Wikipedia founding method

[WinkAllKerb'']

just curious, personnaly supporting B choice obviously, while country won't have anithing to say on what's dynamically published there, languages and knowledges evolved a lot since cavern ages and i think it belong to every earth beings, plus the monthly taxe per citizen and per country will be ridiculous applied to servers cares (like 0.00001 cent or something may be)

(by equally divided: per individual might be better dunno, then come the counting individual  thingies, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_product & etc ... anyway it should belong to state as a taxes imho )

national education tax, international education tax anyone ?

"quota-pars" system refer to something applied  applied in urbanism and co-property to divide a building maintenance cost amongst the people living in the building

Edited October 4, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[Snark]

I think it's fine as it is.

Rationale:

• It works.  It's run competently by the Wikimedia Foundation, it has the funds it needs to do its job.  "Don't fix it if it ain't broke."
• It's fair.  It's funded by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, which relies on public contributions & grants.  That means that the only people spending money to support it are the ones who have both the desire and the ability to do so.
• It's magnanimous.  Everyone gets the benefit, including, for example, the impoverished who wouldn't be able to afford to support it.
• It's unfettered.  If you tried to make it funded by some government entity (or multiple governments), or any such organizations:  the money would come with strings attached.  Those entities would want to have some sort of say on what does (or, more likely, what doesn't) show up there.  I've grown cynical enough to be wary of such entanglements.  I don't see how adding layers of government bureaucracy would help it, given that it's doing just fine on its own.
• It's safe.  Even if for some reason you don't trust the Wikimedia Foundation... the beauty of the situation is that you don't have to.  The data is there, and it's safe.  You don't have to worry about "what if they suddenly go out of business somehow", because the data is out there already-- anyone who wants to (who has the bandwidth and storage capacity) can actually download the entire contents of Wikipedia, and I can guarantee that there are people out there who have done that.  If Wikimedia Foundation vanished tomorrow and took down all their servers, one way or another it would pop up again somewhere.  Or even if you're worried "they could turn evil and pull the plug and try to legally prevent people from doing that" ... they can't, because the content is licensed Creative Commons which means it's publicly copyable and that permission can't be revoked by anyone including the license holder.

Anyway, just my two cents. 

[WinkAllKerb'']

8 minutes ago, Snark said:

• It's unfettered.  If you tried to make it funded by some government entity (or multiple governments), or any such organizations:  the money would come with strings attached.  Those entities would want to have some sort of say on what does (or, more likely, what doesn't) show up there.  I've grown cynical enough to be wary of such entanglements.  I don't see how adding layers of government bureaucracy would help it, given that it's doing just fine on its own.

well "any "one"" can grab a keyboard and wrote something there, anyway thoose who you refer too in that paragraph, in this way they are part of it imho, if they don't take time to write then thoose entities could complain endlessly about all benefit/drawback ?? the wiki knowledge grant them ... @technicalfool next

so to me this specific point is biased

Edited October 4, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[Snark]

6 minutes ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

well any one can grab a keyboard and wrote something there, anyway thoose who you refer too in that paragraph, in this way they are part of it imho

Sure.  Buy they're not in control of it, any more than any individual contributor is.  They have no authority or ownership.  And Wikipedia has shown itself to be remarkably resilient over the years.  It's based on the fundamental principle that "everyone owns it and everyone can edit anything".

That's an... astonishing experiment.  If you had asked me (or, I expect, most people), before they did it, "how about this idea?" -- I would have laughed in your face.  "No way," I would have said.  "That'll never work, it'll be at the mercy of vandals and censors."

And yet... to my (and, I suspect, a lot of other people's) amazement... it actually works.  And has been around enough years now to demonstrate that the fact that it works isn't some sort of temporary fluke.  It's a fundamental property of the system.

Is it perfect?  No, of course not.  Nothing is.  But it's awfully good, in my opinion, and I can't think of any other entity or organization that I would trust more than the way it's currently being run.  Quite the contrary.

Again:  "Don't Fix It If It Ain't Broke."

(Heck, for that matter:  if someone doesn't like how it's currently set up, they're welcome to set up their own competing Wikipedia.  Just spin up their own servers and copy all the Wikipedia content.  Nothing stopping them, either technically or legally-- assuming they can get funds from somewhere, of course.  Volunteers, anyone?  <crickets>  Nah, thought not.)

[WinkAllKerb'']

(( this bring the hide and seek thing (my steack i won't share the secret i make lot of money from it haha) )) (((§)))

or said another way, thoose who don't like it is thoose who don't want to share with everyone, and that use to keep thing for themselves (and see others knowledges as something unvaluable while they high take profit of wiki things all days)

Edited October 4, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[Bill Phil]

Even if it's not downloaded, I think the way back machine has it...

[Kerbart]

The moment you institutionalize money flows, corruption will set in. Countries will vie for who gets to be the “wiki commishioner” with all the benefits that come with it.

If there would be a global attempt to fund wikipedia in a institutionalized way it has to be by providing bandwidth and server space, to prevent it from being a a way to reward anyone “with friends”from becoming a well paid (but do-nothing)wiki official. But with server soace come restrictions... “we willnot allow hosting anything critical of x, or promoting y”

In the end, the way it goes now mY not be perfect but seems the best way to preserve independence and freedom of content.

[WinkAllKerb'']

what i have in mind, especially, is even nowdays, people that see others as slave or partner, thoose who feel empowered, and thoose who apreciate everyone work usefull for the community

i met both of thoose when i used to work in various grand hostel, it's both comforting and terriffing at the same

some people show some respect to everyone daytask and stuff, and some just don't (mostly because money always more money mind stuck)

Edited October 4, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[Vanamonde]

I think Kerbart has a point. I would not like the content to be influenced by the party which contributed the most money. 

[LordFerret]

 

I think Kerbart has a point. I would not like the content to be influenced by the party which contributed the most money. 

...and there are some currently who believe that certain subjects have already had biased influence put upon them as it is, due apparently to 'social concerns'.