zlacker

[return to "Wikipedia is not short on cash"]
1. benson+Yv[view] [source] 2022-10-12 13:18:28
>>nickpa+(OP)
Wikipedia/Wikimedia is worth hundreds of dollars per year to me. I occasionally throw $20 at them. It is a steal. I never asked myself if they have too much money or if they are using it "correctly".

The main donation page doesn't seem bad to me. Nowhere do they claim they are struggling or may go under. In fact, they say "thriving" and that a small donation will keep it thriving for years to come.

To those upset with them, what would you do? All of their other projects are about free information. Are people upset about wikidata or wikiversity exist? Should they have only done Wikipedia and stopped? Should they not ask for money until they are desperate and in a dire situation? Should they not use any marketing speak and say, "we have hundreds of millions of dollars but would like more please."

Comparing them to FAANG/MAMAA, it is no comparison at all. The value is great and pure: nice, fast, simple, useful interface. They don't have malware, ads, tracking scripts, popups, spam, or dark patterns. Unlike social media there is no envy/depression side effects. They don't try to get you addicted and gamify it. They don't push controversial news just to boost engagement. They respect your privacy, ublock origin has nothing to block on their site.

It seems like Wikimedia is getting hell on here for having very high standards and maybe not quite living up to people's expectations. Whereas the FAANGs have zero standards, don't respect users at all, are 100% profit driven (and already have vastly more money), but they are ok because... some reason.

◧◩
2. Sanjay+fx[view] [source] 2022-10-12 13:24:27
>>benson+Yv
> very high standards

Maybe in the pure STEM subsections but anything to do with humanities is highly subjective and biased.

Even in the hard sciences I find that Wikipedia is a just good starting point: scan the references for the real material. It helps if you have access to real libraries, both physical and digital.

Personally I stopped donating to them when I discovered how difficult it was to correct errors in literally my own family's history; there's always some "editor" sitting there to roll it back in seconds.

◧◩◪
3. bawolf+8y2[view] [source] 2022-10-12 22:14:12
>>Sanjay+fx
> Personally I stopped donating to them when I discovered how difficult it was to correct errors in literally my own family's history;

As it should be. Wikipedia is not your personal blog. If you cannot prove what you say is true to an acceptable standard it should be reverted. That is how it wikipedia stays reliable.

◧◩◪◨
4. Sanjay+uS2[view] [source] 2022-10-13 00:22:00
>>bawolf+8y2
> wikipedia stays reliable.

Hi there. I have a bridge on Mars to sell you.

[go to top]