337
Elon Musk takes aim at Wikipedia
(www.newsweek.com)
This is why billionaires shouldn't exist.
If only someone would make them not exist.
Elon’s a pretty public guy, right?
Mmm,
Mmhmm
Oh
Musk's actions and expressed views have made him a polarizing figure. He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including COVID-19 misinformation; affirming antisemitic and transphobic comments, and promoting conspiracy theories. His ownership of Twitter has been controversial because of the layoffs of a large number of employees, an increase in posts containing hate speech, misinformation and disinformation on the website, and changes to website features, including verification.
Ah, that’s probably why. People are allowed to expose him without being censored on wiki.
I actually wasn't going to donate to Wikipedia this year because I'm pretty strapped but fuck it. I'm donating more than I did last year I can put more stuff on a credit card this season instead.
Fuck Elon Musk. And fuck anyone who buys his stupid fucking cars.
Right on. Consider also contributing to an article. Volunteers work tirelessly to filter the misinformation pushed by stakeholders like Elon Musk and the army he can afford to employ to fuck up articles full-time.
Donated as well. Fuck Musk.
So I just donated to Wikipedia.
I donated to Wikipedia for the first time because fuck that guy.
Same
I'm kinda in awe how Elon finds every day new ways to be a utter and complete piece of shit.
I'm not, only because I've never once been in awe of any damn thing that piece of shit has ever ~~done~~ stolen credit for, and don't intend to start now.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Now they're openly admiting that they're against everything that makes the live better for everyone? Has the brainwashing succeeded?
Now they’re openly admiting that they’re against everything that makes the live better for everyone?
always have been
A better life is a "woke" idea.
Tbf, if it is true, it is kinda ridiculous they spend 29℅ of their budget on DEI nonsense. They should use their donations for keeping up the infrastructure and maybe rewarding high-quality editors. Kinda tells me they are doing very well financially and I'm better off supporting other projects.
Musk can still go fuck himself.
i don't get what problem you would have about "bias" over wikipedia if you care about the truth and facts.
just kind of exposes what it's really about for musk.
I’ll donate, once they start blocking corporate and government contributors.
It's hard, however, to deal with people acting as individuals who just happen to be paid by Apartheid Manchild to write or edit articles slanted to his fucked-up worldview.
Can somebody take aim on his head finally?
Won't somebody rid us of this meddlesome billionaire?
TBH i think we need Mario for this one
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
"Wikipedia is built on the premise that it becomes better when more people of different backgrounds—including political persuasions—source, edit, curate and research content. Our equity goal advances that. The 'Safety & Inclusion' goal (now titled 'Safety & Integrity' in our 2024-2025 plan) is focused on ensuring that people are able to freely access and safely contribute to knowledge on Wikipedia in a changing legal and policy environment globally."
Magoo: RAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!! WHITE CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS are the only REAL people!! WE'RE the only people that matter!!
load more comments
(5 replies)
I donated to Wikipedia once before, but never again. Their endowment has grown to a level where they should be completely self-sustained. However, spending is out of control.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
Edit: I'm glad Wikipedia exists, but to say they are hurting for more cash is completely false. Even according to their own financial disclosures, web hosting expenses have stabilized under $4-million a year (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation). As contributions continue to grow, it is spent on higher salaries for executives. The CEO made $789k in 2021, all while content is created by volunteers.
Edit, edit: a relevant chart straight from the Wikimedia Foundation Wiki page is below. Internet hosting is one of the smallest expense buckets and has been relatively flat year-over-year. Alternatively, salaries and wages are on an unsustainable upward trajectory. This chart is even a few years old and salaries have almost doubled in the last three years to over $101-million in 2023, all while hosting expenses have remained flat.
Did you not read the part where this is the seventh most visited site on the internet... in the world? Literally any other website would be paying their CEO millions upon millions. This guy is basically taking a gigantic pay cut working for Wikimedia.
And do you have any idea how much it costs to have the bandwidth and server space to host the enormity of Wikipedia? It is quite literally one of the physically largest web sites on the internet. And it is continually and constantly being added to. The only other voluntary free information site that really beats it is the wayback machine. Which is another favorite target of conservative douchebags.
It's almost as if rich media moguls don't like people having free access to information they don't control.
And quite frankly I'm of the opinion that you are likely either working for one of them or one of Elon's army of sycophants (I had to retype that several times because it kept auto correcting to "sicko fans", and honestly I don't think that's all that inaccurate either) who are out to help him control the narrative.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to have the bandwith and server space to host the enormity of Wikipedia?
Yes $2,335,918 in 2019 per their disclosures. They spend more on travel expenses.
Wikipedia is a non-profit. The goal shouldn't be to rake in tons of cash.
Legal fees and legal staff take up much of their expenses as well. When you have a platform that aims to make truth public, you are getting threatened with lawsuits 24 hours a day.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Why should non-profits not want to "rake in tons of cash" if it helps advance the mission of the non-profit?
Because in this case, all the increases in contributions go straight to the executives. I think I've been very on-point with this. On most days, I would expect Lemmizens to be overwhelmingly anti-CEO. I guess this isn't one of those days.
789k was pay + severance for Katherine Maher who left in 2021. Now that does seem excessive, I don't know how that number came about or why severance was 600k but the year before Katherine's comp was 406k. The compensation for the current CEO is 534k for 2023 per https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200049703
Of course that seems like a lot of money, and it is, but to put it in perspective, I am just another software engineer and I make more than that. In HCOL areas, at "big tech" it's common for entry level SDEs with a BS to make 160-180k.
So as I stated in a different comment, your criticism seems misplaced. What you have a problem with is really the financial situation our society is dealing with, and that's perfectly reasonable. I would 100% agree that current wealth/pay distribution needs to be addressed.
I'm not going to disagree with your comments in regards to the compensation for the singular CEO. However, I think this is a more widespread issue within the foundation. (I did say "executives" in my last comment.) The chart below is straight from the Wikimedia Foundation wiki page and one expense category is increasing a lot quicker than the others. This chart is a little outdated now, but salary expenses have continued to increase. According to the last disclosure, salaries and benefits are now over $101-million. That's almost double where the chart left off, all while other expense categories have barely moved. Internet hosting in 2023 was only $3.12-million.
Wikimedia has a lot of cash on hand. Even with the exorbitant spending over the years, the foundation and endowment combined have accumulated over $400-million. Through interest alone, I don't see why the core functions of Wikipedia should ever be in financial jeopardy. This is especially the case if you consider that, even without persistent requests for donations, donations won't just stop completely.
I’m pretty sure we want content created, vetted, and edited by volunteers. It prevents bias, in theory.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Crowdsourced information does put a bit of a damper on the whole “history written by the victors” thing.
Well, I hate to admit it, but I've never donated to Wikipedia.
But this just made me set up a recurring donation. Streisand effect sorta, I guess.
Fuck Elon Musk.
Fourth most visited site in the world.. he wants to install ads on it and own it.
(and control what it says)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Elon takes aim and the media are right there to make his job easier. Thank goodness there's reporting on everything he wants.
I donate $20 every year, but I also donate again whenever this goof makes headlines going after Wikipedia. Feels good. Fuck you, cunt.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Guy who owns biased platform claims other platform that has negative views on him is biased. Someone tell Elon that if he donates enough he can have controlling shares of Wiki. He can't, but he doesn't have to know that.
If you didn't buy a bunch of hard drives on Black Friday, ya probably should've.
Information is about to get restricted. Authoritarianism is coming down the pipes.
Buckle up, buttercup. Encrypt that shit and hang on.
Ah yes, any platform that may contradict his obvious attempt to dominate America through propaganda must be removed.
This parasite is doing his best to lead humanity further down the path of annihilation. He needs to go.
Made a donation just to spite him. Fuck you Elon.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
337 points (100.0% liked)
Enough Musk Spam
2272 readers
505 users here now
For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.
No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.
Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.
Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.
Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS