Hacker News Reader

Comment by nglgzz | Hacker News Reader

I'm really sad you feel that way. Wikipedia also asks for contributions and donations, does that feel like exploitation to you?

No it doesn't, cause there's a massive amount of work that goes in projects like these and there's costs too. Costs that donations don't always pay.

Would you prefer a huge banner while you're browsing asking you to donate and telling you that if we don't meet a certain quota we're shutting down the website, or would you prefer having an additional feature that you may or may not want to pay for? I don't know you, but I'd definitely go for the second one.

View on HN

Wikipedia is entirely free, and asks for donations to cover its costs. It does not lock any features to paying users only. There is a world of a difference. For this to be the case, on a website made by user contributions no less, is even more upsetting.

And yes, I prefer an unreservedly free website with banners reminding you to donate to a website that makes money off locking certain features to paying costumers only.

It's not about locking features to paying users only. It's about making new features that have enough value to you that you want to pay to use them.

Take the example from the white paper (paid help from experts), I don't get how you'd feel exploited that way, since it's not even related to contributions.

not the parent, but wouldn't contribute on a website that

a) gets its content solely from its users and

b) locks features away behind a paywall

especially if it's for learning. But to each his own and you cannot please everyone. Don't feel discouraged and keep going. The product looks pretty good.

( your simile with wikipedia breaks apart on the b btw, thats why nobody minds it there )

This is just an idea. As we are still not sure what the best way to support this project financially is.

The other option would be to use advertisements but we feel that would actually not help with our goals of providing the best resources available as sponsored content does not necessarily mean the best.

For now, the only support we get is through Patreon but that currently does not cover the costs for the servers let alone justify the time commitment it takes to support the website with new features and improvements.

So, make it a business. Don't try to be a business AND ask for voluntary contributions at the same time.

You wouldn't contribute even if the locked features were unrelated to what you'd be contributing to?

Absolutely not. Why would I offer to build someone else's castle without reward?

I'll gladly contribute to something everyone owns and has rights to, but under no circumstances will I do this for complete strangers that seek to capitalize upon my efforts. I only do that in exchange for a salary.

Would you then also not contribute to Reddit? You are also contributing content to their website that they then use to serve other people ads. There is also Reddit Gold that you can buy to unlock some perks.

The idea is the same for this website. Although we don't want to serve other people ads as we think there are better business models than that.

Reddit (and others eg; Stackoverflow) has a reputation system. Basically, the incentive for contribution on those websites is to earn points of some kind.

The idea may be the same, but I don't see any point system mentioned for contributors here. So why contribute?

We will have a reputation system for users in the future.

As to why you may want to contribute. If you use the website and you find value in it, you can always make it better not only for yourself but for others. Only here, not only can you add links and resources but you can also directly add features and new things as the entire code base is Open Source and thus anyone can edit/fork and make what they want with it for all other people to enjoy.

I take it you don't use YouTube then. All their content is user generated, you get ads, they capitalize on your "efforts", and you have premium features that you can access only by paying (ie. YouTube Red).

YouTube creators get paid for their content. Further, funds from YouTube Red also in part go directly to creators because you are watching ad-free.

YouTube creators get paid if there are enough people watching them. People watching videos, discussing on comment threads, and paying for YouTube Red don't get paid for their effort.

As a side note, I’m not sure if you’re aware but you’re coming off very argumentative. People are trying to give you feedback and you’re arguing to change their minds. The only thing you’re succeeding at is looking like you’re no fun to work with. If you’re trying to build a community of contributors this is not a good look.

I agree with you. We apologise for this. We have indeed changed our mind and we do think it is best to focus on the community and curation of content.

We are just trying to find a way to financially support the project without bringing the website down due to not being able to afford to keep it up.

You're right. I apologize, I didn't want to come across as arrogant or defensive.

So, if your model is like YouTube and Reddit, it's fine. Just make it clear. They didn't collect donations like Patreon when they started.

Personally, I would rather "contribute" to Wikipedia than to YouTube.

This is not related to your main point, but arguably Wikipedia is raising millions of dollars under false pretenses (that is, they run scare ads insisting that money is needed to keep the servers running) while the Wikimedia Foundation spends most of it on projects users don't know about and wouldn't want to fund. I think if the fundraising was more transparent more people would never donate to them again. It's been a number of years since my last donation and I won't be giving to them again until I'm sure the money will be used responsibly.

I don't know, taking a look at their 15-16 annual plan it looks fairly reasonable to me.

Donation to wikipedia is still something i do regularly. I believe in wikipedia and in the people running it.

You're talking at your customers and/or unpaid contributors here instead of talking with them.

The content you're asking people to create requires a massive amount of work. Pretending it is same social/economic contract as Wikipedia is just going to turn people off if you do add a premium version.

You are better off being direct and transparent about your funding model if you want people to help. What features would be premium and why is that acceptable? The about page looks like you plan on being a non-profit organization, is that the goal?

Our goal is to create a completely Open Source website where we share both the code that runs the website and also all the data that was created and curated with it.

In the white paper it mentions that the 'premium' features will in no way block any curated content. The 'premium' features will simply be extra things that we will build like the mentioned `Experts` that you can get direct help from.

Again this is just an idea and in no way final. We wish the project was fully sustained through donations and we currently run no advertisements or anything in which we in some way profit from so in this way we are indeed a non-profit organisation.

However we do want to find a way where we can support maintaining the website by paying for the costs of the servers and the developer time that goes into making this project as amazing as it can be. We are open to ideas on how we can make this better for everyone.

Everything is Open Source and MIT licensed.

> The 'premium' features will simply be extra things that we will build like the mentioned `Experts` that you can get direct help from.

Sounds like the 'premium' features are completely unrelated to this project. I think it will make life easier for you if you completely removed them and spun them off to a different project. (I anal btw)

I actually agree with you there. And I think this is the way we will do it.

So our current ways people can support us are through donations and that is it. Is there anything else do you think we can do aside from advertisements which we want to avoid?

Thank you for keeping an open mind. I don't think people will mind static ads but it shouldn't be a priority. Once you have enough eyeballs, I think you'll be saying no to the ad offers. I think of ads as fairweather friends. If you don't have visitors, they don't even need to kick you out. You'll get a $0.00 payout every month. So, I agree with you. Avoid ads for now. I think a static ad that's basically a tracked link to a sponsor isn't a bad idea and if there's no jacascript involved and it is just a link, I doubt there will be any backlash.

I think someone like linode or digital ocean or heroku would be a good fit as an advertiser? I don't know how these things work. I do know that the money won't be free.

You can't please everyone. I'd say when in doubt, listen to your contributors and donors.

Thoughts?

I believe you're still missing the point. If you're going to create a business while controlling the underlying non-profit community, it creates a conflict of interest. You are misaligning your incentives. You stand to benefit if the non-profit website directly or indirectly drives users to your business. If "personal help/mentoring by experts" is the business, then the website is incentivized to put out confusing/contradicting content, so that users NEED expert help.

It's okay if you still want to take the same path. But it does feel like exploitation to me. I feel much better contributing to Firefox than to Chromium - for example.

When I donate to Wikipedia, I get the assurance that the work produced will be available to the public at large and not locked behind paywalls. Superficially, that's true here too. But I don't want to contribute to projects that are building walled gardens - even indirectly. I would rather contribute to others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com