• user134450@feddit.deEnglish
    162·
    10 months ago

    What makes them think that the library of Alexandria did it any other way? Nerds have existed long before the internet…

      • rockerface 🇺🇦@lemm.eeEnglish
        51·
        10 months ago

        You can only call then Nerds if they’re from the Nerdeaux region of France. Otherwise they’re just sparkling smartasses

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        19·
        10 months ago

        umm ackshually this is false, the concept of nerd originates from a viking ship that docked at Lübeck in 873, whereupon the crew got into an extended argument about the precise value of their cargo, leading to the Lübeck merchants exclaiming “Fücking Nörds!” and that quickly caught on and eventually the term started generally referring to anyone that was annoyingly pedantic but technically correct.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    111·
    10 months ago

    That’s literally what the library of Alexandria was all about.

    They told all of the nerds that the best nerd paper would get into their nerd building, and nerds traveled there from around the world and dedicated their lives to correcting and one-upping the other nerds.

    I love the fallibility of humans and our consistency, it makes me much more comfortable to live in a world that seems comprehensible, because I know underneath all of it are like three dumb existential complacencies that any human part of the species can’t deny.

  • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.worldEnglish
    977·
    10 months ago

    Just ignore the 150M a year they spend managing finances, contributors, tech, moderation, etc. Takes a lot to maintain an accurate library.

    • underisk@lemmy.mlEnglish
      71·
      10 months ago

      i dont think anyone is ignoring that. the meme is talking about how it was built, not how it’s currently maintained. it definitely didn’t start off spending that much. all that spending is a consequence of it’s popularity, not the reason for it.

      • NotJustForMe@lemmy.mlEnglish
        75·
        10 months ago

        Some would say that most of the spending is based on greed. Individual salaries doubled to tripled in the last decade, with their head earning three quarters of a million now.

        It was a tenth 15 years ago.

        They started out right, like they all do. Then personal money catches up.

        • mriormro@lemmy.worldEnglish
          83·
          10 months ago

          You thinking a $750,000 salary for the CEO of one of the top ten visited websites in the world and arguably one of the most important knowledge resources we’ve probably ever created is ‘greed’ is pretty hilarious.

          • underisk@lemmy.mlEnglish
            65·
            10 months ago

            Thinking one guy deserves that much salary for the work of millions of volunteers over decades is what’s hilarious. Do you think those giant pleas that they post when they need money would be as convincing if they listed his salary?

            • dr_lobotomy@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
              4·
              10 months ago

              What does that have to do with Wikipedia specifically?This isn’t a problem of wikipedia it’s a problem of capitalism

          • dariusj18@lemmy.worldEnglish
            113·
            10 months ago

            I think you should consider the opportunity cost of what they would be making elsewhere. Salaries need to be competitive, otherwise you are at the mercy of those who are willing to work for less and hope that the reason is benevolent.

            • underisk@lemmy.mlEnglish
              21·
              10 months ago

              That would make more sense if Wikipedia was a profit generating enterprise that needed to satisfy shareholders. It’s run like a charity through donations, though.

              Fifteen other people sit on the board of trustees that oversees wikimedia. The only person on that board who gets paid is Jimmy.

            • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.devEnglish
              37·
              10 months ago

              I don’t buy that argument at all, it just doesn’t make any sense for a position like Wikipedia. Sure, if you’re in a highly competitive and specialised industry where connections and insider information matters I would get it, but just running a “simple” organisation like Wikipedia, no way.

                • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.devEnglish
                  63·
                  10 months ago

                  Yes? And by simple I meant in the manner that it’s not a competitive company. They aren’t there to bring in the AI revolution or invent the next iPhone. Their primary goal is to just keep the servers running, not create record profits for shareholders.

                  High six figure salaries in general seems foreign to me. A core part of the nordic model is to limit wage gap between high education jobs and low education jobs, so the entire CEO wage structure in the US seems completely backwards.

        • Irelephant@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          Aside from nagging a bit more often for donations, has the site gotten worse in any way as a result?

    • gwildors_gill_slits@lemmy.caEnglish
      34·
      10 months ago

      150m a year doesn’t seem that much, honestly. I know people think “oh, it’s just a website” but it takes a lot of work and money in salaries and infrastructure hosting to keep a web application as popular as Wikipedia up and running.

      • nik9000@programming.devEnglish
        56·
        10 months ago

        I used to work for them. It was weird and wonderful and I miss it and I don’t. Lots of mission driven folks working hard to keep things going getting very little respect. But a lot of respect. But sometimes none.

        Iirc a lot of their budget is spent doing charity stuff. Encouraging contributions for tiny languages. Trying not to cave to Russia or the US or France. Trying to make it less of a boys club. Trying to get local organizations going.

        I remember once they sent an email that said “if the French government asks you to delete this page please just delete it. It’s not worth going to jail. Someone outside of France will revert the delete.”

        I wasn’t qualified for the work. No one was. But it was honest work.

        • lledrtx@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          10 months ago

          Thank you for your work, though!

          Very curious about the page French govt wanted deleted.

            • Churbleyimyam@lemm.eeEnglish
              4·
              10 months ago

              Curious to read more about that but I can’t seem to find a source for it. Do you have one?

              • No_Ones_Slick_Like_Gaston@lemmy.worldEnglish
                9·
                10 months ago

                Certainly, here are some notable instances involving French colonial forces:

                1. Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962): This was a significant and violent decolonization conflict where Algerian nationalists sought independence from French colonial rule. The French military’s efforts to suppress the independence movement resulted in large numbers of casualties, including civilians. Tactics such as the use of torture, mass executions, and the creation of internment camps were reported. The exact number of Algerian casualties is disputed, but estimates suggest that the death toll could be in the range of hundreds of thousands.

                2. The Madagascar Uprising (1947): In Madagascar, a nationalist uprising against French colonial rule was met with severe repression. French forces were accused of committing numerous atrocities in their effort to suppress the rebellion, including summary executions, village burnings, and torture. Estimates of the Malagasy deaths vary widely, with some suggesting that the number could be as high as 100,000.

                3. Indochina War (1946–1954): This conflict in French Indochina, which includes modern-day Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, was fought between French colonial forces and the Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh, who sought independence. The war was marked by guerrilla warfare and significant civilian casualties, with both sides accused of atrocities. The use of forced labor, internment camps, and the bombing of civilian areas contributed to a high death toll.

                These examples reflect the complex and often brutal nature of colonial rule and the struggle for independence. They involve a wide range of actions and policies implemented by French military and colonial authorities, which led to significant loss of life and suffering among the colonized populations.

                • superkret@feddit.orgEnglish
                  1·
                  1 month ago

                  Please don’t use LLM-generated text to answer another lemming’s question.
                  Anyone can get that kind of answer themselves. And it would need manual fact-checking before you posted it anyway.
                  We’re here for human answers and interaction.

  • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    45·
    10 months ago

    “The best way to get a correct answer online is not to post a question. It is to post the wrong answer.”

  • Dagwood222@lemm.eeEnglish
    282·
    10 months ago

    All human advancement was created by nerds. Spears were invented by weaklings too slow to kill with their bare hands. Fire was tamed by the people who were scared of the dark

    • meliaesc@lemmy.worldEnglish
      14·
      10 months ago

      I think fire was tamed because the food poisoning killed those without it. We are supposed to just sleep at night.

    • neptune@dmv.socialEnglish
      5·
      10 months ago

      I think the post makes a point important in modern capitalism: people will create “value” for free because they can, they care, they want to, it’s a challenge. Capital and/or the threat of starvation is not actually always necessary for people to be “productive”. Ego, boredom, altruism, adventure, these are also traits of humanity besides survival and greed.

  • REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    212·
    10 months ago

    At least that is the PR.

    It all goes out of the window as soon as politcal events are concerned, then it is just western naratives all over. With things as sources, good sources, multiple viewpoints all forgotten. What the west says is treated as gospel. While paid editors up to and including state actors rule the site. The system of nerds correcting each other is then used to prevent corrections.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    102·
    10 months ago

    Yes, I do, every time there’s seventeen exceptions on a statement that used to be simple. ‘This was their last album with this drummer, until he came back, except for this other time, before he left again.’ Just rewrite the damn sentence.

  • Dr. Coomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    10 months ago

    What I find amazing is that some people are so dedicated to Wikipedia that they literally and consider vandals for how much information they put in.

  • Syn_Attck@lemmy.todayEnglish
    1112·
    10 months ago

    The other day I used the term weaponized a*t*sm in a positive way, and I got site banned for a day for ableism.

    I’m on the spectrum. I’m also the one that ended up going into weaponizrd detail in that thread.

    Semi-related, only because if you used the title you actually wanted to, you probably would have been banned too.

    Mods are weaponized.

    • AVincentInSpace@pawb.socialEnglish
      28·
      10 months ago

      I realize autistic people often have trouble with tone and having people interpret things the way they meant it to come across – lord knows it took me took long enough to develop that skill – but good grief. I’m on the spectrum, and if I were a mod who had just read the comment in your screenshot, I’d’ve banned you too.

      Now that you’ve explained you meant it in a positive way, I completely understand what you meant, but nothing in the comment you wrote makes it clear that you think of autism in a positive way or, in fact, as anything besides “lol nerd emoji”. The fact that you had just finished going on a seven paragraph infodump (I’m guessing) unfortunately does nothing to prove otherwise: an unfortunate number of undiagnosed autistic people spend their days getting into online fights, writing said seven paragraph comments, and calling anyone who disagrees with them autistic because they want to feel superior and “autistic” is a handy epithet. I don’t think anyone would argue these people should be welcome in our communities just because of autism they themselves don’t know about.

      To be clear, I’m not saying that last statement applies to you. I’m saying if I didn’t know anything about you except that you had written the comment in that screenshot, I would have assumed it did and not given it a second thought. I can almost guarantee that’s what that mod did.

      While that term is slowly but surely being reclaimed, and I’m glad that it is, at present, it still holds the status of “insult unless explicitly stated otherwise.” Now that you’ve told me what you meant, I can see where you were coming from, but as that comment was written, “spread some weaponized autism” implies you’re prepared to call anyone who disagrees with you a slur. Your comment seems to be saying “only an idiot autistic person would miss the sarcasm in this comment and bother to respond.” It’s not what you meant, but it’s how I (and no doubt plenty of other people) probably read it.

      Please learn to use qualifiers and/or tone indicators, for the sake of your own reputation. If you’d said “Can’t wait for all my autistic friends to chime in with a seven paragraph sales pitch for their niche chat platform of choice” or even just replaced “weaponized autism” with “weaponized autism (affectionate)” and left the rest of the comment as is, I guarantee you’d have been fine.

      • bruhduh@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        I feel you,i had to learn to feel context (vibe) too, however, from my own experience i can tell that no qualifiers and explanations would prevent previous me from getting everything wrong

    • DillyDaily@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      10 months ago

      I get that you’re trying to use it in a positive way, but in my country that first word you used is a slur that has not even attempted to be reclaimed, so it instantly makes me start reading your comment with an ableist tone.

      Now that I know you’re trying to frame it in a positive way, I can force myself to read your comment in a positive tone. But it’s difficult because the language chosen still makes me read it like you’re annoyed that autistic people will miss the sarcasm and take it too seriously.