The Wikipedia Test
Technology
8
Beiträge
6
Kommentatoren
95
Aufrufe
-
What if there was a simple test to make sure every new internet regulation preserved the spaces and parts of the internet that you love the most?
We get it; we really do. Lawmakers across the world are rightly focused on regulating powerful, for-profit platforms to mitigate the harms ascribed to social media and other threats online. When developing such legislation, however, some draft laws can inadvertently place public interest projects like Wikipedia at risk. At the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that hosts Wikipedia and other Wikimedia platforms, we have found that when a proposed law harms Wikipedia, in many cases it likely harms other community-led websites, open resources, or digital infrastructure.
That is why we have created the Wikipedia Test: a public policy tool and a call to action to help ensure regulators consider how new laws can negatively affect online communities and platforms that provide services and information in the public interest.
-
What if there was a simple test to make sure every new internet regulation preserved the spaces and parts of the internet that you love the most?
We get it; we really do. Lawmakers across the world are rightly focused on regulating powerful, for-profit platforms to mitigate the harms ascribed to social media and other threats online. When developing such legislation, however, some draft laws can inadvertently place public interest projects like Wikipedia at risk. At the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that hosts Wikipedia and other Wikimedia platforms, we have found that when a proposed law harms Wikipedia, in many cases it likely harms other community-led websites, open resources, or digital infrastructure.
That is why we have created the Wikipedia Test: a public policy tool and a call to action to help ensure regulators consider how new laws can negatively affect online communities and platforms that provide services and information in the public interest.
on the one hand they make some valid points on the other hand it's a little disgusting how much wikipedia execs get payed and how sweaty they get when they worry about having to pay content moderators. currently they just pocket most of the donations they get but with increased running costs that would get harder.
don't get me wrong, wikipedia is an important project and they deserve fair compensation but grabbing $700k per year for managing it seems a bit steep eh? it's not like they're forging new business strategies and conquering markets. they have a very simple concept and just keep it running. a post it note on the ceo door with "keep going lads" on it might outperform them and save some money.
-
on the one hand they make some valid points on the other hand it's a little disgusting how much wikipedia execs get payed and how sweaty they get when they worry about having to pay content moderators. currently they just pocket most of the donations they get but with increased running costs that would get harder.
don't get me wrong, wikipedia is an important project and they deserve fair compensation but grabbing $700k per year for managing it seems a bit steep eh? it's not like they're forging new business strategies and conquering markets. they have a very simple concept and just keep it running. a post it note on the ceo door with "keep going lads" on it might outperform them and save some money.
Isn’t $700k per year really low for a CEO or high level exec of an extremely visible, important, high-profile firm?
-
Isn’t $700k per year really low for a CEO or high level exec of an extremely visible, important, high-profile firm?
Just because it's low compared to other CEOs doesn't make it reasonable and justified. Also, Wikipedia isn't a "high-profile firm". It's (at least supposed to be) a non-profit that takes donations to keep the site running and free.
-
Isn’t $700k per year really low for a CEO or high level exec of an extremely visible, important, high-profile firm?
Yes see comment above.
-
on the one hand they make some valid points on the other hand it's a little disgusting how much wikipedia execs get payed and how sweaty they get when they worry about having to pay content moderators. currently they just pocket most of the donations they get but with increased running costs that would get harder.
don't get me wrong, wikipedia is an important project and they deserve fair compensation but grabbing $700k per year for managing it seems a bit steep eh? it's not like they're forging new business strategies and conquering markets. they have a very simple concept and just keep it running. a post it note on the ceo door with "keep going lads" on it might outperform them and save some money.
While 700k may look like a lot (and by most objective measures it is), the skill set needed to run a successful non/not for profit is actually quite unique no matter how big or small it is. They do not work not like "normal" CEOs. Replace caring about share price, and moving the share price up effectively versus caring about voluntary donations from people who get nothing out of but perhaps a tax break. And you're competing not against other equities (stocks); you're competing against other non/not for profits for limited money and attention.
Anyway, just saying I do not begrudge that level of compensation to the people running the last corner of the internet not filled with AI slop.
-
While 700k may look like a lot (and by most objective measures it is), the skill set needed to run a successful non/not for profit is actually quite unique no matter how big or small it is. They do not work not like "normal" CEOs. Replace caring about share price, and moving the share price up effectively versus caring about voluntary donations from people who get nothing out of but perhaps a tax break. And you're competing not against other equities (stocks); you're competing against other non/not for profits for limited money and attention.
Anyway, just saying I do not begrudge that level of compensation to the people running the last corner of the internet not filled with AI slop.
But the donations are only necessary because of inflated salaries. It's like saying we have to pay this pastry chef because the pastry chef loves to eat their own cake. They're just feeding themselves.
The cost of server infrastructure is comparatively tiny so if they'd run it lean it'd have enough cash to last ages already. Also posting a banner on their site with massive reach isn't exactly rocket surgery.
I know there are worse things but I strongly dislike nonprofits wasting donation money.
-
What if there was a simple test to make sure every new internet regulation preserved the spaces and parts of the internet that you love the most?
We get it; we really do. Lawmakers across the world are rightly focused on regulating powerful, for-profit platforms to mitigate the harms ascribed to social media and other threats online. When developing such legislation, however, some draft laws can inadvertently place public interest projects like Wikipedia at risk. At the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that hosts Wikipedia and other Wikimedia platforms, we have found that when a proposed law harms Wikipedia, in many cases it likely harms other community-led websites, open resources, or digital infrastructure.
That is why we have created the Wikipedia Test: a public policy tool and a call to action to help ensure regulators consider how new laws can negatively affect online communities and platforms that provide services and information in the public interest.
You act like they want us to have access to information they don't have full control over. I'm pretty sure that's a really low priority for most of them.
