PESKY WIKIPEDEA. and now YOUTUBE 'Changes Coming'... Yeah, ok

[RJSV]

Of course, many saw this.  Yourube announcing 'Changes in Policy for new year 2022'.
AND now, Wikipedia pestering, while reminding me, they watch (me) so closely, they 'quote' exactly how many times they've hit me up, for dollar donation.

Heck: if the scrappy guy on the street quoted that way, I'd be CREEPED OUT, for sure.
   In case you are wondering: wiki says "sorry, we know this is THE SIXTH time, please don't ignore us"...

    Yeah 'free', but yous guys suck up every last minute detail, of my (dull, poor, fat, boring, etc) life.

Go spy on yourselves, creeps.
Thank you.

[ataradov]

I have not seen the counting version of the message, but I happily give Wikipedia money when they ask. They have a very good system. They don't send you a bill, but ask when you use the service. And every time it happens, I'm reminded just how much value I derive from its existence.

There are a number of tites like this that get my money despite being totally free.

[mfro]

Didn't see a counter as well.
I'm happily giving for Wikipedia every year as I'm considering a non-profit organisation that manages providing knowledge and education on a volunteer basis one of the brightest and most important ideas on the planet.

I'd never pay for Youtube, however. Find it odd you mention both in the same post.

[MK14]

Go spy on yourselves, creeps.
Thank you.

The reality is, that most places on the internet that you visit, probably/potentially hugely suck up what data they can about you.
For example, I recently did some searches and visited some Raspberry PI websites, as they seem to often be out of stock, at the moment (chip shortages, new version(s) came out, popular, Christmas, etc etc). Partly to see what my purchasing options are for them, which are not great, as they are hard to come by, currently.
Then (of course), many of the other websites I visited, have to blast me with Raspberry PI product adverts. Just to rub in, that I considered them, and mostly can't get them.

Ironically, WIKIPEDIA, is probably one of the safest and least data sucking places, you can visit.

[RJSV]

Yes, thanks, I see your point.  However, it's more complicated, in that the trend goes something like this:
   1.). You don't have, like 4 sites like this, it looks more like '1', at least in appearance. More arguing on that, but I want to just say that for now...
   2.). Everyone you 'need' to interact with wants to use that 'one'. When or if you complain, 'MONOPOLY', you get that 'huhhhhhh' look, like, 'dont you know about 'flick-flackers'? (I made that up) .
   Yeah, you reply, all 10 of their readers: Wiki has 'more'.
Then, your doctor wants a 'portal': you can use 'Google forms,' to sign up. Very convenient....No, that's a forced monopoly.
   No, I'm not stressed that Wiki is needed, in immediate sense. But I bet I can find (lots) of instance,where some school assignment sends students to research some topic.  See my point , if the student wants to do assignment, they go to Wiki site.
Plus, then, they won't have to go into the whole MONOPOLY dynamic, with others, teacher included.

    Making too much, of that ? 'There you go,' you can say. So it's back on me, to explain.
   I'd ask: What's my option, when teacher, employer, landlord, doctor says: " Just fill out this application, use Google forms..."
   Yes I know there is maybe, equiv alternate, if I don't like Wiki:. Please provide that, if you can. I just see MONOPOLY way too tolerated. (More with other sites but Wiki is a huge source of knowledge).

   MONOPOLIES actual do harm, and caution needed, in my view.

[ledtester]

If you use incognito mode the counter gets reset...

Second image is from visiting wikipedia in a new incognito window.

[RJSV]

mfro, and Mk14,   I appreciate your feedback:
   The Wiki site started the pitch for donations a few days ago:.  Saying something like, "...We know this is the fifth time we've asked, but please don't scroll down past this message ...".
Now you know, often going into Wiki with some subject question or difficult issue to look up. But now then you are disrupted, from that.  When I scroll a bit down, another reminder pops in. That's when I click out, so I don't know if there's more pitches coming.
Every time I've tried, it 'counts' the exact number. So if you've donated before, maybe they handle that different, I could see that. It's just creepy, but I guess they being open (about cookies).
   Problem is, when a 'competitor' wants to get into the information action.  They get, sort of 'freezed out'. There's probably a term for that in biological systems, but perhaps 'market saturation'?
   I see this effect in other industries.  A new venture gets denied resources, even though there's no new law, or explicit talk. Like: 'We don't need another BAKERY, on Jones Street", that sort of thing.
So, without explicit ban, perhaps a new bakery never gets viable business. And the existing one(s), they can be 'lazy', without direct consequences. Customer gets whatever level of 'quality' that the local 'playfield' has settled to.
Of course, gross incompetence WILL often produce change, new players, etc. But reality, often the bigger players in the shorter term, can loose sight of 'consequences', of half-assed, or shoddy product.

  Ok, anyway, YouTube got into post, partially due to, recent viewing now ALWAYS puts a see-thru ADVERT right front and center, across videos being played, if you are a 'free' internet browsing viewer. In other words, they've stepped things up, (maybe September they started the persistent AD, like a car insurance company AD.)
Also, cannot get through something, now you get advertisement in middle.  I tolerate some of that, it's a great free source. Just seems like a noticable jump in the cheap ADs.
   I've sometimes 'joked', sarcastically, that I want to use that model for personal stuff,:
Oh, did you need Fred's phone number?...Oh, hang on, Have you considered, I can sell you (these) vitamins...
Oh, and I will be 'tracking' you, after we hang up..."
   Most folks would respond, " That's ridiculous, stop trying to sell me stuff..."

   I don't see, however, as much problem with general businesses, like electronics sales, as those are obvious multiple competing businesses. I maybe see Wiki, Facebook, and small handful of others as more towards MONOPOLY - media like.
  Cookies, are more widely seen used, but I'm talking more about very small sub-set.
   Ever try use Yahoo mail, on an Android based cellphone ? It gets weird. That's MONOPOLY power asserting itself.

[mfro]

Tracking probably works very different (or not at all) in Europe (because of the EU's GDPR).

So things might look different depending on where you come from.

[james_s]

Somebody told me that wikipedia has tons of money and yet they regularly beg anyway. I don't know whether that's true or not, I have not investigated myself.

[KE5FX]

I was a regular donor to Wikipedia until they started using these tactics.  At this point, I no longer donate to them, because I don't want to close a positive feedback loop on this kind of behavior. 

So the donation that would have gone to Wikipedia now goes to archive.org.

[mfro]

If "somebody" told you "something", you can be relatively sure "something" is just guesswork at best.

Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation and - at least where I live - non-profit organisations have to provide regular statements of accounts and are not allowed any profit to continue to receive state sponsorship (like abatement of taxation). Look it up in your area of the world and don't just believe "somebody".

[james_s]

"Somebody" is a good friend of mine who is usually knowledgeable and doesn't just pull information out of his backside. In this case I have not personally looked into it and verified it as fact so I did not present it as such.

[ataradov]

Most recent audited reports are available here https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-annual-report/financials/#section-1 If I read that correctly, they have $200M in assets. Not a ton of money, but also not nothing.

I looked up the new banners people see, and I do agree, they are a bit much. I have not seen the new format yet, and yes, I'll probably skip this time and direct the money some place else. They seem to have done some A/B testing on what works best, and there is no need to encourage such practice.

In fact, the money most likely will go to KiCad, as I've been moving to it from Eagle, and basically it is is way better than Eagle.

[Haenk]

Interesting, they list about 100 million USD in long/short term investments.
I.e. money they put aside, so they are actually rather swimming in money (nowhere to put it to good use, other than investing it into something else).

My support has stopped many years ago, when they decided to erase my (rather good) articles due to "irrelevance".

Edit: The "number of visits" tracking *is* creepy. Probably it's a good thing the EU does not trust US companies handling data. (Though most people, including me, willingly give away some data.)

[mfro]

As a German user, your donation would most likely have gone to Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. anyway who's financial statement looks a different (as it's acknowledged "gemeinnützig"(charitable), they are not allowed to make any profit).

But if they deleted your (certainly precious) entries, it's their fault anyway

[Ed.Kloonk]

I have not seen the counting version of the message, but I happily give Wikipedia money when they ask. They have a very good system. They don't send you a bill, but ask when you use the service. And every time it happens, I'm reminded just how much value I derive from its existence.

There are a number of tites like this that get my money despite being totally free.

Whilst I would never suggest what you plough your money into, I do have a problem with Wikipedia.

From my standpoint, I have seen too many articles which are, um, how you say, 'fiddled with'. Certain paragraphs structure stand out like sore thumbs and when you read the article changelogs, you soon find out that it's the noisiest who get to desecrate the facts with their bullshit.

[PlainName]

Wikimedia Foundation can be susceptible to irreverent probing. For example:

https://www.theregister.com/2017/06/07/golden_handshakes_at_wikipedia/

Re the spying and counting of funding rejections, it is probably just a cookie placed on your PC. Go to another PC, or just block cookies or make them session-delete cookies, and you'll probably find it's lost track. Thus there is no spying: any incriminating evidence of your tight-fistedness is store on your personal machine.

[RJSV]

Ahh, "No Spying...". Thanks I, we can rest easy (snarky sarcasm).

   Actually, I've been dreading this morning, facing potentially a bunch of arguments, but response replies look good.
   Haenk:. Please, if you can set some time aside, I would like to read, what text you wrote, that got shuttled off to 'irrelevant' file hopper?

   Anyway, some better detail:
    YouTube changed, in that the 'Go to wide-screen' (horizontal or sideways movie screen) feature icon seems to be removed, but maybe only with newer YouTube material. I noticed older videos still have that.  And seems older videos also do not feature a  transparent ADVERTISEMENT, just sitting right there across middle of your view. When it's there, it's a static title like: 'ACME CAR INSURANCE CO, Service since 1933'.
   Monopoly comments, about using Android to access Yahoo email:
   Icon says 'email' on smartphone, but 'it' does not recognize 'email' as a general sense word: it is only 'their' email (gaggle).  So the work-around is to do search, on any of the other emails. So there is that 'blindness'. Expression there, humans use is "Don't insult my intelligence (by pretending there ARE NO other email providers.)
   That little trouble got worsened, when UTUBE sent that recent email..."Hey wait a minute..." I thought:
"I never really gave my (yahoo) email out to either Google nor YouTube" (Google owns YouRube). That doubles down, on previous described 'blind spot', and again, they playing stupid, and insulting my intelligence. That's what got me to react like I did, wanting to post a question, on what YOUTUBE said is changing in user terms of agreement, for 2022.
  Oh, and writing about YOURUBE, I recall several times dozing off, late night while YouTube was playing..
Woke up to a 'Sign-up' screen and notice said:
   'Sign-up Complete !'.   Sign Up ? That was, at best, my pillow, or edge of blanket, grazing the touch screen, on my smartphone (Alcatel w Android).
   I just feel like, everything is hard/impossible, until it's some commercial advantage: Then things happen, almost spontaneously, as just described.

   As to some business, like Arduino board sales, also use COOKIES, but there is more diverse businesses to choose from.  I see job advertisements, saying 'respond via Facebook...' Really ? No options.

   I think about this aspect, of getting free info, that's a value, but don't have 'debate' skills to fully engage that.
   I DID buy the book, simply to do things like 'COPY PHOTO TO CLIPBOARD'. But the book, Android for Dummies, seems to require ' Purchase an App, for that, and the Photo APP will describe how to.
That's not an 'advanced feature'; I thought I was going pretty far, just buying the book, for simple screen function.  Nope, turns out that book is just full of promotional language: Buy the App.

[thm_w]

Interesting, they list about 100 million USD in long/short term investments.
I.e. money they put aside, so they are actually rather swimming in money (nowhere to put it to good use, other than investing it into something else).

My support has stopped many years ago, when they decided to erase my (rather good) articles due to "irrelevance".

Edit: The "number of visits" tracking *is* creepy. Probably it's a good thing the EU does not trust US companies handling data. (Though most people, including me, willingly give away some data.)

Just because they have buffer money does not mean they need to use it up immediately, Wikipedia should not be focused on growth.
Anyway, with current inflation rates its generally a bad idea to hold it all in cash.

[Haenk]

But if they deleted your (certainly precious) entries, it's their fault anyway

Funny thing is - some of the topics have been established again in recent years, with way less content and some incorrect statements.
There is a reason why wikipedia.de has so little content compared to wikipedia.com - it all dates back to pre-2010, when wikipedia.de-admins just erased everything they did not like or care about.
Honestly, knowledge is never irrelevant - even niche topics. At some point, someone will be looking for exactly this information - and wikipedia *had* it, but decided to delete it.

[magic]

Wikipedia is a perfect example of dodgy technology.

It's good for simple, widely known and easily verifiable objective facts, such as "the list of AMD Ryzen CPUs" or "silicon".
All else is crap and you will learn it fast if you try to use information from there to actually do/create something IRL.

Their begging goes away if you disable JS and cookies.
In fact, most websites become much better that way, except for those which simply go blank

[rsjsouza]

Wikipedia is a very useful site, given that many of the easily verifiable things are quite needed (at least by me) on a day-to-day basis.

When social/politics/history is involved on a topic, then it becomes an entirely different story... That is when this model falls apart.

I have noticed the push and counter, but it didn't bother me too much - perhaps because I use different browsers for different things and try to keep some sort of isolation from important things.

[SiliconWizard]

Wikipedia was a great idea at the beginning. But as it grew bigger, it inevitably got the baggage that all big similar organizations get.
It's part of the Wikimedia Foundation, and you just need to take a look at the main sponsors of this foundation to realize that it can't be an independent and unbiased source of information.
Thinking that big money can come with no strings attached is a violent delusion.

[Fflint]

As this thread is also about YouTube and its annoying ads I would like to point out there is a free (open source) app that automatically strips all the ads. I have no affiliation with the app creators. I'm just a user. I used to watch a lot of YouTube via their official app on my android TV until they started interrupting videos with their ads. Then I found the app called smartyoutubeTV (open source, on github at smartyoutubetv.github.io). Not only it skips the ads, but also all the sponsored content, intros, etc. It is great. One can login into it with the normal YouTube account to have your subscriptions, playlist etc.

There are some bugs (currently with opening play lists), but I think this is because I have a beta version. I also have a feeling YouTube doesn't promote most popular videos to users that block ads, but I got used to that and I find content via subscriptions.

Odysee etc, are still a joke unfortunately (on android TV at least) so we're stuck with YouTube for a while longer.

[YurkshireLad]

I only watch YouTube videos in Firefox, no apps. I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on YouTube.