Previous discussion calling Wikipedia wasteful was not well received but I'm inclined to agree. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34106982
Can the administration be more direct about it? Like Wikipedia shouldn't be able to threaten to obstruct to take back the data then place a banner ad covering 90% of the screen that I receive 0% of just to access my own thankless contributions I'd rather just pay than be subjected to domestic ads but maybe it's leaking overseas that would be scary.
Wikipedia could be a lot better but it could be a lot worse too - the current pressure tactic can only make matters worse. The key point here is that if Wikipedia cannot be tax free, nobody should be, just remove that as a legal possibility because it can be used to suppress some views and promote others simply by arbitrary definitions of "propaganda".
I'm not saying that's how it always works, but that's how it's designed to work. So if the system is being abused, then I think your issue might be with the system, not with Wikipedia in particular. They're just an example of the abuse of the system (which I don't think they are).
This brings me to the handling of actual experts, like medical doctors. How could the Wikimedia Foundation justify removing a licensed doctor like James Heilman ("Doc James") from its Board, a decision even Jimmy Wales supported? I get that they put him back shortly after, but that's so arbitrary. Someone putting their professional credibility on the line to provide accurate public information without explaining the original removal publicly? Yes, he was reinstated shortly after, but the initial act and the lack of a clear public explanation for the original removal feel arbitrary and undermine trust. Here was someone putting their professional credibility on the line for accuracy, and they were treated in such a dismissive way. The exact type of caustic politics causes this split between public health advice and the medical profession. Frankly, I'd rather see funding go directly to the experts if this is how they treat people.
Imagine if Wikipedia were frozen as a "2017 Doc James Edition" snapshot. Would that be so bad if that could slash operating costs by 99%? I could live with a slightly outdated encyclopedia for a few years if it meant escaping the constant, resource-draining burden of moderation and the endless debates about needing more free contributions, now we're overloaded and needing more funding/moderators. Then the donations could go to archive.org, which I hope Wikipedia donates to, since I mostly use Wikipedia for links to archive.org snapshots, since I like to see the source, not what people "curate" for me.
The constant fundraising solicitations are grating when contrasted with how they treated Doc James, or when users are lectured about their "privilege" for accessing supposedly free information. It seems Wikipedia doesn't inherently need my contribution or money; they had a highly dedicated expert, pushed him out (temporarily, but damagingly), and kept asking for donations. Claiming that donating today supports the same original mission feels increasingly misleading. Doc James must have the patience of a saint. It infuriates me when that kind of undervaluation happens, and they get to deduct taxes "for the public good," I get yelled at by the moonlighting Wikipedia/Discord mods for even questioning it. It's no surprise he's focused on teaching now.
Anyways, thanks for not attacking me for a seemingly dumb question. I don't have the answer to my question either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
... Hold on, are you saying that charities shouldn't be allowed to do things that businesses do? Close the food banks, to protect the poor innocent supermarkets! Ban the FSF and OSI, for competing with Microsoft!
I mean, really, what.
Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects. You can support our work with a donation.
[1] https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically...
Think about the results this way: if you inserted enough praise for Hitler into Wikipedia, their result would show Wikipedia as being more neutral. What does that say about their chosen method?
It shows a pretty clear bias. Just reading some of the articles confirms as such. Biden's son is credibly accused of peddling influence for cash with some of the proceeds going to his father and it's a 'conspiracy theory' (with citations from far left leaning papers and no counterbalance).
This is why one of Wikipedia's founders says it is ideologically biased.
Democrats were pro slavery if you go back far enough. Bias still exists back then.
I'd consider this to itself be a viewpoint that could be changed
Difficult to live in a world where everyone has its own version of "truth".
Voting patterns, note. Edward Robert Martin Jr expresses the totalitarian position of a secret ballot, something that was fought for long and hard in centuries past, being a bad thing.
> […] through its wholly owned subsidiary Wikipedia […]
An encyclopaedia is not a corporation, of course, and this is just plain ignorant nonsense.
WalterGR•9mo ago