alt.hn

3/30/2025 at 11:59:23 PM

Oka.wiki

 https://oka.wiki/

by jjmarr

3/30/2025 at 11:59:23 PM

The Wikimedia Foundation (which runs Wikipedia) does not directly pay editors for content. oka.wiki is a non-profit organization that funds editors, mostly to translate articles.

Their top 3 articles in English:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsala_of_Wala_in_the_Nsongo_Di...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vril_Society

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga_and_anime_fandom_in_Pola...

by jjmarr

3/31/2025 at 4:53:38 AM

Wikipedia has decent cash reserves. I wonder what the impact would be if they actively paid people to add/improve content instead of praying for volunteers, especially in certain areas where there is a lack of volunteers?

by qingcharles

3/31/2025 at 5:21:17 AM

There are labor law concerns. It is very unwise to be paying people to do for you what others do for you for free. As the boundary between a volunteer and employee blurs, the difference between paid and unpaid labor must remain clear and well-defined, or one risks running afoul of the law.

As a general practice, it's liable to devalue volunteer contributions. Money poisons the good will of a free exchange in the mind of a volunteer. Strict remuneration policies are an important part of making volunteer labor feel fair, free, and balanced. I suspect there would be room for targeted bounties on specific articles, but it would nevertheless irrevocably alter the emotional economy of contribution.

A 3rd party paying editors introduces a host of other concerns, but is probably not as harmful to the emotional economy. But I'm sure Wikimedia's community team has thoroughly discussed this topic.

by iterance

3/31/2025 at 5:37:43 AM

> There are labor law concerns. It is very unwise to be paying people to do for you what others do for you for free.

Wikipedia could fund Oka or other organizations. That places the responsibility in the hands of a third party. As long as Wikipedia remains hands-off, then there is no bias or unfairness on the part of Wikipedia.

> As a general practice, it's liable to devalue volunteer contributions.

> A 3rd party paying editors introduces a host of other concerns, but is probably not as harmful to the emotional economy.

Perhaps. But it seems like Oka will proceed anyway.

I suppose one analogue we can look to is Linux Kernel contributions. Many of the contributors are on the payroll of tech companies, though some contributors are simply volunteers.

There can be a tremendous amount of emotional stress and drama in open source contribution. So you're probably right about that bit. But the community does work and software still gets made.

by echelon

3/31/2025 at 5:46:00 AM

> Wikipedia could fund Oka or other organizations. That places the responsibility in the hands of a third party. As long as Wikipedia remains hands-off, then there is no

I don't agree. Let say that Wikimedia Foundation founds OKA, and OKA pays freelancers to systematically edit/moderate content with a certain political view, or a strong bias towards a certain religion. I would keep Wikimedia Foundation accountable just as if they did it directly.

by darkwater

3/31/2025 at 6:38:39 AM

> Wikipedia could fund Oka or other organizations.

It's possible, though I do not know if this is sufficient to cover their legal risk in this scenario. Likely it would require analysis of details beyond what could be reasoned through in hypothetical.

by iterance

3/31/2025 at 3:25:29 PM

Isn't there precedent with Firefighters?

by joseda-hg

4/1/2025 at 12:18:39 AM

Firefighting in the US is not (generally?) done by private corporations.

by iterance

3/31/2025 at 5:38:29 AM

Wikimedia sponsors librarians at various universities to share their knowledge and improve content. But that's in collaboration with the institution more than the individual.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_residence

Wikimedia also sponsors various outreach initiatives to get people into editing. If you're in a major city you can probably attend a physical event to learn how to edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup

They don't directly pay specific editors because it'd conflict with the volunteer nature of editing and start a lot of drama.

by jjmarr

3/31/2025 at 5:21:51 AM

Wikipedia editing is a kind of game. Adding money as an incentive could have bad effects, there are already some concerns about the politics between editors.

by colechristensen

3/31/2025 at 2:39:50 AM

Even if the editors are objective, doesn't mean that their work doesn't create bias.

Say StdA and StdB are competing for wider adoption. A Corp. can pay for an editor to create a comprehensive article on their standard which, even if it's objective, can influence more people into adopting the better documented option.

Of course, this can happen even without paid editors being involved, and there's nothing stopping B Corp. from doing the same, but I just wanted to point out that avoiding bias might not be always easy.

by ahmedfromtunis

4/2/2025 at 12:25:05 PM

I think "avoiding bias" is as non-sensical as a general concept as "fighting terrorism".

Bias is inevitable. You can avoid a specific bias - several even - but avoiding all biases is impossible as the mere decision of what data to include or exclude and how to present them will already introduce bias regardless of any bias that may already present in the data itself.

An obvious example of this is in "serious" journalism where apparently even in the absence of an obvious or explicit editorial bias there seems to be a widespread idea that when reporting on statements made by public officials and such it is "good journalism" to present them without any judgement on their factuality, not even by contrasting them with their context. Even if this has the negative effect of indicating to the reader by implication that a clearly incorrect claim is correct because it appears alongside genuine attempts at factual reporting without any indication of contradicting it. Presumably the ideological justification is that an educated reader will deduct from the facts presented whether the statement is correct or not, which of course completely ignores everything we know about propaganda and psychology (let alone media literacy).

by hnbad

3/31/2025 at 1:56:18 AM

While Oka itself claims to be free of the systematic bias of Wikipedia, how can you be so sure that Oka itself is not free of systematic bias, even if it tries to be as public and transparent as possible?

So unfortunately, even if Oka claims to be doing for the good, I still see it somewhat as a political group, even if our values are aligned, and thus, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (Who will watch the watchmen?)

by stevefan1999

3/31/2025 at 2:02:31 AM

> Who will watch the watchmen?

I think the answer is: everyone, at least theoretically. Edit histories on Wikipedia are completely open, and anyone can edit (almost?) any article.

by frontfor

3/31/2025 at 9:18:47 PM

"given enough eyeballs, all biases are shallow"

by fsflover

3/31/2025 at 7:17:24 AM

A classic is to publish who paid for what. So how much USAID money did they get? OKA would be more believable if the source of their funding was clearly stated, with who funded what.

by Peteragain

3/31/2025 at 12:52:53 AM

If you're going to be open, you need to list exactly who is donating and how much.

by chasing

3/31/2025 at 1:09:32 AM

Not gonna work. Abc foundation org is donating, which is owned by xyz llc, and you still don’t know the name .

by nashashmi

3/31/2025 at 1:35:14 AM

Well that sounds like an improvement over the Nothing At All they seem to show at the moment.

by chasing

3/31/2025 at 2:25:14 AM

I feel bad that wikipedia (I contribute and donated to it long ago), has forever been a text and photo based encyclopedia based on web.

I do not think MS Encarta's budget was more than $50 million, while it obviously had no more than 1% of articles. But the content they had was top notch. It was a very good multimedia encyclopedia.

Wikipedia's budget is about $170 million (based on quick search). I don't think their software has any major updates, all the contributors work as volunteers. But they have 700 employees! And needlessly spend money on conventions.

If someone needs to create content for wikipedia, they need to create something like Encarta that can be fun to use for kids, and available from school libraries. I have fond memories of teachers playing encarta videos when explaining topics like resonance and why sodium is so reactive.

by peanutz454

3/31/2025 at 4:26:33 AM

I'm somewhat active in spaces discussing more multimedia in wikimedia.

Usually these discussions stall out because once it gets down to details, nobody agrees on what multimedia/interactivity is actually wanted. Everyone thinks it would be "cool", but when it comes to specifics, nobody really knows. There is a lack of shared vision on what good multimedia in articles look like (beyond what currently exists in terms of puctures and videos). I think it is very much a cultural and vision problem, not a technical problem.

> Wikipedia's budget is about $170 million (based on quick search). I don't think their software has any major updates

That would be pretty untrue. I guess it depends on what you mean by "major", but plenty of commits are happening. Its all open source, you can see the commit log at https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/q/status:merged+-is:wip (Whether or not the changes have a good vision or are meeting needs, is an entirely different question people can debate about). Regardless we have come a long way from https://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomePage

> And needlessly spend money on conventions.

Contributors are largely volunteers, having major contributors meet and share stories once or twice a year provides a lot of value. Its important not to go overboard, but i think its really important for the smooth operation of wikipedia to have conventions every now and then.

by bawolff

3/31/2025 at 4:48:32 AM

I think it was the first version of Encarta, it had a time-lapse video of bread molding. I thought that was an excellent video and obviously added substantially to the article about mold.

There is a definite need for more video content in some articles.

by qingcharles

3/31/2025 at 10:39:36 AM

In my view prime examples for Multimedia would be 3D models to explore the human body, with ability to show/hide organs etc. on 2D representations some of the aspects are hard to grasp.

But such a thing has major technical complications and somehow falls out of the "Wiki" idea where anybody can edit and improve ...

by johannes1234321

3/31/2025 at 2:31:37 AM

As a kid, my mind was blown that I, a mere child, have in my possession a copy of videos such the Hiroshima bomb, the Heisenberg catastrophe, etc. and that I can watch them anytime I damn wanted. It was the most amazing feeling I had as a child and still remember it to this day! Thanks Encarta!

by ahmedfromtunis

3/31/2025 at 5:54:50 AM

Hindenburg

by morsch

3/31/2025 at 8:15:12 AM

A fictional Encarta article about the "Heisenberg catastrophe" sounds like an interesting alternative history story. Heisenberg worked for the German nuclear program during the second world war.

by cubefox

3/31/2025 at 1:01:01 AM

will wikipedia allow this? sounds like it could become a very official astroturfing business.

by seydor

3/31/2025 at 1:20:06 AM

Wikipedia's policy on paid editing is that it's acceptable so long as you disclose it. It's also suggested that you don't directly edit articles and send them through Articles for Creation or make edit requests, both of which put your requests in a queue to be reviewed by impartial editors. oka.wiki does all of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_di...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

This is the same policy regardless of whether you're a non-profit or a lobbying organization.

by jjmarr

3/31/2025 at 9:59:15 AM

Now we know where the bias comes from

by jon8888