HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

elect_engineer

290 karma · joined April 2, 2013

submissionscomments
elect_engineer··on Wikipedia Has Cancer (2017)
Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer".

See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...

Re: "They're working on an endowment afaik", Yes. They are. which is why I have called on the WMF to "build up our endowment, and structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the principal when times get bad."

The danger I warn about in my essay is the WMF continuing to increase spending even if donations stop increasing. If they do that there is currently nothing stopping them from draining the endowment and spending it.

elect_engineer··on Wikipedia Has Cancer (2017)
Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer".

See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...

Re: "Here's another view of the WMF's runaway spending", that same graph is part of my essay, but the version in my essay has links so you can see the sources used to create the graph.

elect_engineer··on Wikipedia Has Cancer (2017)
Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer".

See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...

Re: "In the case of insolvency I don't think the board will have much choice"; this is a key point to understanding my essay. Imagine someone winning a huge lawsuit and the WMF not being able to pay. Or imagine a really bad scandal (something like The New York Times publishing conclusive proof that the WMF is a front for ISIS) and donations drop through the floor, followed by the WMF continuing to increase spending until they run out of funds. None of these doomsday scenarios are likely, but they are not impossible either.

elect_engineer··on Wikipedia Has Cancer (2017)
Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer".

See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...

It is not true that "Over half of the board is elected by the community of editors".

The WMF board is composed of ten members:

Four who are appointed by the board itself;

Three who are selected by the community encompassed by all the different Wikimedia projects

Two who are selected by the local chapters and thematic organizations

One emeritus for the foundation's founder, Jimmy Wales.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Board_of_...

elect_engineer··on Wikipedia Has Cancer (2017)
A fork would be extremely unlikely to attract enough editors.

Forking Wikipedia is already allowed and encouraged: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks That page even has a place to list new forks so they are easy to find.

The only way to make it work would be for the existing Wikipedia to run out of money and have to shut down. That isn't happening any time soon.

elect_engineer··on Wikipedia Has Cancer (2017)
Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer".

See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...

The WMF has no plans to sell out to a commercial outfit like Google or Facebook , but is it actually illegal for them to do so?

See https://money.cnn.com/2008/01/15/smbusiness/non_profit_sale....

While it can be difficult to sell a nonprofit like Wikipedia to someone like Google or Facebook, it isn't impossible.

There are two ways that the commercial entity could get a court to agree with the sale and both of them start with the WMF screwing up so badly that they run out of money and need to either sell of shut down. We are nowhere near that, but it could happen in the future. I have talked this over with people who appear to know the law on this, but I am an engineer, not a lawyer. If a real lawyer replies, please ignore me and listen to them.

There are a couple of things the commercial entity could do to make it more likely to get approval from a court.

They could simply say that they are abandoning all of the federal and state tax exemptions that a nonprofit enjoys. The easy way to do this would be for the wikipedia.org domain to announce the end of wikipedia and tell everyone that they have accounts with the same usernames and passwords on the new wikipedia.google.com site which runs the exact same software and has the exact same content as the now-frozen wikipedia.com version. Add the usual "we don't plan on changing anything; we just want to save the now-failed wikipedia" language.

Or they could create a new, independent nonprofit with the same rules as the WMF has now but with funding by a generous donation from Google and fork the content as above. As above, the key to making this work is the existing Wikipedia running out of money and shutting down.

So, while it isn't going to happen any time soon, it isn't actually illegal.

elect_engineer··on Wikipedia Has Cancer (2017)
Hello. I am the author of the "Wikipedia has cancer" essay on Wikipedia. After I finish writing this I I will confirm this with a post to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy_Mac...] on Hacker news I read HN pretty much every day, even though I don't post very often.

I will be happy to discuss any aspect of my essay on Wikipedia, and I would especially be interested in correcting any errors that may have crept in.

elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation's runaway spending growth
I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has Cancer".

Re: "It's also become a target for parties that want to manipulate it, but has been surprisingly resilient to that" not a penny of the budget deals with parties that want to manipulate Wikipedia. That is dealt with by unpaid volunteers like me. --~~~~

elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation's runaway spending growth
I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has Cancer".

No, you are missing the point. I did not imply that Waterfall if better than Agile (I have managed several Agile projects and really like it when it is done correctly). What my point is is that the WMF is failing to do things that Agile requires -- things that have been around so long that Waterfall required them. Nothing about Agile allows you to build software in secret with no input from the people who will be expected to use it and then throw it over the wall.

It would again stress that this is not the fault of the developers. Their management forbids them from talking to the ordinary Wikipedia editors who will use the software.

elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation's runaway spending growth
I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has Cancer". I have recently had extensive private correspondence with several current and former Wikimedia foundation software developers. The developers are not living lavishly. They are doing about as well financially as developers in other industries. In addition, the developers are not doing a poor job. Every problem with the software that the WMF has released was caused by bad management decisions, mostly by managers who no longer work there.
elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation's runaway spending growth
I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has Cancer". I have included links to all of the financials that I could find in my essay, and I have repeatedly asked for more transparency regarding how the money has been spent.

Just to take one example, Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation executive director from 2007 to 2014, received $100,000 pay rise and was secretly kept on as a "special advisor" after we were all told that she stepped down in 2014. This was kept secret for years, until it turned up buried in a required financial disclosure.

I also would like a breakdown of where the money has gone and realistic projections of futures expenses. What you see is my best effort to provide that. If anyone has more information, I will be glad to add it to my essay.

elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation's runaway spending growth
I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has Cancer". For the record, I am myself a cancer survivor, and I have received multiple emails from other Wikipedians who have cancer saying that they have no problem with my essay title.
elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation's runaway spending growth
I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has Cancer". The previous discussion led to a version of my essay that was published with my permission in the Wikipedia Signpost. That version was dumbed-down a bit by the signpost editors, In particular they removed most of the references that document that my claims are factual. This version is the version I keep updated as errors are found.

For the record, I prefer that this thread have the same title as my essay. The current title misses several important aspects of my essay, such as transparency and the dependency on revenues always increasing.

elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation's runaway spending growth
I am the author of the essay "Wikipedia has Cancer". I did put a lot of effort into documenting my claims, and I would encourage anyone interested in clicking on the links in the essay. In particular, I have documented what others have said about Wikipedia financials, and some of those pages are rather good.

Whether you agree with me or not, I would ask everyone to keep an eye out for any factual errors so that I can correct them.

elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation's runaway spending growth
I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has Cancer". For the record, I would prefer that this thread have the same title as my essay. The replacement title("Wikimedia Foundation's runaway spending growth") only tells part of the story. My essay is not only about spending, but also on the lack of transparency, the dependence on revenues increasing exponentially with no plans for dealing with a downturn, the spectacularly poor quality of the software that we are spending millions on, and the deceptive banners asking for donations. Please restore the original title.
elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation's runaway spending growth
I am the author of the Wikipedia Essay "Wikipedia has Cancer". For the record, I would prefer that this thread have that title (it was recently changed to "Wikimedia Foundation's runaway spending growth".

I would also note that focusing on hosting costs pretty much ignores the point of my essay, which is the exponential growth of spending and the dependence on future exponential growth in revenue.

elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation spending
Were you aware that the vast majority of both the WMF board of directors and the WMF top management have close ties to Google? Or that a large chunk of those millions that the WMF has been spending went to creating a secret search engine? https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wikipedias-secret...

Please note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... is the origiginal essay, and the version in the Signpost has been modified at the request of the Signpost editors.

elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation spending
From [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... ]:

"In particular, their poor handling of software development has been well known for many years. The answer to the WMF's problems with software development has been well known for decades and is extensively documented in books such as The Mythical Man-Month and Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams, yet I have never seen any evidence that the WMF has been following standard software engineering principles that were well-known when Mythical Man-Month was first published in 1975. If they had, we would be seeing things like requirements documents and schedules with measurable milestones. This failure is almost certainly a systemic problem directly caused by top management, not by the developers doing the actual work."

"This is not to imply that decades-old software development methods are somehow superior to modern ones, but rather that the WMF is violating basic principles that are common to both. Nothing about Agile or SCRUM means that the developers do not have to talk to end users, create requirements, or meet milestones. In fact, modern software development methods require more communication and interaction with the final end users. Take as an example the way Visual Editor was developed. There are many pages of documentation on the WMF servers and mailing lists, but no evidence that any developer had any serious discussions with the actual editors of Wikipedia who would be using the software. Instead. the role of "customer" was played by paid WMF staffers who thought that they knew what Wikipedia editors need better than the editors themselves do. Then they threw the result over the wall, and the community of Wikipedia editors largely rejected it. Or Knowledge Engine, which was developed in secret before being cancelled when word got out about what the WMF was planning. Another example: The MediaWiki edit toolbar ended up being used by a whopping 0.03% of active editors."

elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation spending
You are correct. I am arguing that WMF engineering practices are so disorganized that not only don't they qualify as agile, they don't even qualify as waterfall (which predates agile by several decades). In particular, I am part of the community of Wikipedia editors. Nobody asked us what flow or Knowledge Engine should look like. That's part of Waterfall AND Agile. Yes a dedicated person can go to the developer's separate Wiki and mailing lists, but on Wikipedia itself there is zero evidence that the principles I see at [ http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html ] are in play.

Again, the developers and their managers know this. I am convinced that they have been told in no uncertain terms that they will be fired if they interact with the Wikipedia community.

(I am the author of the op-ed. A better version is at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... ].)

elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation spending
(I am the author of the op-ed. A better version is at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... ].)

I am very familiar with Agile and Scum, and I have seen the advantages over older paradigms such as waterfall. That being said, there are certain basic principles that the old methods and the new methods have in common. One such principle is the basic idea of having some sort of contact with the people who will be using the finished software and understanding their needs. The WMF does not do that. Instead, they build something in secret, throw it over the wall, and watch as the Wikipedia editors reject it as the steaming pile of crap that it is. They have done this again and again. Visual Editor. Flow. Mobile App. Knowledge Engine. All failures. All built without any input from the people who would be using them.

Now I KNOW that the developers are not stupid or ignorant, and I have checked as best I can and it appears that every one of them was able to create high quality software that meets the customer's needs when they were working other places. That leaves me with management as the probable culprit. And I don't think that the problem is product managers like the author of the post above this one. I think the blame is at the very top.

I would advise anyone who really wishes to understand these issues to at least read the pages linked to on my [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... ] page, especially [ http://mollywhite.net/wikimedia-timeline/ ]

Finally, if it really "it takes minimal digging to find all their plans and timelines", I would like to see this demonstrated by providing links to the plans and timelines for the Knowledge Engine. --~~~~

elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation spending
(I am the author of the op-ed. A better version is at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... ].)

The question as I understand it is is "if no other money comes in how long could Wikipedia operate?

If you assume (and I do) that the Wikimedia foundation (WMF) would keep on the spending path they are on, it would take a year plus or minus a few months to go completely broke. If they were to immediately respond with massive spending cuts they could last a lot longer.

The reason I don't believe that the WMF will react to a revenue decrease with spending cuts is because they really, really, believe that everything they are doing and everything they have planned is absolutely essential. Plus, it is human nature to say "this is temporary. The revenue will go back to increasing next year", all the while greatly expanding the fundraising appeals.

elect_engineer··on Wikimedia Foundation spending
I am the author of this op-ed, which I will prove by posting a comment on my Wikipedia talk page [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guy_Macon#Hacker_New... ] before saving this. I am open to any questions, criticism, or discussion. BTW, as I noted in the op-ed. At the request of the editors of The Signpost, the version linked to at the top of this thread has fewer citations and less information in the graphic. The original version is at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... ]
elect_engineer··on Novena Update
Any time I design a laptop into, say, a robotics system, I have to buy at least a dozen spares and store them away, because five years later when the laptop dies and a $500,000 machine that generates $1,000 per hour in profits goes down, that model of laptop will no longer be available. With open-hardware like Novena, I have a good chance of being able to make a new one that is compatible five years down the road, and can get by with two spares in storage.
elect_engineer··on Novena Update
Bunnie Huang is definitely one of the Good Guys. One of the signs that he really "gets it" regarding open source software and hardware is at the bottom of his web page: "This work by Andrew (bunnie) Huang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported."

Also see:

Wikipedia: Novena (computing platform)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novena_(computing_platform)

Wikipedia: Andrew Huang

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Huang

Wired: The Almost Completely Open Source Laptop Goes on Sale

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/novena/

Laptop Magazine: Novena Helps Hackers Build Their Own Laptop

http://blog.laptopmag.com/novena-open-source-laptop

Crowd Supply: Novena Open Laptop

https://www.crowdsupply.com/kosagi/novena-open-laptop)

Crowd Supply: Novena Open Laptop Stretch Goals

https://www.crowdsupply.com/kosagi/novena-open-laptop/stretc...

Note: I have no connection with Bunnie Huang or Novena other than as a fellow engineer and interested potential customer.

elect_engineer··on True Goodbye: ‘Using TrueCrypt Is Not Secure’
AxCrypt looks solid for your purpose. Obviously if you are whoever it is who replaced Bin Laden you can't even trust your keyboard -- it might be reporting what you type to the NSA -- but for ordinary users it is a good choice. Plus, it is mature and unlikely to destroy your data through a bug.
elect_engineer··on Professor tells 1700 students to edit Wikipedia, 85% plagiarism rate
Interesting PR spin...

"...the new course called Wiki Scholar, designed by psychology professor Steve Joordens, who believes that by learning to write and rewrite research until it makes sense to the wider Wiki world, students are forced to grasp ideas more deeply — and produce research that is useful..."

http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2012/07/23/wiki...

"Cognitive psychologist Steve Joordens, from the University of Toronto Scarborough in Canada, believes the APSWI provides students with effective practice for solving real-world problems. 'You can do it in any class,' he said. 'It’s really a good thing to enhance deep learning skills and another tool we can use to keep our students in the mental gym.'"

http://dev.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/o...

"Using Wikipedia in a Mega Classroom: A 1,700 Student Case Study

Steve Joordens, University of Toronto Scarborough, Canada

Students in our Introductory Psychology mega-class could earn bonus marks by signing up to the APS Wikipedia Initiative and making minor edits to two psychology-related Wikipedia entries. We describe our implementation of such a large scale assignment and report data depicting the rate of participation, the quality of the edits, and the larger impact on both students and Wikipedia Psychology content. We also highlight some of the difficulties we initially encountered and our attempts to minimize them in efforts to hone the 'many small edits' approach to answering the APS Wikipedia Initiative."

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/2012-w...

elect_engineer··on Professor tells 1700 students to edit Wikipedia, 85% plagiarism rate
Because I am one of the Elect of course!

Seriously tho created an account because I never had anything to post to Hacker News before and for the title I just copied the title on the Wikipedia page and cut it down to eighty characters as required by hacker news

Here is a previous assignment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colin/A_large_scale_studen...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colin/Introduction_to_Psyc...

Here is the 2013 assignment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colin/Introduction_to_Psyc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WoodSnake

← PreviousPage 2 of 2