There having been no shortage of cryptocurrency collapses and frauds, I'm a bit sad to see disproportionate energy spent attacking the philanthropy movement SBF supported as responsible for the latest one (eg. the WaPo article linked), absent evidence for this. (Are our comments expected to stick to the Wikipedia-specific ramifications?) CharredShorthand (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We as The Signpost are here to report about what the media report about things. They said the movement "shielded" SBF. "Shielded" is pretty strong language coming from a top-tier national newspaper, and that's why the item exists in this column. If they were saying such things about other movements with a Wikipedia nexus, that would show up here too. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against the Signpost inclusion! I was commenting about the original WaPo article, not objecting to the Signpost's coverage of thus, which is only proper. Apologies for any lack of clarity. CharredShorthand (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as WP:BLP is followed, I think we can say what we want. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 22:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems kind of juvenile to me as well. My theory is that novel takes are a market; when somebody does something shitty, it creates a large demand for takes about why they suck. The obvious reasons are, well, obvious, so they are written into takes within the first couple days. But there is still demand, so the market responds by creating more: this is how we get all of those opinion pieces about how some mass murderer listened to heavy metal music, or drank Pepsi, or whatever. They don't make a lot of sense, but so it goes. jp×g 05:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Effective altruism seems a bit of a buzzword to me, but I get the idea of get rich, then donate. The Andrew Carnegie route, as it were. Has the whole "but who will do the charity work you fund?" problem if everyone does it, but it's fine. However, if it's true the movement worked to promote itself and it's fellow members on Wikipedia, that' s where it's notable for us. We may have buried the lead, though, in my efforts to make sure there was context. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 05:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The words "paid advertisements" and Wikipedia or Wikipedia Foundation should never appear in the same sentence (except for this one) let alone ever contemplated, lobbied for, or be remotely thought of by any board member and/or principled human being. The WMF by-laws should contain a firm "never" when it comes to advertisements appearing on their projects, Jimbo should issue a statement in support of never-no way-don't-even-think-about-it when it comes to paid ads (the WMF and Wales may have done so in the past, I'm not aware of the history of Wikipedia and contemplation of paid ads), and every editor who hopes to sell advertising space on their user page (ha!) should turn over their keyboard and sulk off into the day/night. In any case, just look at what advertising has done to Britannica, a once proud and universially respected encyclopedia now looking like a scene from Idiocracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has always been monetized, it's just done in its own peculiar way: editors are not paid, but the Wikimedia Foundation has been collecting millions of dollars annually for more than 15 years and is currently worth approximately one quarter billion: see Wikipedia:Fundraising statistics. 50.0.121.183 (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
