Slashdot Mirror
Wikimedia Proposes Advertising [Updated]
user9918277462 writes "The Board of the Wikimedia Foundation has announced a new partnership with the Answers Corporation, which provides the content for Google Definitions links. There is also a lengthy discussion, wiki-style for those who wish to participate." Update 10/25 18:42 by SM: An announcement has been posted on Wikipedia to help clarify the original submission (which thankfully was patently false and has since been cleaned up a bit, our apologies to Wikimedia). Answers.com will be creating their own co-branded version which will show ads and no ads will be shown on wikipedia.
Imagine that. Wikipedia reflects the bias of the thousands of people who are willing to share information, help others and collaborate on large projects together -- without any expectation of monetary payment (even if some wikipedians expect plenty of ego boosting)-- of course it has a socialist bias.
... nope, if you don't agree with the entire socialist agenda, you must be greedy and only looking out for yourself.
INSIGHTFUL??? wtf? Yeah, if you "care" about something greater than yourself, you must be a socialist. It can't be that there are people who care but realize socialist ideas don't work
Seriously, where do you find people like "EnronHaliburton2004"... and the people who modded him up?
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
Really? None of them? Things like sharing and collaboration don't work? Wikipedia is a failure?
*banging head on keyboard*
No, that's not even close to anything I said at all. (Except for Wikipedia starting to fail, but that's a separate issue.)
Who the **** says sharing and collaboration are socialist? That's the exact opposite of what I was trying to say! Worker-owned companies can and do exist within capitalism. Non-monetary profit organizations exist within capitalism. Non-monetary goals exist within capitalism. Pursuing non-monetary goals is not "anti-capitalist" or "socialist". The problem is, people like you equivocate between two definitions of capitalism:
1) a system in which non-human tools and natural resources (aka the means of production) are privately owned and operated
2) pursuing personal wealth
I've been using capitalism in the first sense. Then you jump on and use it in the second sense. When I say Wikipedia is biased against capitalism, I'm saying it's biased against 1), not necessarily 2) (although that shows up as well). When I say socialism (as differentiated from capitalism) is a bad idea, I'm saying that private ownership of the MOP is a good idea, not that any specific model possible within such a metacontext (employee ownership, collaboration, group projects, non-montary goals) is a bad idea.
Thought experiment: if all non-management workers took over their workplaces today and got rid of the current owners and managers and took the revenues for themselves (revenues at each firm to the workers at that firm), is the result still capitalism? Yes, the workplaces just have different owners.
Believe it or not, you don't have to be socialist to pursue a non-monetary goal. Please stop blurring the definitions here.
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
Where does fate fit into your example?
And: Ahahahahahahaha I got you to spend time reading the loathsome socialist wikipedia. Ahahahahahahaha.