which of these are necessary to "run wikipedia", and how much of each of them is needed, but it's a lot more complicated than just keeping the servers turned on. (And if you do think that the Foundation could be just-paying-for-hosting, you're implicitly hoping that some people are going to be donating their skilled-work for maintenance.)
There's pure hosting costs (servers and bandwidth), then there's staff to maintain those servers, staff to handle legal issues around a large community-contributed project, staff to do moderation and other community-relations work, staff to improve the mediawiki software that wikipedia runs on, staff to manage administrative stuff for those other staff, etc.
There's room to debate which of these are necessary to "run wikipedia", and how much of each of them is needed, but it's a lot more complicated than just keeping the servers turned on. (And if you do think that the Foundation could be just-paying-for-hosting, you're implicitly hoping that some people are going to be donating their skilled-work for maintenance.)
Why don't you just donate to to something else then? Wikipedia obviously has more than enough money to keep the website running.
I think a loss of 100% of one's income is probably a risk so deep into the tails that planning for it is by definition a little stupid.
Edit: For a company - apart from Welfare you should have a plan as an individual
Edit: For a company - apart from Welfare you should have a plan as an individual
Every large company I've worked for has planned for a "zero revenue" scenario. It's hardly stupid.
In Wikimedia's case, 0 income basically means they've probably been legally dissolved, what more can they do?
I was being a little facetious, but the point was more in response to the PC than as a standalone argument.
I was being a little facetious, but the point was more in response to the PC than as a standalone argument.
That’s okay, if they go bankrupt, someone more competent could take over, and easily run Wikipedia on less than a tenth of their current budget. Look at their financials: Wikimedia Foundation is part jobs program, part grift.
I don't know why you're calling it grift. According to the definition a non-profit is not conducted or maintained to make a profit. I'm guessing most of us agree that Wikipedia is an asset to society and I'm hoping the people that work there get paid well. Why would I not want more people working at Wikimedia compared to something more detrimental to society like Facebook?
Because the people paid the to do (or pretend to do) useless busy-work in Wikimedia Foundation could instead be doing something productive elsewhere. The point here is that the resources in the society at large are not infinite, and if they are wasted at Wikimedia, it’s a real waste even if Wikipedia is otherwise a valuable thing worth of support.
Imagine you have a city, which has a non-profit foundation dedicated to maintaining and improving the city parks. The foundation has 20 people on payroll, $2M in annual spending on wages and materials, and is generally though to do exemplary job. In fact, people like it so much that they keep donating money to it, while the new directors of the park foundation use that money to advertise everywhere that they are starved for cash, and if every park goer donates just $10, they can meet their fundraising budget. After a few years, the revenue of the park foundation is $120M/year, they are still doing pretty good job maintaining and improving the park for $2M/year, and the rest is spent on C-level executive salaries, analyst reports, conferences, travel expenses, shovel R&D, and all kinds of stuff that the parks foundation doesn’t need to do, and which provides little benefit to the actual parks or park goers beyond the $2M they have always been spending, while enriching the employees and executives in the nominally non-profit organization. That’s roughly where the Wikimedia Foundation is today. I see this as profoundly bad state of affairs. I also find it pretty ironic that the goal of the nominally non-profit organization apparently seems to be to maximize the donations and the spend.
> compared to something more detrimental to society like Facebook?
Why would you compare it to Facebook? The choice is not better Wikimedia and Facebook. There are plenty of other projects that could use money better than either Wikimedia or Facebook.
Imagine you have a city, which has a non-profit foundation dedicated to maintaining and improving the city parks. The foundation has 20 people on payroll, $2M in annual spending on wages and materials, and is generally though to do exemplary job. In fact, people like it so much that they keep donating money to it, while the new directors of the park foundation use that money to advertise everywhere that they are starved for cash, and if every park goer donates just $10, they can meet their fundraising budget. After a few years, the revenue of the park foundation is $120M/year, they are still doing pretty good job maintaining and improving the park for $2M/year, and the rest is spent on C-level executive salaries, analyst reports, conferences, travel expenses, shovel R&D, and all kinds of stuff that the parks foundation doesn’t need to do, and which provides little benefit to the actual parks or park goers beyond the $2M they have always been spending, while enriching the employees and executives in the nominally non-profit organization. That’s roughly where the Wikimedia Foundation is today. I see this as profoundly bad state of affairs. I also find it pretty ironic that the goal of the nominally non-profit organization apparently seems to be to maximize the donations and the spend.
> compared to something more detrimental to society like Facebook?
Why would you compare it to Facebook? The choice is not better Wikimedia and Facebook. There are plenty of other projects that could use money better than either Wikimedia or Facebook.
Everytime Wikipedia comes up on hacker news there's always comments about how they're wasteful and incompetent.
What is this self righteous anger for? They're incompetent but somehow Wikipedia exists.
Is it jealousy?
What is this self righteous anger for? They're incompetent but somehow Wikipedia exists.
Is it jealousy?
It is anger at the collapse of every institution of our society, most of which have transformed away from their original purpose, and into sinecures for well-educated and well-connected professionals, who, under false pretenses, skim the surplus by lying about what they do, and shaming the productive masses into supporting them.
I admit that I'm also full of wishful thinking. I said that once they go bankrupt, someone more competent will take over, but there's no guarantee of that -- instead, it is highly likely that some other skilled and well-connected grifter will assume control, will keep the "crying Jimbo Wales" ads to shame people into giving them money they spend on salaries and travel expenses of people doing things that do not need to be done, and often things that Wikipedia community doesn't even want done.
I admit that I'm also full of wishful thinking. I said that once they go bankrupt, someone more competent will take over, but there's no guarantee of that -- instead, it is highly likely that some other skilled and well-connected grifter will assume control, will keep the "crying Jimbo Wales" ads to shame people into giving them money they spend on salaries and travel expenses of people doing things that do not need to be done, and often things that Wikipedia community doesn't even want done.
I have to admit I was unaware until this thread that the call for urgent donations was despite this endowment and their expenses other than directly operating wikipedia.org.
Thanks for that eye-opener.
Thanks for that eye-opener.
Lots of people reading these comments believe that every cent not spent on frontend or backend engineers at Wikipedia is wasted in someway.
I don't agree.
I don't agree.
Reading it, I think some people feel that any money not spent on the pure hosting costs is wasted, which seems even more extreme to me.
If an individual had no desire to ever retire and was able to pay all of their bills for the next 2 years with no further paychecks and no adjustments to their lifestyle, I'd call that a pretty deep level of financial stability. Especially since in this case their income sources are somewhat diversified across people, unlike a single paycheck from an employer.
why did expenses rise by $21mm though? is the organization fortunate that donations rise fast enough to cover an annual increase in necessary spending, or does the spending grow as much as necessary to consume the donations?
WMF spent $52mm in FY 2014-2015. it spent $112mm in FY 2019-2020. is the core project really twice as expensive to run as it was five years ago?
WMF spent $52mm in FY 2014-2015. it spent $112mm in FY 2019-2020. is the core project really twice as expensive to run as it was five years ago?
No, core project costs less than $5M/year to run. They spend more on processing donations (credit card fees etc) than they do on web hosting.
[deleted]
if donations stop they can't even last two years. I don't see how this is a "deep and stable financial position that will help us grow and protect us from any storm".
It depends on the company and the industry.
One industry I worked in, six months was considered the minimum cushion.
In a post-COVID world, though, I bet a lot of those industries will increase their padding.
It depends on the company and the industry.
One industry I worked in, six months was considered the minimum cushion.
In a post-COVID world, though, I bet a lot of those industries will increase their padding.
Do you know of many businesses which could sustain their operation without any revenue for two straight years?
If you do these are really inefficient businesses.
If you do however decide to say they non profits should do that, then what’s the point of having that money in non profits if you could just put that money in a savings account and supply the non profit every year?
If you do these are really inefficient businesses.
If you do however decide to say they non profits should do that, then what’s the point of having that money in non profits if you could just put that money in a savings account and supply the non profit every year?
Katherine Maher is someone that was flagged up recently as what we could call "politically interesting". I wonder if that is why it was deemed time for her to move on:
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/11/meet-wikipedias-ayn-rand-...
While some may object that this is just The Grayzone's biased take on their disagreements with Wikipedia's odd listing of them as not a reliable source it raises some interesting questions.
Seems like the upper echelons of the USA is just as loaded with political operatives as the old East Germany, USSR or China today.
Oh, and I love wikipedia. It is one of the best things to come out of the internet expansion. Even better than the old CIA World Factbook.
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/11/meet-wikipedias-ayn-rand-...
While some may object that this is just The Grayzone's biased take on their disagreements with Wikipedia's odd listing of them as not a reliable source it raises some interesting questions.
Seems like the upper echelons of the USA is just as loaded with political operatives as the old East Germany, USSR or China today.
Oh, and I love wikipedia. It is one of the best things to come out of the internet expansion. Even better than the old CIA World Factbook.
I rarely use Wikipedia, only for stuff not from my domains and where I need a brief tldr and then, I just skim the first few sentences. Once I want to get more into that topic, I check other sources. Would love to see competition to Wikipedia and less use of Wikipedia from other parties as their default definition provider.
Wikipedia is anything but not an open platform.
Wikipedia is anything but not an open platform.
Sad to see him go. I use wikipedia all the time. I imagine not much will change?
Today I can see mistakes and inaccurate info in every niche I am familiar with. Because of that, I cannot trust it on subjects I know nothing about. I tried contributing and fixing but nothing got through.
Even worse, the level of writing makes it almost impossible to comprehend. Articles are badly organized, unclear and explanations are missing or hard to understand. Again, any attempt to fix the form was rejected. Editors are much more interested in citations and levels of notability.
I gave up. I would gladly pay for an encyclopedia written by actual experts, I see a tremendous value in something like that, but alas the market was killed by the free Wikipedia.