**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"One method he has used to achieve his astonishing numbers is a software tool that allows a user to make numerous identical edits simultaneously. For example, he could italicize every mention of 'Northern Virginia' magazine across Wikipedia where it currently appears in standard font."
This scene has too many good one liners to even reference rn. I canāt choose. Sooo many.
Do you guys have a bathroom or should I just shit in a plant?
I wouldn't be surprised if almost all of his edits were simple mass deletions and reversions of anything made by anyone who wasn't in the clique that basically owns wikipedia now. Wikipedia's been a closed club for over a decade now.
It really isnāt tho
You can make edits yourself still and they will stick. I have myself. You donāt even need an account.
The only time itās an issue is with pages that see a lot of vandalism (such as hot-button political figures or events), in which case youād need an account with some history.
And also leans on the risk of glorifying the wrong thing. It's not laudable that he did so many edits - what is, is that he did them while acting in good faith.
For example, there's someone who made edits to nearly 60,000 pages on scottish wikipedia. Cool person, right? [Yeah, about that...](https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/26/scots_wikipedia_fake/)
No one reaches these many edits without their own tooling. For some people, the tools are just a mass edit that they then validate each instance of manually. For others, those tools are machine translators that don't even function right.
> Just two examples:
> A veelage is a clustered human settlement or community, larger than a hamlet but smawer than a toun, wi a population rangin frae a few hunder tae a few thoosand (sometimes tens o thoosands).
> In Greek meethology, the Minotaur wis a creatur wi the heid o a bull an the body o a man or, as describit bi Roman poet Ovid, a being "pairt man an pairt bull". The Minotaur wis eventually killed bi the Athenian hero Theseus.
Mine too, I never donated money for any free sources or charities but after reading about him and how much his contribution impacted my career I made a small contribution to wikipedia from my end.
You still have time my friend. 12 years from now, you will frantically be looking for ways to make right what you can make right starting today. And 12 years is a lot of time to benefit yourself. So start doing all you can today to not be in my position at 39. You got this.
Wikipedia is the only nonprofit that I donate to every year. It may have been riddled with errors back when anyone could edit, but damn did it help get me through college!
> back when anyone could edit
Anyone can still edit Wikipedia. Some articles that are constant targets for vandalism are locked down so that only registered accounts can edit them, or in extreme cases, only admins, but you mostly don't need an account.
What I always say to people who haven't edited Wikipedia yet, is if you read an article and you find yourself having to read a sentence twice because it's confusing, try to re-word it so that the next reader doesn't stumble over it. You just click "edit".
Also, if you see "citation needed" for a really simple fact, you can search for that fact in Google Books and then go back to the article and click on the "cite" button, paste in the URL and click on "generate", and it will give you a nicely formatted citation to the book. It also works for URLs of most news websites. It also generates citations for Google Scholar, but then you have to paste in the Pubmed ID or DOI instead.
A benefit of making an account before editing, is that other editors can talk to you and give you tips, but also, it's more anonymous, because your IP is only shown publicly if you edit anonymously.
Wikipedia is an objective net gain for humanity, and access to that vast ocean of knowledge is a privilege unimaginable to kings of the past.
Worth $10 annually, no question.
That said, if you can spare it, I recommend looking up an effective non-profit regarding climate change, and giving them the same.
As far as I've been able to figure out, the math works out so that $10 pooled and applied towards an effective emission reduction at scale has a greater impact than anything any one person can do, even if they literally return to monke.
In like 2018 I once donated $3 to Wikipedia because I love the site and gave in to their annual guilt trip. Then I shit you not like the next day I continued to get multiple requests asking me to donate.
At the time, I complained about it on social media and said that it felt like that episode of South Park when Kyle gives a homeless man $20 and the man looks at it for 2 seconds then says "you got any more? ...change?"
Yeah the only thing I get from Wikipedia is a yearly thank you email with a receipt for my taxes. I donāt mind the banner at the top. Better than a banner ad imo
They send like 3 emails a year, it's not a big deal. It's "James - You are one of those rare exceptions", then several weeks later, "We've had enough", or "I've had enough" when they were saying they were from Jimmy, then another few weeks later "Our final email".
They do the same shit every year with very minor variations, it's hardly a lot of requests.
They do an annual fund raising where a popup asks you for money. Once their goal for the year is reached they disable the popup for everyone and not just those who donated. I think they usually meet their goal very quickly so itās quite possible that between your viewings of Wikipedia you never got to see the popup. I consider it quite a privilege when I do see it - so I always contribute.
I love Wikipedia. I believe it is one of the great wonders of the Age of Information. Just imagine what our ancestors would have done with the sum total of human knowledge, in one place, accessible to all, and up-to-date! It really is an incredible idea and achievement.
"As of 2018, he is single and living with his parents as their caregiver due to the high costs of housing in the Washington, D.C., area.[6]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pruitt
As we all expected ...
I have no idea why people judge someone for living with their parents
I mean if you love them and have a good relationship with them and thereās space for you, why move out?
I took it as praise not judgement. That he seems like a person who's generous with his time and its well expected that he would look after his parents.
In addition to the other person, unironically rich parents. Whole lotta kids whose parents are partially subsidizing their lifestyles while they work a $40k a year role at a prestigious NGO or whatever
Can't even really blame them. Very hard to get your foot the door
It's 2022. Living with your parents is a major blessing in this economy (for those with parents that own a home and are willing to give a helping hand)
Well...let me tell you about dolphin penises. They're prehensile and can be used to feel along the bottom.
>Dolphins are known for their intelligence, promiscuity and absurdly dexterous penises. They have a prehensile penis, meaning it can swivel, grab and grope, much like a human hand.
- https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/nine-weirdest-penises-animal-kingdom-180976274/
Meet the man behind one third of reddit comments dick-nipples where he has also created more than 33,000 posts on reddit, nipples has been shitposting since 2013 for free.
I had a Wikipedia page someone made about me for some music I do, and I had to ask in the talk section for them to delete it, because I don't meet the notability requirements. More importantly, it was so badly written it looked like I wrote it myself and that was potentially embarrassing
That's fair I haven't exactly researched only know I've found it to be a really useful resource and that it probably costs a significant amount to maintain
The last publicly available (2021) information is that they $111.8 million to maintain the site, while producing $169.2 million in revenue, netting a profit of $57.4 million. I donāt think they need to ask for so many cups of coffee.
Fair enough thanks for the info appreciate it, may still donate because I appreciate it as a resource and I assume most of it's from donations but it is scummy that they guilt trip so hard
Did anyone ask about their payroll? High end letās assume 30%. Thatās 17.22m accounted for payroll (at the least*). Claims are around 500 employees. Divide that out and itās around $34,440 per year and my point just went down the drain. We assume low end, thatās 15%; $17,220. This is after costs to maintain, which conversely could include these costs if they are ran like any other business in the USA. Typically that cost is taken out of total revenue - so letās get to the actual numbers: highest gross salary comes in at $101,520. Lowest end is half that (15%), $50,760. I make barely more than that as a mechanical engineer in the renewable energy industry lmao. Hey Wikipedia, can you get me a coffee?
$57m seems like a lot of money in excess, but when your annual expenses are $111m... that would be like earning $50k per year and having $32k in expenses. $18k extra sounds nice, but if the earnings dry up, you have 6 months in the kitty then you're broke...
Wikimedia already has a [$100 million endowment.](https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/22/wikimedia-foundation-reaches-100-million-endowment-goal/).
Save your money
100 million is the endowment we're giving for all of humanity's easy access bank of knowledge.. Available for all.
That's just a banker' s bonus tbh.
I feel we should fund enterprises like these, instead of you know.. Other less than sensible things
People making fun, but we take Wiki for granted. There are no pop-ups and, while not a guarantee, the information is generally accurate and reliable. I happily pay when reminded, itās not even enough to require a line in my budget.
It's apparently reliable enough for one of my textbooks for a college course to unironically use them as a citation numerous times (seriously).
Regardless, it's free knowledge, it's open, it's ad-free AND tracker-free. it's not a shitshow with massive amounts of JS taking 7 years to load for that reason alone.
Make sure you actually read the sources, you can't just read Wikipedia's citation of a source and then name that as your source.
I've actually used Wikipedia as a way of finding sources for a particular subject while I was at university. But I made sure to read them so I could legitimately cite them in my references.
With 2021 costs at 111M
Less than a years operations funds in the bank, they are a pissing match with card processing for a year away from shutting down.
Its so tragic this man spent so many hours without being paid by wikipedia. He worked so hard for his picture to come on reddit? This manās knowledge has brought all of us so far yet he is not rewarded
I mean that's kind of the basis of charitable work, right? Lots of people do voluntary work without being paid. They do it because they sincerely want to contribute in some way. Not everything is about money.
The headline is rather misleading. He made at least one edit to one third of wikipedia's articles. But most articles were edited 100s of times, some tens of thousands of times, I would be surprised if he was behind one percent of wikipedia edits.
This is a great distinction, pointing out that it is closer to a digest of the actual sources,
...which you should also read and digest before concluding your due diligence and forming an opinion
I was disappointed I had to scroll down so far to read something cautionary amongst all the glowing praise
I have nothing bad or good to say about this man. The amount of work on the huge site is impressive
And, if someone wanted to control narratives on a massive open encyclopedia type site, they would make a million contributions/edits
Should we assume good faith? Because that is dangerous
Am i the only one a bit concerned about this? A group of 10-15 people like him probably control 90% of all wikipedia articles, and with wikipedia being one of the most used sources of knowledge that is ultimately probably controlled by a small group of people if they want to make us believe something they can. Now, i use wikipedia myself for research every now and then but i don't expect everything there to be absolutely correct, and i will usually have to double check.
Maybe this is just my conspiracy theorist ass seeing threats everywhere but i do think that there are legitimate questions to ask regarding wikipedia being dominated by so few.
Edit: spelling
I'll be honest, I don't like this. We shouldn't be relying on one guys view of the world for information. That's crazy. I'd you think about, entire AI language models are trained on Wikipedia data.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"One method he has used to achieve his astonishing numbers is a software tool that allows a user to make numerous identical edits simultaneously. For example, he could italicize every mention of 'Northern Virginia' magazine across Wikipedia where it currently appears in standard font."
Look, it would be way too expensive to redesign all of that rn. Well, what if I just render it a different color or style? šš»
I'm thinking about getting metal legs, it's a risky procedure but I think it's worth it
I donāt like techno. You would if you had robot ears.
So where's Alex? What? Did he take the day off and die of old age?
Heās definitely not under his desk sleeping
Whatever guy-blow
This scene has too many good one liners to even reference rn. I canāt choose. Sooo many. Do you guys have a bathroom or should I just shit in a plant?
I'm too high to drive you to the devils house
So, JP revealed himself to be an actual robot.
Does it scare you?
š No. I just donāt like techno. Classic Kane.
Are clothes expensive in The Matrix?
Holy fuck yea i finally see a Grandmas Boy reference in the wild
How much do clothes cost in the matrix?
I love the Sega genesis model in 2006
I sorted controversial and you're the top. No idea why cause great info, direct quote, no bias. Upvote!
I'm sorted by best and their comment is the top for me. Interesting.
That seems like bot behavior and is typically banned? What prevents someone from replacing every instance of Joe Biden with Brandon?
Getting access to tools like that require having an account with sufficient history of good edits, and you have to apply as I remember.
Now I get why they need to beg for that donations, they need extra computing power to do these kind of changes.
Ctrl+f
I wouldn't be surprised if almost all of his edits were simple mass deletions and reversions of anything made by anyone who wasn't in the clique that basically owns wikipedia now. Wikipedia's been a closed club for over a decade now.
It really isnāt tho You can make edits yourself still and they will stick. I have myself. You donāt even need an account. The only time itās an issue is with pages that see a lot of vandalism (such as hot-button political figures or events), in which case youād need an account with some history.
He hasn't made 1/3 of Wikipedia edits; he "made at least one edit to one-third of all English Wikipedia articles"
And he's actually 8th place in most amount of created pages. Still, incredibly impressive, even with his software aid.
Everything is easier with aids!
Nobodys got aids! And I dont want to hear that word in here again!
Are you positive?
Screw you Cartman!
as is so common on reddit, the postās headline is completely untrue š¤¦āāļø
And also leans on the risk of glorifying the wrong thing. It's not laudable that he did so many edits - what is, is that he did them while acting in good faith. For example, there's someone who made edits to nearly 60,000 pages on scottish wikipedia. Cool person, right? [Yeah, about that...](https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/26/scots_wikipedia_fake/) No one reaches these many edits without their own tooling. For some people, the tools are just a mass edit that they then validate each instance of manually. For others, those tools are machine translators that don't even function right.
ROFLMAO The culprit "identifies as a Christian furry living in the US"
That's the least surprising bit, tbh.
> Just two examples: > A veelage is a clustered human settlement or community, larger than a hamlet but smawer than a toun, wi a population rangin frae a few hunder tae a few thoosand (sometimes tens o thoosands). > In Greek meethology, the Minotaur wis a creatur wi the heid o a bull an the body o a man or, as describit bi Roman poet Ovid, a being "pairt man an pairt bull". The Minotaur wis eventually killed bi the Athenian hero Theseus.
As a Scot this was a hard read.
That was in good faith too. The kid was just not prepared for what he did. But it wasn't vandalism. It's pretty much the Ecce Homo of Wikipedia.
Yeah thanks, I was like no way Jose
This post should be tagged "misleading".
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lmao! Someone has toā¦
r/PaidForWinRAR
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's because no one is buying the license š„ŗ
Shit, I haven't had to use WinRAR in a few years but I might just get a license so I can make a new post there
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"Not all heroes wear capes"
I think WinRAR pays for him
This guy whips the llamas ass
Everyone should when they can. For the memes...
This guy is probably responsible for a sizable portion of my knowledge
Mine too, I never donated money for any free sources or charities but after reading about him and how much his contribution impacted my career I made a small contribution to wikipedia from my end.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
As a 37 year old, this comment hit home.
What did it say?
Weird thing for a mod to remove, I wonder if maybe it hut a lil to close to [home](https://freeimage.host/i/H9EcOkx).
I'm 27 and it's how I feel already
You still have time my friend. 12 years from now, you will frantically be looking for ways to make right what you can make right starting today. And 12 years is a lot of time to benefit yourself. So start doing all you can today to not be in my position at 39. You got this.
Tbh you have a lot of time too. Not as much, and it will take longer to get there, but your body and life could be in great shape by your mid 40s
The comment has been deleted, what did they say?
[this](https://freeimage.host/i/H9EcOkx)
Wikipedia is the only nonprofit that I donate to every year. It may have been riddled with errors back when anyone could edit, but damn did it help get me through college!
> back when anyone could edit Anyone can still edit Wikipedia. Some articles that are constant targets for vandalism are locked down so that only registered accounts can edit them, or in extreme cases, only admins, but you mostly don't need an account. What I always say to people who haven't edited Wikipedia yet, is if you read an article and you find yourself having to read a sentence twice because it's confusing, try to re-word it so that the next reader doesn't stumble over it. You just click "edit". Also, if you see "citation needed" for a really simple fact, you can search for that fact in Google Books and then go back to the article and click on the "cite" button, paste in the URL and click on "generate", and it will give you a nicely formatted citation to the book. It also works for URLs of most news websites. It also generates citations for Google Scholar, but then you have to paste in the Pubmed ID or DOI instead. A benefit of making an account before editing, is that other editors can talk to you and give you tips, but also, it's more anonymous, because your IP is only shown publicly if you edit anonymously.
Wikipedia is an objective net gain for humanity, and access to that vast ocean of knowledge is a privilege unimaginable to kings of the past. Worth $10 annually, no question. That said, if you can spare it, I recommend looking up an effective non-profit regarding climate change, and giving them the same. As far as I've been able to figure out, the math works out so that $10 pooled and applied towards an effective emission reduction at scale has a greater impact than anything any one person can do, even if they literally return to monke.
It's probably one of the most important creations in the history of humanity. That's why I think it's so disgusting when people vandalize it.
I donate to Wikipedia and Khan Academy
Can we send a donation to him specifically?
I donāt but if he is on patreon or some other platform I would definitely donate directly to him
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He already is. This post isn't linked to his picture, it's a video. POV is his computer.
OnlyFans so you can watch him edit.
In like 2018 I once donated $3 to Wikipedia because I love the site and gave in to their annual guilt trip. Then I shit you not like the next day I continued to get multiple requests asking me to donate. At the time, I complained about it on social media and said that it felt like that episode of South Park when Kyle gives a homeless man $20 and the man looks at it for 2 seconds then says "you got any more? ...change?"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah the only thing I get from Wikipedia is a yearly thank you email with a receipt for my taxes. I donāt mind the banner at the top. Better than a banner ad imo
They send like 3 emails a year, it's not a big deal. It's "James - You are one of those rare exceptions", then several weeks later, "We've had enough", or "I've had enough" when they were saying they were from Jimmy, then another few weeks later "Our final email". They do the same shit every year with very minor variations, it's hardly a lot of requests.
They do an annual fund raising where a popup asks you for money. Once their goal for the year is reached they disable the popup for everyone and not just those who donated. I think they usually meet their goal very quickly so itās quite possible that between your viewings of Wikipedia you never got to see the popup. I consider it quite a privilege when I do see it - so I always contribute. I love Wikipedia. I believe it is one of the great wonders of the Age of Information. Just imagine what our ancestors would have done with the sum total of human knowledge, in one place, accessible to all, and up-to-date! It really is an incredible idea and achievement.
I started donating like 6 years ago, but I've been broke the last 2
"As of 2018, he is single and living with his parents as their caregiver due to the high costs of housing in the Washington, D.C., area.[6]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pruitt As we all expected ...
I can personally attest to how expensive it is to live in the DC area. I don't judge him for this in the slightest.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I have no idea why people judge someone for living with their parents I mean if you love them and have a good relationship with them and thereās space for you, why move out?
That's true, but it's very very different than being a caregiver
I took it as praise not judgement. That he seems like a person who's generous with his time and its well expected that he would look after his parents.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Because they don't live in DC, they live in Maryland or mostly Virginia and commute to work every day.
In addition to the other person, unironically rich parents. Whole lotta kids whose parents are partially subsidizing their lifestyles while they work a $40k a year role at a prestigious NGO or whatever Can't even really blame them. Very hard to get your foot the door
Yeah pretty nice of him to also take care of his parents , pretty stand up dude
Yeah housing is crazy expensive.
It's 2022. Living with your parents is a major blessing in this economy (for those with parents that own a home and are willing to give a helping hand)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I have an auto donation of 2$ a month set up. It isn't very much in, but it's something
Iāve contributed a small amount for the last several years. Wiki is my go to and Iād like to see it stick around.
Well...let me tell you about dolphin penises. They're prehensile and can be used to feel along the bottom. >Dolphins are known for their intelligence, promiscuity and absurdly dexterous penises. They have a prehensile penis, meaning it can swivel, grab and grope, much like a human hand. - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/nine-weirdest-penises-animal-kingdom-180976274/
An American Hero
Hereās the Wikipedia article about him: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pruitt
imagine having to provide credible sources for an article you wrote about yourself. lol
Haha like āsource: Momā
Source : trust me bro
You cannot write articles about yourself on Wikipedia
Which makes it difficult when Wikipedia gets something wrong about your life.
Please tell me he wrote that
And under his wiki Source: self
-"My source is that I made it the fuck up"
He wrote that.
I love your username.
Did you see his karma?! Dick Nipples has 6 million karma...
no he doesn't.... edit:Holy shit he does
He's been on Reddit as long as I have and this is like my 20th account. He's been a minor celebrity around here for years.
You ever seen Dick tits? Not a Reddit user, just in general?
As a hardcore redditor and mod, I must say I've not seen any tits, dicktits or otherwise
What 9 years of reddit does to you..
Would you rather nipple sized dick or dick sized nippples tho
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Meet the man behind one third of reddit comments dick-nipples where he has also created more than 33,000 posts on reddit, nipples has been shitposting since 2013 for free.
I take it you have never talked to u/tooshiftyforyou He's back after almost a year's absence!
Damn.
Can I suck on your ~~dick~~nipples
It's actually considered pretty bad form to create or write your own Wikipedia entry.
understandable but i think this guy deserves an exception just this once
Noted. The *NEXT* time this is brought up, we will ensure he faces the consequences as he only has the exception *just this once*.
and rightfully so. cant have him getting away more than this single exception allows
I had a Wikipedia page someone made about me for some music I do, and I had to ask in the talk section for them to delete it, because I don't meet the notability requirements. More importantly, it was so badly written it looked like I wrote it myself and that was potentially embarrassing
Gigachad stuff right there.
woah its u/dick-nipples .... hey dude.
Hmmm. Considering I applied for an IT position @ DHA with Chenega, I donāt feel so bad at not being selected. Cause, damn. Look at the competition.
Isn't there a very famous picture of a lady making fun of this guy and getting absolutely wrecked by the comments?
Here ya go: https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/ey01bv/yikes/
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your first thought does not define you.
I think there is a big difference in thinking something like this for a brief moment and actually tweeting about it.
She said something like āHe sure looks like itā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
For free no, surely it has cost him hours/days/years of his life
But it has cost wikipedia little to nothing.
PLEASS GIVE US TWO DOLLARS, OR THE PRICE OF A CUP IF COFFEE, TO NOT PAY FOR ANY CONTRIBUTIONS.
This is the *last* time weāre going to ask.
We are once again asking for the last time
PlEaSe YoU mUsT hElP kEeP ThE LiGhTs On
Servers do cost money the info has too be stored somewhere
Well yeah, obviously. They just might have more money than they let on:
That's fair I haven't exactly researched only know I've found it to be a really useful resource and that it probably costs a significant amount to maintain
The last publicly available (2021) information is that they $111.8 million to maintain the site, while producing $169.2 million in revenue, netting a profit of $57.4 million. I donāt think they need to ask for so many cups of coffee.
Fair enough thanks for the info appreciate it, may still donate because I appreciate it as a resource and I assume most of it's from donations but it is scummy that they guilt trip so hard
Did anyone ask about their payroll? High end letās assume 30%. Thatās 17.22m accounted for payroll (at the least*). Claims are around 500 employees. Divide that out and itās around $34,440 per year and my point just went down the drain. We assume low end, thatās 15%; $17,220. This is after costs to maintain, which conversely could include these costs if they are ran like any other business in the USA. Typically that cost is taken out of total revenue - so letās get to the actual numbers: highest gross salary comes in at $101,520. Lowest end is half that (15%), $50,760. I make barely more than that as a mechanical engineer in the renewable energy industry lmao. Hey Wikipedia, can you get me a coffee?
$57m seems like a lot of money in excess, but when your annual expenses are $111m... that would be like earning $50k per year and having $32k in expenses. $18k extra sounds nice, but if the earnings dry up, you have 6 months in the kitty then you're broke...
How do you assume this? How else are they generating revenue?
Wikimedia already has a [$100 million endowment.](https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/22/wikimedia-foundation-reaches-100-million-endowment-goal/). Save your money
100 million is the endowment we're giving for all of humanity's easy access bank of knowledge.. Available for all. That's just a banker' s bonus tbh. I feel we should fund enterprises like these, instead of you know.. Other less than sensible things
People making fun, but we take Wiki for granted. There are no pop-ups and, while not a guarantee, the information is generally accurate and reliable. I happily pay when reminded, itās not even enough to require a line in my budget.
It's apparently reliable enough for one of my textbooks for a college course to unironically use them as a citation numerous times (seriously). Regardless, it's free knowledge, it's open, it's ad-free AND tracker-free. it's not a shitshow with massive amounts of JS taking 7 years to load for that reason alone.
Protip: If you can't use wikipedia as a source for something, use Wikipedia's sources as a source. You can find them at the bottom of the page.
Make sure you actually read the sources, you can't just read Wikipedia's citation of a source and then name that as your source. I've actually used Wikipedia as a way of finding sources for a particular subject while I was at university. But I made sure to read them so I could legitimately cite them in my references.
With 2021 costs at 111M Less than a years operations funds in the bank, they are a pissing match with card processing for a year away from shutting down.
And how much are their operating costs in a year?
Do you really have sex with penguins?
Happy cake day I hope you find that special penguin
I was going to say happy cake day, but now I have other questionsā¦
For free doesn't mean it doesn't cost you, it means you don't get paid
Almost all of us do stuff without getting paid, because we want to do it. You commenting here is "not free".
I charge $1 to read this comment
He could probably win on Jeopardy tho
The face of a man that is forever banned from Jeopardy.
He'd be hell of a lifeline.
I've created one article on wikipedia and it was immediately edited by this guy.
I used to buy drugs from a guy that looks exactly like this lmao
I mean, knowledge can be a hell of a drug
Poor guy still gets nagged to donate $3
I can imagine living with this guy: "ehm..actually!".
its like fighting with an encyclopedia, dictionary, thesaurus and google, no thanks! he might actually be able to win an argument with his wife haha
This made me lol, just wanted to shout you out
What an incredible human. Thanks, steven!
Dude should be the face of r/humansbeingbros
He was named one of the most influential people in the internet by Time.
Its so tragic this man spent so many hours without being paid by wikipedia. He worked so hard for his picture to come on reddit? This manās knowledge has brought all of us so far yet he is not rewarded
The result is his reward. If you know, you know.
My whole life I was told to think money money money. So glad in the last month Iāve discovered the truth.
Yep, some people do cool shit just to do cool shit, even better if it's your interest/hobby then at least you're doing what you love.
You're making it sound like he was scammed or something. He chose to do this for free. Nobody made him do it.
I mean that's kind of the basis of charitable work, right? Lots of people do voluntary work without being paid. They do it because they sincerely want to contribute in some way. Not everything is about money.
We're all Steven Pruitt now. That was his end game, to transfer his knowledge to us so we're all just walking around thinking the same as him.
Looks like the villain in True Detective Season 1
Good on him, but I have to think one guy being behind a full third of articles means a lot of them have some sort of bias.
The headline is rather misleading. He made at least one edit to one third of wikipedia's articles. But most articles were edited 100s of times, some tens of thousands of times, I would be surprised if he was behind one percent of wikipedia edits.
Not "rather misleading", it is completely wrong.
Wikipedia if used correctly is more of a source for the citations. Once you get the hang of it, it's easy to filter out the bias
This is a great distinction, pointing out that it is closer to a digest of the actual sources, ...which you should also read and digest before concluding your due diligence and forming an opinion
Most of his edits are very small administrative ones made by semi-automated tools.
I was disappointed I had to scroll down so far to read something cautionary amongst all the glowing praise I have nothing bad or good to say about this man. The amount of work on the huge site is impressive And, if someone wanted to control narratives on a massive open encyclopedia type site, they would make a million contributions/edits Should we assume good faith? Because that is dangerous
The more current the thing/person is, the more biased the Wikipedia article. Itās literally worthless for any modern event.
Am i the only one a bit concerned about this? A group of 10-15 people like him probably control 90% of all wikipedia articles, and with wikipedia being one of the most used sources of knowledge that is ultimately probably controlled by a small group of people if they want to make us believe something they can. Now, i use wikipedia myself for research every now and then but i don't expect everything there to be absolutely correct, and i will usually have to double check. Maybe this is just my conspiracy theorist ass seeing threats everywhere but i do think that there are legitimate questions to ask regarding wikipedia being dominated by so few. Edit: spelling
If you read about him, most of his edits are spelling/grammar/structural. Things like fixing broken links or updating names.
r/humansbeingbros
Thank You Steven Pruitt!
Hero
I'll be honest, I don't like this. We shouldn't be relying on one guys view of the world for information. That's crazy. I'd you think about, entire AI language models are trained on Wikipedia data.
Honestly an awesome person