Fuck you, Wikipedia
-
-
expresso
I was going to call you an ignoramus, but maybe English isn't your native tongue.
-
Maybe he/she wanted a coffee really quickly?
-
My bad in not recognized there is spelling mistake (not even spotted it in the first time it's pointed out).
It should be espresso.
-
Reposting from https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/the-glitch-who-stole-christmas/53675/44?u=pjh:
and promptly enjoyed an ad that took half my screen
This reminds me - Wikipedia's recent attempt at fundraising resulted in this. Two screenshots because my mobile phone screen clearly isn't big enough...
-
You're on mobile, that's different.
-
You're on mobile, that's different.
I got one of those today, too. What are we in, week four now?
-
Well, at least Wikipedia knows when it's got a large userbase.
Archive.org is doing something similar, but they want $50!!!!
-
When will these dumb not-for-profits realize that information wants to be free?!?
-
information wants to be free?!?
Oh, it's "free" enough, so long as you pay to keep it that way.
-
Can't stop the signal, man!
-
-
@Arantor said:
You're on mobile, that's different.
I got one of those today, too. What are we in, week four now?
It's 3 and a bit months since Discopocalypse.
-
Don't bother. They'll assume you're a conservative regardless, since you don't agree with them.
-
None of those have a strange hairdo ...
-
You know, I'd forgotten about DiscoMath™. If only @TheCPUWizard didn't respond to one of my threads that emailed me and had me ROFL, I could have remained blissfully unaware, having forgotten that obscenity.
-
Pretty sure my vision of Donald Trump fits into the third category.
-
There's a pic out there somewhere, but I suck at finding them. There's a fourth panel with Jabba and the caption "Except for Trump. Trump is Jabba. Trump is always Jabba."
-
Just imagine Jabba with a bad blond wig…
-
No, wait, I hear Gary John-dammit, stop laughing!--Gary Johnson's going to throw his hat in the ring again this year.
I can't remember if he's got a delightful quirk like Michael "I don't believe in drivers' licenses" Badnarik?
Oh God, Badnarik's Wikipedia page is priceless: "[he ran in the 2004 Presidential election] and placed fourth in the race, behind independent candidate Ralph Nader and two others."
"Two others". That's "two others" who, between them, took approximately 99.00% of the popular vote.
This is why I love Libertarians--humor value.
-
Oh God, Badnarik's Wikipedia page is priceless: "[he ran in the 2004 Presidential election] and placed fourth in the race, behind independent candidate Ralph Nader and two others."
Wait, fourth-- between one who placed lower than him, and two people who placed higher.
Wouldn't that put him third?
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Wait, fourth-- between one who placed lower than him, and two people who placed higher.
Wouldn't that put him third?
Did you perhaps misread "behind" as "between"? The humor in that statement is "This nobody finished behind another nobody and the two people who each got more than 1%".
-
It's several minutes after I first read the post and I still can't get enough of "and two others"
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Wait, fourth-- between one who placed lower than him, and two people who placed higher.
Wouldn't that put him third?
Did you perhaps misread "behind" as "between"? The humor in that statement is "This nobody finished behind another nobody and the two people who each got more than 1%".
Never mind. Coffee time.
-
It's several minutes after I first read the post and I still can't get enough of "and two others"
"Two other people, huh? Who?"
umm, i dunno, some guys-- i think they civil servants now or some government job yeah
-
It's several minutes after I first read the post and I still can't get enough of "and two others"
I know, right?
-
-
'd (sorta) by @Lorne_Kates
-
98% of our readers just scroll away.
I wonder why.
The<hr>at the very bottom is just before the start of the actual article.
-
@FrostCat i don't understand people's animosity towards their way. yes, it's wordy. yes, it's a bit pleading, but understandably so. but it's not emotionally manipulative, not guilt-tripping, doesn't block the page, can be dismissed by a single click, and it appears once a year for a few days.
so this specific one, i don't understand why people hate it that much
-
Just yesterday I was reading — well, skimming — this:
Soundbite:
The modern Wikipedia hosts 11–12 times as many pages as it did in 2005, but the WMF is spending 33 times as much on hosting, has about 300 times as many employees, and is spending 1,250 times as much overall. WMF's spending has gone up by 85% over the past three years.
Sounds a lot like cancer, doesn't it?
-
@Zecc said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
The modern Wikipedia hosts 11–12 times as many pages as it did in 2005, but the WMF is spending 33 times as much on hosting
That part is highly misleading. To non-technical people (who don't know a thing about hosting), this might seem ludicrous, but we all know that hosting costs don't really depend on the number of different pages in your site but on the bandwidth. So a more relevant number to compare would be the number of pages served.
has about 300 times as many employees, and is spending 1,250 times as much overall. WMF's spending has gone up by 85% over the past three years.
Wow. That sounds very bad. As a reader I haven't seen anything in the past 3 years that might justify almost doubling their spending!
-
@remi said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Wow. That sounds very bad. As a reader I haven't seen anything in the past 3 years that might justify almost doubling their spending!
Donation pleas don't write themselves
-
@sh_code said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
it's wordy. yes, it's a bit pleading, but understandably so. but it's not emotionally manipulative, not guilt-tripping
-
"understandable": Last time I checked, as far as I could tell they were swimming in money and busy trying to diversify towards new and creative ways of spending it. They also have been repeatedly criticized of providing no tangible results and in general being horribly cost-ineffective.
-
"not emotionally manipulative": Have you actually read that plea? They say that "Time's running out in 2019 to help us"... yes, soon it will be 2020, and nothing will have changed except the current year. By then it will be too late to "help Wikipedia in 2019" but you could very well "help Wikipedia in 2020" instead and it wouldn't make much of a difference to them. And while the whole thing is worded like they'd fall over and die if they didn't receive something immediately, if you very carefully read the message you'll notice that they don't actually say any such thing: they in fact very carefully avoid explicitly saying they are short of money (because AFAICT that would be a blatant lie) but they do sure make it sound like they were. If that doesn't seem emotionally manipulative to you I don't know what would.
-
And "not guilt-tripping"? "Look how evil you are, leaching all the hard work of our editors without giving a septim and we're soon gonna die because of it (not really haha just joking but we do hope you'll believe us!)"
True that they don't block the page and I do appreciate that. But the whole "let's shame our readers into giving us more moneyz which we can waste on shiny
first class hotel rooms and CEO salariesrandom toy projects" is IMHO rather despicable. They claim to be not-for-profit, so as long as they can comfortably cover their cost they perfectly deserve to be shamed for that kind of manipulative crap.I also very much appreciate that the Wikipedia page for Wikimedia Foundation does reflect this controversy and isn't censored into oblivion; on the other hand that's kind of a core value of what Wikipedia is all about so if they pulled that kind of stunt it sure would hurt their credibility and reputation a lot.
-
-
@ixvedeusi said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
on the other hand that's kind of a core value of what Wikipedia is all about so if they pulled that kind of stunt it sure would hurt their credibility and reputation a lot.
Yeah, there have never been any pages censored and edit protected (or whatever the term is) for ideological reasons in Wikipedia's history
-
@hungrier said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Yeah, there have never been any pages censored and edit protected (or whatever the term is) for ideological reasons in Wikipedia's history
I wouldn't know, but if you say so I'm sure it's true
More seriously, doing so for "ideological" reasons on a page that isn't directly related to your own organization is less reputationally damaging than doing so for obviously self-interested money-grabbing and self-whitewashing reasons because 1) a substantial part of your readership will probably share your ideological position and thus see no problem with it, and 2) you can blame it on the "greater good" or "doing the Right
Thing" or whatever.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Would you all rather have a paywall version of Wikipedia?
Wikipedia wouldn't be Wikipedia if it had paywall. Open source is a complicated relationship.
I wouldn't mind ads, though.
-
@ixvedeusi said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
True that they don't block the page and I do appreciate that. But the whole "let's shame our readers into giving us more moneyz which we can waste on shiny
first class hotel rooms and CEO salariesrandom toy projects" is IMHO rather despicable. They claim to be not-for-profit, so as long as they can comfortably cover their cost they perfectly deserve to be shamed for that kind of manipulative crap.I wouldn't have a problem with Wikipedia asking for money, if it wasn't for:
-
The Wikimedia Foundation has more than 300 employees and annual revenue in excess of $100 Million.
-
How many of those 300+ employees create content for Wikipedia? Zero.
-
How much of that $100+ Million is paid to the people who do all of the actual work, creating the content you find on Wikipedia? Zero.
Wikipedia's legitimate expenses are only a few million a year. The rest is spent on expensive offices, big salaries (for hundreds of people who do nothing of value) and all manner of other nonsense.
I would really like to support Wikipedia, but when 90% of my donation is used to fund lavish corporate bullshit, Wikipedia can just fuck off.
-
-
@El_Heffe said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
I would really like to support Wikipedia, but when 90% of my donation is used to fund lavish corporate bullshit, Wikipedia can just fuck off.
This. We (as in, people in the "make Poland great again" country) have a scheme where the 1% of your tax can be donated to a charity organisation. I used to support the Wikimedia Foundation for a long time - I even used to donate $5 every month for a few months - but I stopped a few years ago after reading about all that crap. Sorry, but I'm going to fund lavish corporate bullshit (not that 1% of my tax or $5 is a lot, but that's not the point) for others only once I'm swimming in it myself.
-
@El_Heffe said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
I would really like to support Wikipedia, but when 90% of my donation is used to fund lavish corporate bullshit, Wikipedia can just fuck off.
I agree with that. I wouldn't mind supporting Wikipedia, as in making sure that the free online encyclopedia stays around. For all its faults in some topics, it's still an absolutely wonderful source of general knowledge and I use it almost daily.
But the actual cost of what I support is just the hosting (and related IT etc.) and maybe a couple of community managers to handle, well, the community. The rest is random editors around the world, which is how Wikipedia came to be and how it works (and the beauty of it is that you don't even need to hook a lot of people for a long time, contrary to most open source project who need a couple of long-standing members to make it work -- for Wiki it's enough if you get committed enough to build a few pages and then move on, those pages will stay around and be built upon by the next contributors). I do contribute to it from time to time by editing pages.
Anyway, the point is that the costs of what I want to support should be small, and they're apparently more than covered by their current funding, so I'm really not motivated enough to give them anything.
-
@remi said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
I do contribute to it from time to time by editing pages.
This. IMHO for anyone who really wants to support Wikipedia, with the current state of affairs, the way to do that is to contribute high-quality content rather than money. That doesn't necessarily always need much well-founded in-depth knowledge, it can also just be correcting typos, reformulating unclear or poorly structured sentences, cleaning up badly structured articles etc.
I even tend to think that giving them money is actually hurting the Wikipedia project at this point, because any organization with too much money on their hand will attract leeches who are only bent on siphoning it off to make a comfortable living with no regard for the actual project; such people tend to corrupt everything they touch.
-
@blakeyrat said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Where the fuck do they live that a cup of coffee is $3? That's not true even in Seattle, where Starbucks has ballooned-up coffee prices beyond all belief.
I know this is a 4 year old comment, but this trend is pretty annoying.
"Donate $45.35 today! Just the price of a cup of coffee!"
-
@anonymous234 said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
"Donate $45.35 today! Just the price of a cup of coffee!"
C|N>K
-
@ixvedeusi said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
it can also just be correcting typos, reformulating unclear or poorly structured sentences,
This. I don't do it often, just a few anonymous fixes once in a while. (IIRC, the last time I tried, there was a ban on my work IP, or something like that.) Unfortunately, a lot of the ones I'd really like to help with are so unclear that I can't figure out what the previous editor (clearly not a native speaker of English) was trying to say, so I don't know how fix it.
-
@PleegWat said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@anonymous234 said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
"Donate $45.35 today! Just the price of a cup of coffee!"
C|N>K
I'm not familiar with this Game of Thrones fan theory
-
@hungrier Coffee|Nose>Keyboard
-
Daenerys was drinking from a Starbucks cup when suddenly Tyrion made a joke and she laughed coffee out her nose and onto her keyboard. Everyone at the table fell silent. Then, suddenly she had gone back to making jokes with her coffee cup. Meanwhile I'm doing more than joking, for I have faith.
Aragorn looked at her then and said: 'Stop talking to yourself with your damn coffee cup, and look at me.' Then he went back to staring at the floor. She muttered something about Elrond's lost elves and gave Tyrion a sour
-
@hungrier Transformer thread is
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
I wouldn't mind ads, though.
I would, because I hate fucking ads, and I also hate every stupid moron who doesn't mind ads -- that's how we got the internet to look like a cesspool and you should burn in hell just for thinking about that, let alone saying it out loud.
I said ads. Not screen-hijacking, virus-installing, CPU-stealing half-assed pieces of shit that don't even work right half the time and land you on a page unrelated to what it showed.
Try this: go to TVTropes, disable all ad blocking, and say if these ads are something to lose sleep over.
@El_Heffe said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
The Wikimedia Foundation has more than 300 employees and annual revenue in excess of $100 Million.
So that's bad how exactly?
They pretend every year they're almost out of money.
Did any of you stop to consider the costs of:
Did you stop to actually dig up the financial statements and see how much money they actually spend on these things you listed, and how much goes to what's best described as total waste?
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Why don't you make a site so big, useful, and popular where so many people all around the globe contribute out of their free will?
"Don't criticize if you haven't done it yourself" is the dumbest form of internet argumentation
User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer - Wikipedia
