I dislike Wikipedia as it is now. I'm not sure if Jimmy is responsible for this, but it would be nice if someone sorted out the paradox of "notability" and/or reliance on proof-by-publication.

> "the paradox of "notability" and/or reliance on proof-by-publication"

What does that mean?

I've seen articles removed as "not notable" that "should be moved to fan wiki". The arguments for deleting them involve cryptic insidery jargon like "I vote delete because WP:NOT and WP:PRC"

Someone quite upset with the process ranted about how these kinds of deletions are to Jimmy Wales' financial advantage. I thought it was paranoid, but it's not an utterly absurd assertion, as Jimmy Wales does have financial share in one of those fan wikis.

Sources are publications, so things are proven by what established media says. Difficulty arises when publications are more likely to repeat a narrative than originate it (herd safety). As such the problem becomes: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one" - only now echoed in an supposedly neutral "pedia".

Notability is the same problem: something is notable if there is published media about it, otherwise not so. My perception is relevance and truth are being outsourced to 3rd parties based on whether or not you blog post has corporate registration.

I've found true the observation that Wikipedia is great for uncontroversial topics, but if it's controversial, the mechanisms that are supposed to maintain neutrality falters.

> plastered in ads

Besides Jimmy's lovely face?

I'm inclined to treat "please donate" ads for Wikipedia itself very differently than paid ads for third parties.

I dislike them just as much. I dislike advertisements because I don't enjoy people trying to make me act irrationally. Wikipedia advertisements are just as manipulative as normal ads, if not more so.

Perhaps you can say that Wikipedia ads are manipulative, but I wouldn't say that it makes one act 'irrationally'. It's not irrational to support Wikipedia. In my view, they drive the point home that Wikipedia's infrastructure and governance is not free to maintain and the money has to come from somewhere.

>In my view, they drive the point home that Wikipedia's infrastructure and governance is not free to maintain and the money has to come from somewhere.

That might be true, but AFAIK "hosting" makes up a small part of WMF's budget. The ads definitely give an impression that wikimedia is struggling to pay hosting expenses, but this isn't really the case. According to their 2018 report[1] "Internet hosting" and "Depreciation and amortization" combined only make up 6.4% of their budget. "Salaries and wages" makes up 47.3%, but it's unclear how much of the staff is related to IT, rather than in admin or advocacy.

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/fin...

I love Wikipedia[1]. And if they only asked for the money they needed to run Wikipedia, and did so in a straight-forward way, I'd be happy enough. But the reality is, despite what the frequent, heavily optimised ads might have a reader think, they have enormous amounts of money already, and lots of it is spent questionably or on other projects.

[1]Although I share Gwern's concerns as laid out here: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism

On a different note: Is a person acting rationally when they make the right move for the wrong reason?

Ads on Wikipedia might take the form of a banner at the top and bottom of the page or they might take the form of suddenly the page for Nestle only talks about how great the company’s products are and doesn’t mention the Colombian death squads or child slavery.

This comment seems hilariously out of place when you consider Facebook is being accused of undermining democracy with its ads.

I had in mind when I said normal ads fast food ads, cell phone ads, etc.

I agree. I find Wikipedia's marketing communications very annoying and I've explained why in response to some of their emails in I think a constructive and polite manner. For the type of organization they are, the way they communicate is just patronising. I gave them money until they started asking for it in the manner they do now.