zlacker

Why would you do free work for a company which is planning to profit from your labor? Wikipedia/Wikimedia is a non-profit. All of their money pays for real expenses instead of whatever vanity project Musk has decided is necessary to sell xAI to the masses.

>>measur+(OP)
Do you think Wikimedia doesn't profit off of the contributions people make to Wikipedia?

>pays for real expenses

Only a small percentage of donations do.

>instead of whatever vanity project

Anytime the topic of Wikimedia donations come up you will see people complaining about their vanity projects too, wishing they could donate towards wikipedia itself.

>>charci+a3
If you are happy to work for a for-profit corporation w/o any financial compensation then you are more than welcome to do that. Seems a bit irrational to me but that's just my opinion.

>>measur+d5
To me it's no worse than working for a "nonprofit" without financial compensation.

>>measur+(OP)
"All of their money pays for real expenses"

Not true, nearly 30% of their budget goes to partisan activism with DEI related initiatives.

"Supporting equity represents the second largest part of our programmatic work"

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_...

>>txcwg0+h41
that's a real expense. who else on earth should be doing DEI initiatives if not the goddamn chroniclers of human experience?

>>undeve+8z1
Definitely not an encyclopedia that is supposed to be objective.

>>charci+a3
This. They could use some competition for sure. Spending billions on simple html website doesn't make any sense.

>>txcwg0+Tb2
When you grow up to be an adult, you will understand that "objectivity"is a fiction.

And an encyclopedia can absolutely do that and still present factual information based on actual research and facts.

You know that just because a lady has blue hair or a person has colored skin does NOT mean that they can't be right about something or do good research. Right? You do know it, right?

Because in the end, when you cry about DEI (whatever you believe it to mean), this is the implication that comes with it: that you can't imagine for a second that anyone who doesn't look exactly like you could ever do anything competently. I genuinely wonder if you've ever thought about that for more than half a second after you closed that Charlie Kirk video.

If you do believe it, fair enough. I guess you're allowed to believe it. But at least be honest about it.

>>txcwg0+Tb2
How do you think you can reach anything close to objectivity without aiming for diversity and inclusion? What do you think will happen to an encyclopaedia which is mostly run by Elon fans? We already had that at one of the extremes (and the echos are still here) from the time medicine just didn't bother to study women.

>>measur+d5
> If you are happy to work for a for-profit corporation w/o any financial compensation then you are more than welcome to do that. Seems a bit irrational to me but that's just my opinion.

Not the person you are replying to, and it is a bit tangential, but you just basically described a solid chunk of open-source software work.

I am not mocking open-source software work, I am mocking how reductionist the parent comment was, because their logic often applies to volunteer open-source software work as well. And, I suspect, on HN we can agree that volunteer open-source software work can often be worth doing, regardless of how "irrational" it is or how much for-profit corporations could benefit from it.

>>filole+595
I don't think this is an accurate comparison. Working on open source software means you are contributing to that software, which yes may be used by for profit companies. This is more analogous to contributing to Wikipedia, which is then used by for profit companies like Grok, than it is contributing to Grok products directly, which cannot be leveraged by other tools in this ecosystem (afaik).