1012 sats \ 2 replies \ @Lemon 26 Nov 2022 \ on: The Problem of Using Attention as a Currency bitcoin
Do you view Wikipedia as Value for Value?
Based on the number of emails I receive from them and the pop ups on their page for donations, they seem to be on the brink of considering advertising as a source of revenue if they are unable to reach their donation goals.
I’m very curious to understand why you feel this isn’t working for Wikipedia now.
Why aren’t they doing better? Wikipedia clearly adds value to the world.
Is it because of payment friction like
VISA transaction fees and entering in card information?
Is it the UI because we can’t boost posts like Stacker?
Is it poor incentives because authors aren’t proportionately rewarded from donations for their writings and research?
How do you think about this?
1k for great question! Wikipedia is a great target for v4v. How can we experiment with it?
Maybe enable LN payments through Alby, at least for some subsection like stuff related to Bitcoin? (Most people don't have any LN wallet setup so paying sats is harder for them than stupid credit cards)
reply
Great question.
Wikipedia is an interesting case study. It worked well in the past, but I would argue that it now suffers (and has for some years) what Warren Buffet called "the institutional imperative."
It used to be a very lean organization, and now is anything but. There are some interesting answers as to the why of this bloat. But many people agree that—again, for some years now—Wikipedia has cancer.
Personally, I would love to see a move away from "Siren Servers," towards something that rewards people monetarily, i.e. something along the lines of programmatic V4V splits. I believe it would solve some of these problems, but it probably will also introduce new problems. That's just how these things go.
In any case, I'm so bullish on V4V on Lightning in particular because of its directness and transparency, which should—at least in theory—reduce administrative and other bloat.
reply