I have been donating annually around $50 or less for the last ten years. I was quite surprised to get an email from jimmy@wikipedia.org last month suggesting I increase my donation to $250.
I'm planning to not donate at all this year, (instead to Internet Archive) based largely on discussions I have read here at HN. But I thought the request to suddenly increase my typical donation five-fold was pretty outrageous.
I still toss wiki a few bucks now and then (even though I hear they are flush with cash and have been for a while) just because I use and enjoy it so frequently (and because I think it's a valuable source of information for everyone, generally), but I too have started giving more to the Internet Archive. Its founder Brewster Kahle is a wonderful person. Some choice excerpts from from his wiki:
"Struck by the immensity of the task being undertaken and achieved: to store and index everything that was on the Web, Kahle states: 'I was standing there, looking at this machine that was the size of five or six Coke machines, and there was an 'aha' moment that said, 'You can do everything.'"
"Knowledge lives in lots of different forms over time," Kahle said in 2011. "First it was in people's memories, then it was in manuscripts, then printed books, then microfilm, CD-ROMs, now on the digital internet. Each one of these generations is very important."
"It's not that expensive. For the cost of 60 miles of highway, we can have a 10 million-book digital library available to a generation that is growing up reading on-screen. Our job is to put the best works of humankind within reach of that generation."
A small favor to ask: can you avoid using the word "wiki" as casual shorthand to refer to Wikipedia? It falls in the same territory (or nearby, at least) as someone who doesn't know better saying "Java" to refer to JS (JavaScript).
NB: I have tried to word this as politely and non-derisively as I can think to. If you have any improvements, please let me know.
PS: Thank you for 1. your support of Wikipedia, 2. your support of the Internet Archive, and 3. the signal that you send by pulling back from #1 right now, when it makes a lot of sense to do so.
> It falls in the same territory (or nearby, at least) as someone who doesn't know better saying "Java" to refer to JS (JavaScript).
I don't mean to offend you, but this is a poor analogy. Java and JavaScript are hardly related, the former a programming language developed by Sun employees and first implemented by Sun, and while the latter did involve collaboration with Sun by Netscape and used Java-like syntax, the JS name is more marketing than having any relation to Java. But more importantly, neither is a type of the other.
"Wikipedia" is a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is, in fact, both of these things and the most well known, the largest and by far the most used implementation of wiki[1] ever.
> can you avoid using the word "wiki" as casual shorthand to refer to Wikipedia?
It's really ok that nearly everyone does this, and what you're asking is like asking New York Times employees to stop calling nytimes.com "the website." I would not be surprised if 99.9% of all wiki implementation ever is actually Wikipedia, iow, there are lots of wikis, but most of them, by volume, are Wikipedia.
Please cease referring to your vehicle as "the car," or "my truck." It has a make and model and it is not all cars or all trucks. Also, when speaking of air travel, do not refer to this transportation as "a plane," nor "the plane," but instead, for example, "Boeing 737 Flight xyz." Do not ever, ever say you are taking a train, cab, uber, or bus. Do not ever go "home" again. There are lots of homes. Be specific, as continuing to speak this way is inaccurate, ambiguous, grammatically incorrect and confusing.
This comment is full of false equivalences. In fact, it contains only false equivalences.
What you just wrote is a decent argument against anyone taking issue with someone saying "the wiki" or even "my/our wiki" where it makes sense to. With respect to the topic at hand, however, that makes it a total strawman, because no one is taking issue with those things. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" is nothing like exercising the grammar of the English language to construct ordinary sentences involving "the bus" or "my truck".
Please don't make bad faith arguments like this. It stands out especially when it comes from someone who's first remarks were an objection to the Java/JS example on the grounds of category error.
Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" would be like shortening "Burger King" to "burger".* It shouldn't be done, and it shouldn't be controversial to bring it up. It was a polite request, after all.
* or if that example bothers you, shortening "Taco Shack" to "shack", to use an example that will withstand any criticism that Burger King is not a burger, whereas Wikipedia is a wiki—which (again) doesn't even matter in this case, since we're not claiming any faux pas over the appropriate use of "a wiki" or "the wiki" or "our wiki" or "some wiki", etc.
> This comment is full of false equivalences. In fact, it contains only false equivalences.
Please demonstrate any false equivalence that I employed and demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed in claiming equivalence. Using wiki for Wikipedia, specifically because Wikipedia is a wiki, is the same kind of substitution as using plane for Boeing 737, because examples like these replace the specific with the general, which is incredibly common.
> What you just wrote is a decent argument against anyone taking issue with someone saying "the wiki" or even "my/our wiki" where it makes sense to. With respect to the topic at hand, however, that makes it a total strawman, because no one is taking issue with those things. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" is nothing like exercising the grammar of the English language to construct ordinary sentences involving "the bus" or "my truck".
Whether a definite or indefinite article is used makes no difference here, they merely indicate whether identity is known, and when missing they are assumed: "(the) wiki is not a proper citation." In English, we often use the general group in which the object belongs to replace the object, such as "vehicle" for "truck," and "truck" for "Ford," or "Internet" for "website" and "website" for "reddit." I have not, in fact, invented any argument to attack, which is necessary for a straw man.
> Please don't make bad faith arguments like this. It stands out especially when it comes from someone who's first remarks were an objection to the Java/JS example on the grounds of category error.
Here is your straw man. I have not made any bad faith arguments, so you've invented one to attack instead.
> Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" would be like shortening "Burger King" to "burger".* It shouldn't be done, and it shouldn't be controversial to bring it up. It was a polite request, after all. or if that example bothers you, shortening "Taco Shack" to "shack", to use an example that will withstand any criticism that Burger King is not a burger,
Burger King is not a burger and Taco Shack is not a shack. You are suggesting that wiki is an abbreviation of Wikipedia, but because Wikipedia is a wiki your argument fails. And because these types of substitutions are common, the request was unreasonable.
> For all the reasons that I just said. If you dispute that, then any response by me (or anyone else) is already guaranteed to be futile.
Your accusation was vague and your reply here equally unsupportive. You may claim anything you like, but if your claim is unsupported then it is unconvincing.
Taco Shack is not a taco.* It certainly is a shack, however. To try to claim with a straight face that it's not (as you did here) is possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen someone make on HN, ever.
Likewise, your defense that it's fine to arbitrarily omit "a"/"an" or "the" is what's truly unconvincing. To say, "I took a bus here" is acceptable. To say, "I took the bus here" would also be acceptable. Saying, "I took bus here", however, is definitely not a reasonable way to construct a sentence, despite your unsupported claims to the contrary. At best, it's a forgivable mistake that you might encounter from a non-native speaker, but in no way is it standard English. To argue otherwise (again, as you have done here) is bonkers and, like the Taco Shack example, suggests a commitment to never admitting to being wrong and a prioritization of that commitment over the truth.
* I suppose if we were operating under the rules that you insist exist, this could have been worded as "Taco Shack is not taco"
Depends on the query. The top result for “Star Trek wiki” is Memory Alpha, which is the Star Trek wiki. “Crusader Kings wiki” returns the official CK3 wiki, followed by the CK2 wiki, followed by a Wikipedia link.
If you Google things that don’t have their own wiki, though, you do tend to get Wikipedia.
this is like asking me not to call the encyclopedia britannica "the encyclopedia" since there are many other encyclopedias in existence
sure wikipedia is one wiki, but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki"
edit: lol ok fine I'm wrong, let me amend to, "wiki is an easily disambiguated term depending on the context of the subject, and if the subject is not your internal work project or self hosted fan site, you probably want to look it up on wikipedia.org"
"but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki"
That is ambiguous. I would assume you were running a personal wiki project, and you meant that, or you meant the wiki at your place of work. This isn't like "flexing on the Gram" -- most people don't run a personal Instagram, so if you're flexing on the gram, as the rap lyrics say, then I can guess what you mean. But most of us use wikis at work, so we all deal with a large number of wikis, so simply saying "wiki" is ambiguous.
> this is like asking me not to call the encyclopedia britannica "the encyclopedia" since there are many other encyclopedias in existence
If you have a physical set and it's the only encyclopedia in the house, it might be fair. I've never heard anyone generically refer to Encyclopedia Britannica as simply "the encyclopedia" outside of this circumstance.
> sure wikipedia is one wiki, but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki"
Hard disagree. With thousands of specialized wikis and in-house corporate wikis, it can never really be assumed to mean Wikipedia specifically, unless you're already on Wikipedia.
please do donate to the Internet Archive! right now up until the end of the year, all donations are matched 2-to-1 and the money actually goes towards the service while Wikipedia is overfunded and you’re basically only bankrolling the foundation.
Since we're on the topic of less than transparent fundraising, matched donations are also usually misleading. For the most part the matching donors are already planning to donate up to a certain amount regardless of other donations, and if the match from other people comes up short they'll donate the amount they planned to anyways.
This is not true in my experience. Matching donors donate up to the amount they state if, and only if, you received the donations to be matched. While there may be some nice donors who will donate above their pledge, it is in no way something the organization can count on. If a donor makes a pledge to match, it's solely up to the donor whether they donate above and beyond.
on the flip side a donor planning on donating $1m anyway may be persuaded to allow them to use it as a "matched" donation to try to get another $1m out of others.
Yes, but it is the kind of white lie that I think is morally ok? If people get a thrill out of “free money” and charity X gets more funding, not the worst thing in the world.
I am not the parent comment here, and I do not know specifically what they meant.
However, I will say, it would not be the first time a charitable donation ended up going to lining pockets instead of doing the good it was intentioned for.
The BLM scandal and all the mansions is just one of the most recent examples that come to mind.
All of these huge companies and thousands of individual donors giving money to what they believed to be a just cause - only to end up buying mansions and sports cars for the organization leaders.
Another older example was the Red Cross shinanigans in Haiti.
These sort of things erode trust in opaque charitable organizations.
> However, I will say, it would not be the first time a charitable donation ended up going to lining pockets instead of doing the good it was intentioned for.
That has nothing to do with 'woke'ness though.
Wounded Warrior Project[1] or any other charity with poor ratings, can be candidates for this, including conservative and similar leaning groups. But your comment and examples at least imply, if not necessarily intentional, that this is a trait of 'woke causes', and not an issue across the entire spectrum.
[1] at least before they were forced to do a wholesale housecleaning after having one of the lowest percentages of funds donated to a 501(c)3 that reached or helped their designated recipients.
I would interpret that as a genuine personal inquiry. “Woke” has become a nebulous word used to define whatever bogeyman the author feels threatens their way of life.
> “Woke” has become a nebulous word used to define whatever bogeyman the author feels threatens their way of life.
I don't think that is accurate. "Woke" still retains its original meaning of "aware of racial discrimination," and its subsequent generalized meaning of "aware of social inequalities." What happened was very similar to what happened with the word "liberal," which also retains its original meaning, namely, "tolerant," in that those threatened by equality or inexplicably opposed to awareness of inequality inscrutably use it as a pejorative. This doesn't make a lot of sense because "woke" used pejoratively strongly signals, "I am a racist and/or sexist and/or opposed to equality and/or opposed to awareness of inequality."
> This doesn't make a lot of sense because "woke" used pejoratively strongly signals, "I am a racist and/or sexist and/or opposed to equality and/or opposed to awareness of inequality."
You're confusion is imagining that we care that's what it signals.
It's difficult to guess what you're trying to convey here. Are you saying that you don't care if you represent yourself in a way that makes people around you assume the worst? Or you are racist/sexist and proud of it? Or you're so into the team-sports aspect of american politics that you just use those words in the same way as, like "Pats suck, go Bears!"?
Honest question - I've heard people using that line in all of those contexts.
I think that is an accurate take. I have just observed “woke” to indicate any manner of positions with which the author disagreed (eg environmental protection).
I didn't say I don't know what it means. I asked YOU what it means to YOU.
The way I use it, it means "alert to injustice in society, especially racism". But I suspect a lot of people on a certain political team use it to mean "liberal and stupid". There's a wide range of uses of the term, which is why I asked.
Meant in a merely descriptive way to describe the new breed of lefty extremists. In other words a bit of both of your meanings. This is a prime example of folks who think pushing their identity politics is a higher priority than ethics, and have gone a bit too far. This seems to happen with every movement, even well-intentioned ones.
Not meant pejoratively outside of how poorly this current example speaks of the movement.
Clandestinely is more nefarious obviously. I'd have called out trumpers if they had been involved. Both-sides-ism is a waste of time when both-sides aren't involved.
Unfortunately, I think charitable organizations with resources have this down to a science, and probably know that approach will get them more increased donations than it will lose them donations.
I think it's a science of manipulation, and would hope that eventually it will bite them... but these sciences of manipulation are very effective. And pioneered by the industries that many of us work in, with all the A/B testing and funnel management etc. So if we want to point the finger...
There are organizations that I like and appreicate, but stopped donating to after they started spamming with me with 5-10 emails a week asking for increased donations, when I was already donating to them! I stopped. Even though I like the organization and think they do good work. but I bet they have correct reason to believe this spam will net them increased donations over all.
So your own comments can be more informed, you're commenting on TFA where those HN discussions are aligned with what the actual Wikipedia contributors think. And those comments started after several very well-sourced articles on the Foundations finances were shared.
Do you have anything more HN-caliber than that to share with us?
If "cesspool" means "something you disagree with" then that's not good advice either. Reasons can be evaluated independently of the source of information. Good advice can come from anywhere.
I was flagged and downvoted for my comment, which, at least in my opinion demonstrates what Im talking about. Additionally, I was rate limited by the mods, so it must have really struck a chord. Was that a reasonable response to my a comment? I went against the mob and said maybe don't take financial/political advice from HN. Bam, flagged and rate limited. So, to answer your question, this topic is apparently one of the cesspools.
I really appreciate your bio, BTW. I think I relate. I could be wrong.
Apology by the delay in replying. I'm effectively banned so I have to choose what to write. You'll probably never read this, but I gotta tell yah, the mods here are vindictive.
I really like much of the IA's past work, but this latest battle with the publishers is just ill advised. If people worked long and hard on something, they deserve the right to prevent it from being given away for free.
The current legal issue around the Internet Archive's library came to a head because IA decided to remove restrictions on lending. They changed from the "we have one copy, so we lend one copy" model that libraries follow to "we have a one copy, so everyone can have a copy at the same time" for a period of time.
Had they not done that, the publishers knew they faced an uphill battle because of the first-sale doctrine. But once Pandora's box was opened, the publishers saw their chance to stamp out the whole thing by arguing "well they did it once, what's to stop them from doing it again?"
IA made a well-intentioned but ill-advised decision.
Authors get paid for library books. (They often cost quite a bit more than the same book sold to an individual.) An author/publisher can choose not to sell to a particular library if they really want to.
This is not generally true in the USA, where the "first sale doctrine" gives libraries (or anyone else) the legal right to buy an ordinary consumer copy of a physical printed book, and lend it out (for free or rent) as many times as they want, without the permission of the copyright holder and without paying them an additional fee.
In the USA, if any library pays more for a "library" price, that's voluntary. They have the complete legal right to buy an ordinary copy from any consumer channel that will sell ot them (new or used re-sold) and lend it out. And this is not a special right of things classed as libraries, it's a right anyone has. Traditionally, when it comes to physical copies, anyway.
In other countries, the "first-sale doctrine" does not exist, and this may not be true. I think in Europe libraries do pay "licensing" fees to be able to loan out books, that get redistributed to copyright holders based on use statistics, sort of how music playing licensing does work in the USA too. So argument here about whether libraries really do this or not may just be confusion over the fact that things really do work differently in different countries.
I suppose that gives us the opportunity to compare... has the right to loan out legally purchased books without licenses damaged the incentive to write books in the USA compared to Europe? Like even back in pre-ebook days? I suspect not.
They may choose to, because they are willing to pay more for the longer-lasting binding. Or it may help them remain on good terms with publishers. While I'm technically a librarian, I haven't worked in this area or at an institution where it's relevant for a long time now, so actually don't know personally how common this is.
But if libraries choose to pay more for a better binding, that is because of their determination that the value is worth it to them, not because there is any law that says they must to give more compensation to copyright holders. Nor is it proportionate to how many times they lend out the book or anything.
In the USA libraries are completely legally allowed to take a copy they bought legally anywhere at all, including a used booksale from someone else, and loan it out as many times as they want, without needing a license or to make any additional payments to original copyright holder. I am so so positive of this (although I am not a lawyer).
Libraries pay the ordinary retail price (or less from a bulk discount). They sometimes buy books with (more expensive) sturdier binding, expecting it to be used more heavily.
Authors cannot stop libraries from buying their books and putting them on the shelf.
What alternative model for funding the creation of said "ideas" would you propose? If everything is free as soon as it exists, how do we ensure equitable access to creation?
That's not a fair conclusion from the parent comment at all. Software developers _do_ have the right to prevent their work from being given away for free. Them _choosing_ to develop FOSS is them voluntarily waiving that right.
And most of the small authors think that copyright should not be longer then 5 years, the only one's against it are the big publishers, so as a small author you cannot choose if you want at least a bit money.
I'm planning to not donate at all this year, (instead to Internet Archive) based largely on discussions I have read here at HN. But I thought the request to suddenly increase my typical donation five-fold was pretty outrageous.