Wikipedia should focus on content creation – not social justice campaigns | Hacker News Reader

Wikipedia should focus on content creation – not social justice campaigns

telegraph.co.uk

52 pointsakolbe31 comments

This essay from someone who has/had been actively editing Wikipedia for more than a decade is relevant. The point there is that there is a lot of unnecessary and superfluous spendnig by the Wikimedia Foundation on things irrelevant to what users use Wikipedia for, which is to find information and learn. He makes a convincing case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...

That essay received attention before, but I only learned about it recently so it may still be useful information for others.

I've read through this and I see no reasons given, just a gut feel that's not being articulated very well.

"nothing to do with" is a perception, it is not a reason. The parallels drawn in TFA remind me of Mozilla and Firefox. Mozilla is talking about election standards [1], but that has nothing to do with Firefox browser. Should we ask them to stop and focus on the browser only?

There are many other orgs that also do multiple things, and stick their nose in where we perceive they should or shouldn't. Religious organisations routinely interfere in government and politics. Corporations lobby and drive public opinion. This is no different - an organisation is advocating for changes in certain areas. You may or may not agree with them.

I cannot fathom the reason for the focus on the Wikimedia Foundation. It is either that the author is seeking low hanging fruit, or is blatantly against the campaigns and seeks to stop them through a piece like this.

[1]: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/minimum-election...

>Should we ask them to stop and focus on the browser only?

Yes.

Mozilla is (or was, anyway) a FOSS organization, their primary and arguably only concern should be the software they develop and publish.

Ad hominem arguments are not compelling. Can't fathom how folks aren't appreciative of being misled over where their money is going?

> I cannot fathom the reason for the focus on the Wikimedia Foundation.

for me what those wikipedia pleas are a bit fraudulent.

they’re asking for money using the founder’s name and face, almost always in a very dramatic fashion, but the money won’t actually be spent on wikipedia.

"Mozilla is talking about election standards [1], but that has nothing to do with Firefox browser. Should we ask them to stop and focus on the browser only?"

Yes. Or at most, the browser, and efforts to keep the internet 'open'.

One thought: wikipedias most important resource isn't content or servers or the software — it is people.

This idea is probably hard to imagine for a writer of the telegraph, but wikipedia has a social space of contributers that it needs to manage in order to reach their goal of becoming a better encyclopedia.

So in order to understand wikipedia lets think about how we could make it worse. A good encyclopedia has relevant content that represents the reality of the world it is written in. Now historically the best way to stray from reality has been to rely on writers who have an uniform background in regards to geography, economics, gender, race and so on. Naturally everybody has gaps in their perception, everybody has misperceptions or cliches in their mind — unavoidable. If you however want them to end up in an encyclopedia you need to make sure those writing and editing all have the same gaps and misperceptions so they never get challenged.

That means diversity in writers and editors is a means to make it less likely their gaps and misconceptions align. So a certain degree of "social justice" is probably necessary for an encyclopedia if it wants to maintain a broad set of people, otherwise we would have social injustice, or the rule of the strongest and the strongest isn't automatically factually correct.

But that would make sense, wouldn't it.

The Wikimedia Foundation social justice efforts aren't related to the encyclopedia, that's the point of the article.

I agree 'atoav's comment is very misleading for anyone unfamiliar with that fact.

If the Wikimedia Foundation's efforts were directed to making an ever better encyclopedia, more precise, more complete, factually accurate, from all possible perspectives, etc... then it wouldn't nearly be viewed so controversially from long time users.

There should be "forking" of articles in Wikipedia and allow different factions with different worldviews to present their versions of articles.

Interesting, i like it, but also sounds chaotic for casual use.

> So it has created a pot to gather up the overspill: an endowment, consisting of investments and cash. This is held and managed not by the Wikimedia Foundation, but by the Tides Foundation, a non-profit charity which funnels money to social justice causes and campaigns.

Is the Wikipedia endowment money used for Tides Foundation grants, etc? Or is the Tides Foundation just the fiscal sponsor?

This would seem to be a material detail.

It is concerning, but this is pretty much a rehash of what was said last year: https://nitter.net/echetus/status/1579777690454089729 -- what has changed since then to prompt this new piece?

This article ends a little disingenuously; of course Wikipedia is written by volunteers, and of course the server costs aren't a large percentage of its outgoings. Most of its outgoings on the core project that is "keep doing Wikipedia" is paying staff to fix bugs and implement functionality for the site, to support those volunteer editors.

Wikimedia does run campaigns to get people interested in editing, or drives to add or improve specific articles; much of this is language-specific and is done by the country-specific Wikimedia orgs rather than the main one. So it's not like they're frittering _all_ the money away, even if, yes, they seem to have made a number of grants that don't seem to fit with their mission.

My first intuitive response was: "And so should the telegraph".

There is no way of being apolitical. What many perceive as apolitical is simply supporting the status quo. And quite frankly, if the political fronts can agree on anything it is that the status quo sucks.

Wikipedia's mission has always been about democratizing access to information. If they're directing funds to social justice causes, it's likely an extension of that mission. Social justice is about leveling the playing field, and what better way to do that than by improving access to knowledge?

Also, another point, Wikipedia has a large community of volunteers who can influence its direction. It's not solely up to Jimmy Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation.

An as per their financials, they publish annual reports and financial statements that anyone can access. The question of transparency might be more about public perception and understanding of these reports rather than the availability of the information.

I believe the distaste is with the donation banners begging for donations like they're going out of business while funneling funds to these campaigns that donors might not realize their donations are going to, versus keeping the lights on. If you have to "manage the facts" to get the donation volume you're after, that's the problem.

Perhaps allow for folks to provide a directed donation to Wikipedia proper, while also allowing unrestricted donations for the social stuff. Otherwise, you're no better than the Red Cross [1] [2], riding on your brand to raise funds while not delivering the impact your donors expect of you.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G_dBggzu-c

[2] https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...

(previously donated to Wikipedia, now directing those funds to the Internet Archive instead)

I get the concern about transparency and donor expectations. But let's not forget that Wikipedia's mission is broader than just 'keeping the lights on.' It's about democratizing access to information. Social justice causes aim to do the same by leveling the playing field. If you're donating to Wikipedia, you're supporting that broader mission, not just server costs.

As for directed donations, that's an interesting idea, but it could also complicate the operational aspects of running a not-for-profit. And if you're not comfortable with how Wikipedia uses its funds, redirecting your donations to another cause you support, like the Internet Archive, is a reasonable course of action.

You need to explicitly state how the social justice causes that money is being given to increase access to information rather than repeatedly state they may potentially do that.

First we would need to define what "social justice" is in this context (other than a very, very loaded term that is used to start flame wars).

So what does wikipedia do when it "does social justice"?

Because the way I think about wikipedia their most important resource isn't content, it is people — and people tend to move in social spaces.

We probably agree that an encyclopedia that should be worth it's paper/bytes that encyclopedia needs to represent reality.

Representing reality has historically not worked well when all writers came from the same background and demographic, as this leads to blind spots or common misconceptions that occur in that populus to be reproduced. So having a more diverse cast of writers helps the quality of the built-in checks and balances because the holes in their perception are less likely to align.

On top of that if more writers feel welcome (it is a social space after all), there will also more content on more topics.

So when the telegraph polemically demands wikipedia should focus on the content, they might want to consider that they actually do.

Sure, let's entertain the idea that Wikipedia should only use donations for 'keeping the lights on.' By that logic, any organization with a broader mission should only focus on its most immediate, operational needs. Schools should only pay for buildings and teachers, not extracurriculars that broaden students' horizons. Hospitals should only pay for beds and doctors, not research that could save lives in the future. Libraries should just maintain the building and pay librarians, but who cares about carefully selecting books that can educate and empower the community, right?

Wikipedia's mission isn't just to exist; it's to democratize access to information. Social justice initiatives often aim to do the same by providing resources and platforms for marginalized communities. So, if you're donating to Wikipedia, you're supporting that broader mission, not just the electricity bill.

and most imporatntly, if you don't like it, don't donate.

> > You need to explicitly state how the social justice causes that money is being given to increase access to information rather than repeatedly state they may potentially do that.

> Sure

Then do it. Your reply didn’t provide an answer.

That's not how anything works.

You aren't a stock holder.

They are not beholden to you.

You are donating money.

They run the org they decide what's best to accomplishing their goals.

If you don't like it, don't donate.

We are talking about them misleading folks with their donation drives. Paying themselves 10x while workers get nothing.

“Don’t donate if you don’t like it” is not even near good enough, sorry.

I asked you to explicitly state how the social justice causes increase access to information.

You replied sure but then didn't do this.

I asked you again.

You didn't do this.

You may get more attention and interest from other people if you stop pretending to respond to them.

Nailer, you're being pedantic and it doesn't feel like you're arguing in good faith. But fine, you want receipts? Check out wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/#a1-2022-2023. Now, let's talk about why those receipts matter. You're hung up on this "show me the receipts" thing like it's a gotcha moment. But let's get real: social justice isn't just virtue signaling. It's about ensuring Wikipedia isn't an echo chamber for a handful of people. More voices mean a more comprehensive and nuanced resource. If you can't connect those dots, I can't help you. Social justice has been part of democratic institutions since the Athenian days. This isn't some radical concept. A wiki, by definition, is a collaborative, democratic space. So, are you saying diversity of viewpoints is bad? Look up buffalo.edu/news/releases/2018/08/031.html for some research that disagrees. Still not convinced that social justice is integral to democracy? Check out jstor.org/stable/193608. If you're still not on board, no worries. Donating is a choice, not a mandate. Your money, your call.

>Social justice is about leveling the playing field,

Social justice is just a nicer term for anarchy, because it's justice as society (read: certain vocal minority groups) deems it. There is nothing consistent nor fair about it, because what justice is can differ from day to day depending on the mood of society.

Leveling the playing field, as you put it, is done by pursuing legal justice: Writing and passing legislation and judging all parties concerned before a court of law equally and fairly.

Neither have anything to do with democratizing access to information either.

Interesting perspective, but I disagree. Social justice isn't about anarchy; it's about addressing systemic inequalities that legal justice sometimes overlooks or even perpetuates. Laws are often a reflection of societal values, which can be biased. Social justice aims to challenge and change those biases.

As for democratizing access to information, it's directly related. Information is power. When you make information accessible, you empower people to make informed decisions, challenge biases, and even influence those very laws you're talking about. So, in a way, social justice and information access are two sides of the same coin.

Most of the social justice I’ve seen recently has been attempting to promote and formalise biases, for example racial discrimination against Asians and Europeans for US university admissions.

the concept of Social Justice is a wide field and has existed since the moment human beings started to organized themselves into tribes. Its not just "promoting and formalizing" ideas that you just happen to disagree with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice?useskin=vector#...

Sounds nice, but doesn't excuse them from asking for money to support the sites then using ~98% of the money for salaries and pet causes.

Wiki{m,p}edia has some 'splaining to do!

Wikipedia has lasted this long without directly paying editors. Why start paying them just for the sake of it? Also, if you don't like how they are using money, don't donate. As long as it's not being used maliciously I don't see a problem. And yes, donating to racial and climate justice causes is not malicious, we really don't need a woke boogeyman culture war targeting wikipedia. Those have done enough harm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com