- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
Wait wait wait, you mean the one place that literally shows the commentary of how unions actually do work, and show all of the evidence and STILL WON’T ACKNOWLEDGE UNIONS WHEN WORKING UNDER THEM? Holy shit, that’s just evil. That’s not stupid like a boomer or some tryhard trump supporter who clearly doesn’t know anything. That’s just evil.
Wikimedia definitely doesn’t need your money and hasn’t for years
Perfect timing. I just started donating to a new startup that seems as promising as Wikipedia once was. Nonprofit whose goal is to start their own universal basic income for users who don’t want to wait for the government to start one. Now I can cancel my Wikipedia donations and not feel so bad
Well, tell us who this is so we can support the real ones!
Same, drop the details comment op!
Whats going on here? I read wikimedia’s statement and they seem open to staff unionizing if the majority vote to be represented by CWA. Why are they hiring union busting lawyers?
Yet more evidence for my “never trust a self described libertarian” stance. Hasn’t failed me yet.
Might as well mirror the whole site, run it elsewhere where the suits don’t have control over people.
I have an old 2023 copy of Wikipedia saved to my NAS using kiwix. This is probably the most recent version I’ll ever need. But yeah, it’s long overdue for some healthy competition, conflicts have been brewing for over a decade at this point.
Lots of things could do with more competition more than ever
This is probably the most recent version I’ll ever need.
Assuming nothing historically significant happens after that download, sure.
I’ve got an ancient encyclopedia from the 1950s that my dad owned. Let me tell you how useful that’s been over the years.
When I was a kid in the 80’s, my sister and I found an old World Book Encyclopedia from the 50’s that someone in our neighborhood was throwing out, so we brought it home. It had some interesting “facts” in it. E.g., did you know that guinea pigs are perfect as subjects for scientific research because they’re unable to feel pain? 1950’s worldbook did!
Uhhhh there is no way that is true
I mean, I don’t have the encyclopedia anymore, so I guess I can’t really prove it to you. But it was sort of my introduction to the idea that not everything in an encyclopedia is necessarily true, so it’s pretty memorable for me. I recognize the irony of using another encyclopedia here, but Wikipedia mentions in the History section of its Pain in Animals article, “Researchers remained unsure into the 1980s as to whether animals experience pain.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_animals#History ) I obviously don’t know the story about how the line ended up in World Book, but I know they employ fact checkers for every line in the book, so presumably in the 50’s the line reflected some kind of scientific consensus, as bizarre as that sounds now.
I have a single volume of an 1875 encyclopedia, it’s facsinating
@spicehoarder @lechekaflan how did you do it? We can download wikipedia content from anyplace or did you scrappe it yourself?
You can easily self host it with Kiwix, runs in a docker, and you just point it at the latest version of Wikipedia (you can download everything or just text). Then when you want to update the Wikipedia, just download the new version.
So, here’s a link to the kiwix site: https://get.kiwix.org/en/solutions/applications/kiwix-server/ – I run their server software from my NAS, but you can run it anywhere really.
Go to a browser (MS Edge always refuses to load my Kiwix site, I use firefox) and just type in the IP of the machine you started the server on, plus the port. something like
192.168.1.XXX:80orlocalhost:80if you did it that way.Then, to download the actual ZIM files, which is the archive format chosen by kiwix (idk why) you can go here: https://browse.library.kiwix.org/
I should note that the zims only load when the server is started, you can’t just add new ones while the service is running, you’ll need to stop it and restart.
Hope this helps! Message me if you need more info :)
Then, to download the actual ZIM files,
Is that zim wiki related? 🤢
I’d rather use Grokpedia or Stupidedia, anyway. Gotta have my ✨ alternative facts ✨.
Cancelled my monthly. I’ll start it again when I receive info that the workers have a union.
Did the same.
We should probably all be downloading the website and printing off the important stuff, like how to make fire and why the sky-spirits get mad sometimes.
We should probably all be downloading the website and printing off the important stuff
Sort of defeats the fundamental purpose of a collaborative online encyclopedia.
If I want a massive hard copy of collected human knowledge, I just go to the public library. I don’t need to print my own.
But if I want to look something up on the fly (much less check down a bunch of citations), a thousand dead trees worth of printer paper isn’t going to deliver the goods.
Its certainly easier to download it and search for it at home than it is to go to the library. They both have their uses, but Kiwix is pretty awesome.
I don’t agree.
The fact that it’s a collaborative online encyclopedia is great, and especially because it has so many contributors.
A collaborative online encyclopedia with a smaller number of contributors makes it less useful, just like a one-time copy of a collaborative online encyclopedia with a larger number of contributors makes it less useful. However, that does not make it entirely useless.
I have an older archived copy of Wikipedia. I should probably update it some time.
Did you have an ancestor telling the people trying to save scrolls from burning that removing them ‘defeats the purpose of the library of Alexander’ or were you adopted?
You’re describing a single centralized warehouse for physical media. You’re neglecting thousands of other information repositories and alternative methodologies for conveying information.
And as people convert ancient scrolls to modern hard cover books, you’re screaming “nobody reads books! This will never work!”
Should probably pull down a copy of Project Gutenberg too.
Maybe there’s something of human output worth saving. If only so more fortunate future generations, should any exist, can pinpoint where shit went wrong.
can pinpoint where shit went wrong.
I don’t think there was a single, specific, event, but i’d wager mid-to-late 90s and early 00s.
You’re right. Project Gutenberg wouldn’t have anything from that period and wouldn’t be useful.
This is bad.
…But I’m very worried about the future of Wikipedia.
Questionable leadership or not, it is a lighthouse in the information dystopia of the 2020s, which literally helps hold society together.
The far right wants it gone, and are not shy about screaming it, because Wikipedia is not compatible with fascism.
If it becomes hated by the left too, and ignored by the masses because of Big Tech blacklists it, I worry it won’t have the political support to keep its prominence.
And to be clear, I’m not worried about it dying. Wikipedia will stay where it is for decades.
I’m worried about it ceasing to be popular.
It doesn’t function as a uncontrolled source of information if no one sees it. Modern censorship works by simply shifting attention.
Then they need to drop the losers behind this anti-union BS. This isn’t a complicated problem. If they’re against working people they don’t deserve political support. Anyone who cares enough can rip the site and rehost it elsewhere anyway or preferably multiple elsewheres so we don’t run into this issue again.
Questionable leadership or not, it is a lighthouse in the information dystopia of the 2020s, which literally helps hold society together.
It pioneered a novel mechanism for collaborating on a project with minimal trust between contributors. But it was also riddled with bias and vulnerable to exploitation and as prone to cultivating disinformation as a universal source of truth.
Rather than fixating on the site as some last bastion of Web 1.0 nostalgia, we would do well to do better than Wikipedia.
Organizations like the Internet archive project have, imho, done as much or more than Wikipedia because of their commitment to accumulating primary source material. Managing that catalog and incorporating it into an encyclopedia of knowledge is much more than just stuffing a hard drive full of editor arguments and dead links from the old site.
Well, unfortunately, there is no project like that with Wikipedia’s critical mass. Most attempts with any attention are rather horrific. See: Grokipedia.
If Wikipedia dies, nothing good will replace it.
I know that’s a bit defeatist, but I really think its “the best we got.” Nothing better is coming with the state the internet is in now.
And I just want to emphasize that maybe a small community could build something better. I know.
But in terms of “keeping a healthy knowledge base for civilization,” that kind of project doesn’t matter if no-one sees it. Wikipedia is valuable because its a reasonably sane default reference for billions of people, that isn’t some megacorp or government.
See: Grokipedia.
That’s a very low bar.
Well, unfortunately, there is no project like that with Wikipedia’s critical mass. Most attempts with any attention are rather horrific. See: Grokipedia.
Idk if you even want the kind of attention Wikipedia achieved, given how it ultimately became the target of endless waves of scams and influencer operations.
That said, the Wiki format has been prolific in a way even the core website has not been. The core data for Wikipedia has been harvested and replicated across a thousand different boutique iterations. A lot of what made things like Grokipedia and Conservapedia and the rest flop is that these projects tried to administer the sites even more tightly than the original. And it’s an enormous project, so that loads a phenomenal amount of work on a handful of people.
If Wikipedia dies, nothing good will replace it.
That’s an absurd presumption. Just straight off the bat, you have the old Encyclopedia Britannica. You’ve got dozens of alternative Wiki competitors with their own rarified communities of editors and contributors. You’ve got subject-specific Wikis for a thousand different fandoms, hobbies, and crafts. You’ve got physical libraries. You’ve got digital libraries. You’ve got LLM compositions of libraries.
The biggest flaw most of these have is the same one any search engine after Google had. “Why would I go here if I can just go to Wikipedia instead?”
But the idea that tens of millions of curious people and subject-experts are just going to endure a vacuum? Come on.
Wikipedia is valuable because its a reasonably sane default reference for billions of people
It’s a very English-language and Euro-History oriented source of truth for tens of millions of online nerds. If it gets subsumed or shut down or otherwise undermined by western-aligned governments, I might suggest that the problem will not be an absence of Wikipedia but the presence of a malignant surveillance-enabled censorship bureaucracy.
What you will experience is not merely a lack of oxygen but a surplus of boot on your neck.
the old Encyclopedia Britannica.
No one uses this.
You’ve got dozens of alternative Wiki competitors with their own rarified communities of editors and contributors.
No one uses them.
You’ve got subject-specific Wikis for a thousand different fandoms, hobbies, and crafts.
Fandom has a grip on this space, unfortunately, and that’s under Wales too. Yes, I know there are community alternatives, but their traffic/SEO is small in comparison.
But the idea that tens of millions of curious people and subject-experts are just going to endure a vacuum? Come on.
They absolutely will.
They already have!
Look at the rest of the internet. Literally every space, every niche, every congregation of experts has rotted away, and these “curious people and subject-experts” are clingimg to big social media toxic spaces because it’s the default.
It’s a very English-language and Euro-History oriented source of truth for tens of millions of online nerds. If it gets subsumed or shut down or otherwise undermined by western-aligned governments, I might suggest that the problem will not be an absence of Wikipedia but the presence of a malignant surveillance-enabled censorship bureaucracy.
You’re speaking of an internet that, for the bulk of humanity, doesn’t exist anymore. It is all but gone. That’s what I’m saying.
Maybe a few million nerds would create new Wikipedias, but the billions of other people on their phones and tablets would almsot never see it.
And that is dangerous for society. Wikipedia’s sheer critical mass is a huge monkey wrench in “soft” censorship, and for all its faults, every bit Wikipeida is delegitimized is a fascist dream-come-true.
And I hear a lot of people talking like that popularity isn’t important. There’s this sort of “old internet” attiude like we can just archive it and keep to ourselves. What does everyone else matter?
Well. Without Wikipedia putting the braKES on loss of freedoms in our IRL lives, we may lose the ability to do that.
No one uses this.
Estimated annual revenue of around $100M. That’s half of Wikipedia’s. Someone’s using it.
No one uses them.
Quora alone has 400 million monthly active users.
Look at the rest of the internet. Literally every space, every niche, every congregation of experts has rotted away
None of that is true. Your institutional knowledge hasn’t keep pace with the modern net. And your nostalgia has biased you against anything novel or unfamiliar.
You’re rotting. The net is doing fine.
Nobody sane is using Quora as a legitimate source of information. Seems like you’re the one not keeping pace with the modern net. Would you also suggest Pinterest lead the charge in representing collective human knowledge?
Nobody sane is using Quora as a legitimate source of information.
-
Nobody uses anything but Wikipedia
-
Nobody I like use anything but Wikipedia
Uh-huh
Would you also suggest Pinterest lead the charge in representing collective human knowledge?
If you’re interested in art, fashion, or any number of other hobbies, absolutely.
But if you want to host other media on their systems, it works just as well. I suspect you just feel embarrassed to use other websites.
-
The Wikimedia foundation vastly outpaces expenses. Despite doing their best to convince you if you don’t donate $10 right now Wikipedia will literally evaporate 🥺🙏
They can afford to not pay like shit
They’re also wasting massive amounts of money on things outside their core mission and scope.
I think you missed my point.
I’m not worried about them running out of funding. I’m worried about their reputation in the public’s eye.
No I got that I was just pointing out there’s no reason to do this besides naked greed
thanks for this info, cancelled my recurring donation 😮💨 I’ll give that money to a small local org instead
some entries are already questionable asf. some of them are written like an opinon piece, or a hs essay.
Wikipedia is made by people, like me and you. If you see bias or wrong information, you can either fix it or flag it with an appropriate template.
I really would like to, but German Wikipedia for example is something of an inner circle where you can’t do shit. They don’t allow newcomers do touch most of the articles.
Please link such an article. I have never ever received a link to one when asking this question and I always ask for one/them when I read such “accusations”.
I am also curious what AnBee tried to edit and was refused.
Reddit, Wikipedia, Fediverse… powertripping mods are everywhere.
If you’re a newcomer, start with simple edits. Fix small mistakes. Show the community you can be trusted.
Unlikely you can just ‘fix’ most points on articles. They have mad gatekeepers.
I only donate from time to time but people who cancel recurring donations should write to them the reason as to why.
I hate this. I really hate this.
I don’t understand this, the employees are few and the pr fallout + fighting this is much more expensive than just agreeing to what they demand
Plus it’s a foundation and shouldn’t have profit
the employees are few
WMF has 650 employees.
What they’re going to demand is preventing arbitrary layoffs, less bullying in the workspace, etc. Supposedly the Foundation is very toxic workplace. It’s not (just) about the money.
the startups and nonprofits alike peak when it’s the people who do the actual work that create them to solve the actual problems yhey have and they fall when a bunch of mba’s take over to “make money”…
Wikimedia please fire whatever consulting firm told you it’s a good idea to do extractive capitalism as a non-profit foundation, reliant on long-term community goodwill and sustainable work ethics with low turnover rate
So they shit on workers rights…
