Hacker News Reader

No, I understand completely; it wasn't clear from my post. I've been an editor myself since 2004.

What Wikimedia have done is create a platform and mission and steered that mission to produce a culture that has bred the unpaid editors and kept them on-mission and stopped too many of them going rogue. That platform steering is not to be underestimated. Too many sites with user-generated content descend into insanity within a short amount of time.

View on HN

As a former admin, I don't think I ever interacted with anyone from WMF. As you probably know, deletions, locks, bans, bot approvals, etc. are normally handled by volunteers. Even requests for adminship are discussed by volunteers, then finalized by volunteer bureaucrats.

I would say the culture you mention was bred in very early days of Wikipedia. Editor activity peaked in 2007, when the annual budget was ~$2m. The prior year was <$800k.

Okay, I understand, and thanks for explaining. (I first registered an account in 2006.)

To what extent do you think it is the Foundation that keeps this culture and mindset going these days? And does more money and higher pay help them to do so?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com