• Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 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.

  • user134450@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

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

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 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.

  • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 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.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 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.

          • dariusj18@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 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.

            • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 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.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 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.

        • mriormro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 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.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 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?

  • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    That’s what it should’ve been. In reality anything even remotely political on it is heavily biased towards imperial core and NATO countries, and against their geopolitical rivals.

    This happens partly because most of these “nerds” are also westerners and rate their own outlets as more reliable, thus enforcing western propaganda.

    • lemmyingly@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      You bring up an interesting point. There are opposing opinions on everything if you go deep enough into the topic, even in STEM fields too.

      It’d be interesting to see a Wikipedia that provides pages on the same topic that present each opinion. So the base/overview page on the topic states the summaries of each opinion with a link for further reading. Each opinion page states there are many opinions on the topic and it just presents one. Each page then suggests for further reading, view the base/overview page where the user can read about other opinions on the topic.