- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m kinda in awe how Elon finds every day new ways to be a utter and complete piece of shit.
I’m not, only because I’ve never once been in awe of any damn thing that piece of shit has ever
donestolen credit for, and don’t intend to start now.This too is greed. Wikipedia is too accurate, and he doesn’t want the truth to be remembered.
It’s a super power. No ordinary person could do it this much.
No ordinary has enough free time to even attempt it!
Ah yes, any platform that may contradict his obvious attempt to dominate America through propaganda must be removed.
Elon takes aim and the media are right there to make his job easier. Thank goodness there’s reporting on everything he wants.
Crowdsourced information does put a bit of a damper on the whole “history written by the victors” thing.
Made a donation just to spite him. Fuck you Elon.
Fourth most visited site in the world… he wants to install ads on it and own it.
(and control what it says)
He’s being filed by a constant stream of validation from musk simps, yes men, now the next POTUS, so he thinks he’s unstoppable.
I donated to Wikipedia once before, but never again. Their endowment has grown to a level where they should be completely self-sustained. However, spending is out of control.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
I’m pretty sure we want content created, vetted, and edited by volunteers. It prevents bias, in theory.
Sure, I’m not against that and I never said otherwise. It also helps keep costs down. I definitely don’t want to see an Elon-enshitified version of Wikipedia with ads and paid content creators. I mostly like Wikipedia just as it is. The one exception would be that I don’t like how they try guilt tripping everyone for donations.
With $400-million between Wikipedia and their endowment, they should easily be able to cover the $3-million in web hosting expenses, without ever touching the principal of their investments. Wikipedia should be already setup to run in perpetuity, if not merely decades.
Can’t argue with you there. They also charge Google and other search engines for their republishing of Wikipedia info as part of their search results. We could just the corporate billionaires pay for the platform so that all benefit from it. Like taxes are supposed to do…
Is that you musk?
My post has nothing to do with wokeness or whatever Musk is ranting about. The guy who wrote the essay I linked, originally posted it in 2017 and has been keeping it updated. This abuse of spending is not a new topic. But sure, keep donating so the executives can take home more pay.
The “essay” (for me) read more like a rant about the author’s opinions regarding hypothetical situations and how, in many people’s views, a successful non-profit spends money. Sure, maybe WMF could spend less but the table looked reasonable. I’ve donated before and I’m sure I will again because I use Wikipedia all the time. I am going to spend more time learning about the organization and its spending, but as of reading the linked material, I’m unmoved.
Also, I get that 789k is a lot of money. Really more than anyone needs but it’s hardly an absurd amount given the norms for CEO pay. Yes, CEO pay is ridiculous but so is the entire economy, speaking as a US citizen. I would have guessed higher and many non-profit CEOs make much more than 789k. Plenty of people, with less responsibility and impact, make more than that so that pay is not really a WMF specific point.
Did you not read the part where this is the seventh most visited site on the internet… in the world? Literally any other website would be paying their CEO millions upon millions. This guy is basically taking a gigantic pay cut working for Wikimedia.
And do you have any idea how much it costs to have the bandwidth and server space to host the enormity of Wikipedia? It is quite literally one of the physically largest web sites on the internet. And it is continually and constantly being added to. The only other voluntary free information site that really beats it is the wayback machine. Which is another favorite target of conservative douchebags.
It’s almost as if rich media moguls don’t like people having free access to information they don’t control.
And quite frankly I’m of the opinion that you are likely either working for one of them or one of Elon’s army of sycophants (I had to retype that several times because it kept auto correcting to “sicko fans”, and honestly I don’t think that’s all that inaccurate either) who are out to help him control the narrative.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to have the bandwith and server space to host the enormity of Wikipedia?
Yes $2,335,918 in 2019 per their disclosures. They spend more on travel expenses.
Wikipedia is a non-profit. The goal shouldn’t be to rake in tons of cash.
Legal fees and legal staff take up much of their expenses as well. When you have a platform that aims to make truth public, you are getting threatened with lawsuits 24 hours a day.
Legal fees were $493,315 for the fiscal year ending in 2023. Web hosting expenses were $3,120,819. They spent more on travel and conferences than both these combined ($4,180,219). Also, they pay their CEO more than all legal expenses.
I would really like to see Wikipedia become fully self-suffient, so it can’t be threatened by a hostile takeover. They could do that through investment income without ever touching their principal, especially if they started reasonably managing expenses years ago.
That’s legal fees meaning court filing and other fees (seems low). You also have professional legal services, which includes specialized lawyers, in-house attorneys, and the General Council, which consists of board-level executives with legal credentials.
Why should non-profits not want to “rake in tons of cash” if it helps advance the mission of the non-profit?
Because in this case, all the increases in contributions go straight to the executives. I think I’ve been very on-point with this. On most days, I would expect Lemmizens to be overwhelmingly anti-CEO. I guess this isn’t one of those days.
789k was pay + severance for Katherine Maher who left in 2021. Now that does seem excessive, I don’t know how that number came about or why severance was 600k but the year before Katherine’s comp was 406k. The compensation for the current CEO is 534k for 2023 per https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200049703
Of course that seems like a lot of money, and it is, but to put it in perspective, I am just another software engineer and I make more than that. In HCOL areas, at “big tech” it’s common for entry level SDEs with a BS to make 160-180k.
So as I stated in a different comment, your criticism seems misplaced. What you have a problem with is really the financial situation our society is dealing with, and that’s perfectly reasonable. I would 100% agree that current wealth/pay distribution needs to be addressed.
I’m not going to disagree with your comments in regards to the compensation for the singular CEO. However, I think this is a more widespread issue within the foundation. (I did say “executives” in my last comment.) The chart below is straight from the Wikimedia Foundation wiki page and one expense category is increasing a lot quicker than the others. This chart is a little outdated now, but salary expenses have continued to increase. According to the last disclosure, salaries and benefits are now over $101-million. That’s almost double where the chart left off, all while other expense categories have barely moved. Internet hosting in 2023 was only $3.12-million.
Wikimedia has a lot of cash on hand. Even with the exorbitant spending over the years, the foundation and endowment combined have accumulated over $400-million. Through interest alone, I don’t see why the core functions of Wikipedia should ever be in financial jeopardy. This is especially the case if you consider that, even without persistent requests for donations, donations won’t just stop completely.
Donated as well. Fuck Musk.
Just like he’s increasing Secular Talk viewership he’s also increasing Wikipedia donations.
I hope lots of folks also download copies of Wikipedia, just in case. Elon is a sore loser type with too much money and free time.
i don’t get what problem you would have about “bias” over wikipedia if you care about the truth and facts.
just kind of exposes what it’s really about for musk.
I donate $20 every year, but I also donate again whenever this goof makes headlines going after Wikipedia. Feels good. Fuck you, cunt.
Thank you for donating!
Does anyone know what the equality money is spent on?
Is it things censorship bypassing or something else?
This parasite is doing his best to lead humanity further down the path of annihilation. He needs to go.
Mmm,
Mmhmm
Oh
Musk’s actions and expressed views have made him a polarizing figure. He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including COVID-19 misinformation; affirming antisemitic and transphobic comments, and promoting conspiracy theories. His ownership of Twitter has been controversial because of the layoffs of a large number of employees, an increase in posts containing hate speech, misinformation and disinformation on the website, and changes to website features, including verification.
Ah, that’s probably why. People are allowed to expose him without being censored on wiki.
“Wikipedia is built on the premise that it becomes better when more people of different backgrounds—including political persuasions—source, edit, curate and research content. Our equity goal advances that. The ‘Safety & Inclusion’ goal (now titled ‘Safety & Integrity’ in our 2024-2025 plan) is focused on ensuring that people are able to freely access and safely contribute to knowledge on Wikipedia in a changing legal and policy environment globally.”
Magoo: RAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!! WHITE CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS are the only REAL people!! WE’RE the only people that matter!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
I just read that list. How many conservative sources are listed as “Reliable Sources” I see Reason, but I’m not sure I’d consider them conservative.
Not their fault conservatives lie and generally contradict even themselves.
And liberal sources don’t?
-
The laptop is Russian disinformation.
-
The vaccine will prevent you from getting Covid.
-
The Steele dossier proves that Trump is in bed with the Russians.
That’s just off the top of my head.
Mr. Musk believes that Wikipedia has become a mouthpiece for the left. Based on their list of Reliable Sources, how do you counter his argument?
The laptop is Russian disinformation.
Which laptop?
The vaccine will prevent you from getting Covid.
Please read up on evolution, and herd immunity. A reputable source making this claim was probably using it as shorthand because stating that “The COVID vaccine and boosters are effective at reducing the infection and propagation of specific common strains of covid 19 to the point where you may not feel the effects or shed enough virus to infect other people” isn’t really as catching of a headline.
The Steele dossier proves that Trump is in bed with Russians.
I have yet to see counter evidence to the claims made in the Steele Dossier, and Steele himself still stands behind the report, which can not be said for certain trump agents who falsified Ukrainian corruption claims about Hunter and Joe Biden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory
-
Reliable sources means outlets that don’t outright lie or over embellish. I think you’ll find that most conservative media outlets tend to do exactly those two things. And I would 100% count both Reason and The Hill as conservative media outlets that walk the fine line.
