Hacker News Reader

> I can't write a patch. It's not in my abilities.

> Write them an email? That isn't a serious suggestion, because you know it would accomplish nothing. That's not where these conversations take place.

It sounds like you arent really interested in seeing this fixed.

Sometimes, when you want something fixed, merely complaining or commenting to the right person will get it resolved. Sometimes more effort is required. You are right, an email might not get you the result you want.

But have you tried? If you havent even tried an email I dont think you have the right to complain. You havent made even the smallest effort to constructively advocate or try to resolve the issue. Once youve done that, you have a better case.

I don't know why my technical inability to submit patches for audio plugins is evidence I don't really want to see this fixed. I am not a software developer.

There is zero chance that they are unaware of this issue. So the question is, first, what is the best way to communicate dissatisfaction? And I don't think emails directly to the Wikimedia foundation are effective (and I don't think you think that either).

More importantly, I'm claiming that the Wikimedia foundation, and the Wikipedia community, are negligent regardless of what I personally do. It's beyond obvious to anyone who has thought a wink about UX that this stuff is crap. "We haven't gotten enough emails about it to divert resources from Wiki-con-for-Slovokian-teenagers" is not a plausible defense.

> Write them an email? That isn't a serious suggestion, because you know it would accomplish nothing.

If no-one ever complains about it, it will be difficult to prioritize over things people do complain about.

I'm not saying we shouldn't complain about, I'm saying this particular method (an email directly to the Wikimedia foundation) is not the correct method. More importantly, the email suggestion was not a serious one by the commenter who made it; it was just an attempt to undermine my complaint.

If you donated the money and specified your donation was only to fix the player on the web site and they accepted it, then yes, you have say in how they spend it. You don't have a lot of leverage if they don't spend it on that but you could possibly sue them.

If you donated the money without telling them what they have to spend it on, they can spend it on anything they want.

Good luck finding a lawyer to represent you in this law suit and good luck spending many times your original donation on said lawyer all because you don't like the look of the audio player on the web site.

I was making a moral argument, not a legal one.

See, this is the problem with communism; without incentives, people just do whatever they feel like. And what they feel like might not be valuable.

If Wikipedia had revenue-generating potential for companies, it might be a better resource. As it is, it's turned into a money-generating resource for people who freeload off the goodwill.

(I donated to Wikipedia once; never again.)

How drunk are you to compare Wikipedia to communism???

Btw, the value of the content of a company-based Wikipedia will be none, because noone will trust 'em.

> Think about what you're saying. People can't complain unless they donate, but if they don't like what's happening they should not donate.

I don't think anyone is saying that. You're absolutely free to complain, and we're absolutely free to point out the lack of value of your complaints. That's all that's happening here.