I think they were making a pitch for piracy.

Me too buddy

Interesting. Though, I guess my client would filter out anything in that pugjesus link then too. I tried pasting it into my browser but it won’t show my anything without logging in. I guess it either won’t accept my sh.itjust.works credentials, or I got my password wrong too many times, because it’s giving me a “too many requests, try again later” message.

I just tested this twice. One in a reply to myself and one in a reply to you. Both comments are deleted and are labeled as such in this post; however, they are fully removed on my profile page. Therefore, I don’t think you are correct.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

They are in .world now because they left the other instance.

I’m going to try to keep this super simple:

Salaries and wages have increased 22% compounding year-over-year for the last four years on average. This is a 120% increase in only four years (from $46,146,897 to $101,305,706).

Didn’t you just get super offended that I pointed out that paying the people who work for you is, in fact, a “core reponsibility”, and so this argument doesn’t make sense?

At this point, I sincerely think you are being obtuse; unless you believe everyone at Wikipedia, on average, is receiving 22% raises, every single year. This is not Wikipedia “paying the people who work for you,” it’s aggressive expansion, at an exponential level. In the words of Guy Macon from almost a decade ago, “Wikipedia has Cancer.” I don’t believe any company, non-profit or for-profit, can sustain this limitless expansion in the long run. And Wikipedia’s management does this all while trying to guilt trip people for donations, usually under the guise of needing it to survive. In sum, I don’t agree with the financial decisions of Wikipedia’s management, and therefore, no longer donate to them.

On the other hand, I don’t dislike Wikipedia or the services they provide. I’ll echo your own words: I like Wikipedia, I think it’s good, and I never said otherwise. I even referenced their website when writing all of my responses on this topic. I find it unfortunate that you interpret these sort of critiques as “and so Wikipedia sucks.” Furthermore, I don’t like how you justify your hostility based on critical responses. This is a discussion board, not an echo chamber. However, I’m very thankful that you didn’t respond with “go fuck yourself” or “kiss my ass” like you did in your last response to me. Also, I hope your having a good start to the weekend. ✌

Great points and thank you for the shoutout for Internet Archive. I just made my first donation.

Is it your impression that paying the people who work for you is optional for a technology company?

What a bad-faith argument. You seem willfully obtuse towards any data presented to you and unnecessarily hostile in all of your comments. I took a look at the most recent 990 form you reference, and it lists compensation for a mere 13 individuals, with a total compensation just over $4-million in sum. This is in no way counter-evidence that spending (ultimately due to the decisions of these executives) is at runaway levels. Salaries and wages have increased 22% compounding year-over-year for the last four years on average. This is a 120% increase in only four years (from $46,146,897 to $101,305,706).

These trends have been continuously called out for almost a decade now, but this exponential growth continues nonetheless. All while expenses for core responsibilities remain flat. Wikipedia should be setup to succeeded indefinitely at this point if it weren’t for these decisions.

Kiss my ass. Get the fuck out.

Yikes, wow! Totally not an unhinged response. You seem hyper-focused on whatever what said today and assume everything is related to it. I haven’t even read Musk’s statements because his opinions don’t mean anything to me. In reality, concerns with Wikipedia’s financials are nothing new. One of the OG posts highlighting concerns circulated in 2016 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer) and has continuously been updated with each new year’s disclosures. I believe I first saw it when the author did a Q&A on r/IAmA, 8 years ago (link). In sum, nothing has been done to change course and spending has only increased. In reality, the Wikipedia Foundation and Endowment have over $400-million in assets and core functionality should be able to continue indefinitely. I want to see Wikipedia succeed, and I think it could easily be set for lifetimes if managed appropriately. Looking at core responsibilities (internet hosting), there is no reason why Wikipedia can’t thrive on their investment income. I can only assume those encouraging Wikipedia’s current path hope for someone with a bigger checkbook to come by and bail them out (with strings attached, of course).

Their own charts in your link show that web hosting expenses have flatlined over the last decade. Digging into the PDFs in the sources, you can see this was only $2,335,918 in 2019. They even spent more on travel and conferences that year. As contributions continue to grow, the spending category that is growing far faster than any other is salaries and wages. Their CEO made $789k in 2021, all while content is created by volunteers. I like Wikipedia and the content they host; however, I think any increase in contributions is just going to line the pockets of the executives.

Edit, just to be clear: I’m not defending the wildly inflated numbers quoted above; however, I believe they are right in concept. The executives are the ones bleeding the foundation dry. The chart I previously mentioned is below. Internet hosting and many of the other smaller expense categories have been relatively flat year-over-year, but salaries and wages are increasing at an unsustainable runaway pace.

Here’s another good summary: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer

Yes, this is what the highly credible NYPD was claiming. However, the B&T requires the user to twist the rear to lock and unlock the action when cycling. This motion is not visible in the assassination video. Also, there would be no purpose in slapping the back of the slide to ensure it’s in battery, as is done in the same video.

No. It looks like you told people to “join almost any other instance.” That’s a strange reaction from Crabby. I guess they’re just annoyed.

If you don’t like Hamas, you must really dislike the guys who fund them:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

His base salary was 1 million in 2022 and he had a net worth of 43 million as of February this year, which includes his stocks. Why are you making shit up?

Sh.itjust.works is pretty nice.

That and by some reports, the text on the casings were “carved” in. Any deformations would have added resistance to ejection. It didn’t seem to take him too off guard though.

These gleeful comments are very much what? Celebrating violence, as you originally said? If so, sure. However, celebrating violence is not against the rules. Go to any Ukrainian-on-Russian drone strike video and you’ll find plenty of people celebrating death. What is against the rules is making threats or calling people to violent action against another. These are very much not the same thing. In the insurace CEO thread, the overwhelming majority of removed comments were not making threats or trying to incite more violence.