Hello, i have been using wikipedia for ages, and i noticed at least once or twic ein a year they ask for help. This has become more frequent lastly, but iI was wondering if they really need help, as i have read different questions on the issue. I know it is a philanthropic and selfless project , but nowadays, it is hard to know the whereabouts about everything? Are they in such a desperate situation?(the help windows are bigger than in the past)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Does Wikipedia deserve mercy and help?
- Thread starter fireflame
- Start date
ioriyagami
Member
It is my opinion that Wikipedia should become an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity soon so its funds are more or less guaranteed. It is one of the greatest accomplishments of humanity and (even if I think Wikimedia is doing perfectly well at this point) the perspective of it becoming privately funded or ad-ridden because of money problems is terrible.
Meanwhile, yes they deserve your mercy and help.
Meanwhile, yes they deserve your mercy and help.
Wikipedia is entirely free.
There are no ads. There are no subscriptions. No one gets a better service than anyone else. It's a shockingly accurate, unbiased, flourishing source of the most comprehensive wealth of information the human race has ever seen. Where other major websites face encroaching problems of corruption, capitalization, commercialization, privacy issues etc, Wikipedia remains free from these outside forces and remains relatively reliable.
If sticking a big donation box in my face once every six months for a week or two is what it takes, I couldn't care less. Hell, I donate every time one of those pops up.
We take Wikipedia for granted more than most things in this world. It's a blessing.
There are no ads. There are no subscriptions. No one gets a better service than anyone else. It's a shockingly accurate, unbiased, flourishing source of the most comprehensive wealth of information the human race has ever seen. Where other major websites face encroaching problems of corruption, capitalization, commercialization, privacy issues etc, Wikipedia remains free from these outside forces and remains relatively reliable.
If sticking a big donation box in my face once every six months for a week or two is what it takes, I couldn't care less. Hell, I donate every time one of those pops up.
We take Wikipedia for granted more than most things in this world. It's a blessing.
Pretty much this. It has it's issues, without a doubt, but the work they've done in gathering so much knowledge and making it easily accessible is nothing short of amazing.
SliceSabre
Banned
They are a charity so yea I expect that and don't mind it just like I don't mind when NPR stations twice a year ask for money during their near 2 week fundraising drives. Are they perfect? No, but no organization/charity is and I don't' believe in making perfect the enemy of good.
I believe they do good work and find their website valuable so I donate.
I believe they do good work and find their website valuable so I donate.
Diprosalic
Banned
i'm fine with people not donating but getting annoyed that they dare to ask for money is baffling. not talking about this thread in particular.
I use Wikipedia daily, multiple times a day. I think aside from the internet it's one of the best thing's we've done as a society. Knowledge is powerful and should always be free, Wikipedia helps insure that, we really do take it for granted.
The fact that it's completely free, remains impartial (or at least tries it's best) and you can find out about pretty much anything on almost any subject you can think of in a matter of seconds means they always get a donation from me every year.
The fact that it's completely free, remains impartial (or at least tries it's best) and you can find out about pretty much anything on almost any subject you can think of in a matter of seconds means they always get a donation from me every year.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
It is an amazing public service, so yes donations and pledge drives make sense.
Austriacus
Member
I donate a sizable amount every time the message pops, I think its no exageration to say Wikipedia is one of the greatest achievments of humankind, the amount of information that it contains, represented in so many languages at that, is nothing short of amazing. And all of that for free. That means that kids and adults in developing nations or people of low socioeconomic status in developed nations have the opportunity to access a wealth of information that wasnt even imaginable a decade ago for them to learm from at any moment they want as long as they have an Internet conection. You cant put a price on that, and we should stop taking it for granted
hobblygobbly
Member
Yes I have donated a couple of times, it's an information resource that is very well moderated and maintained as you can get on the Internet.
I also feel it should be something that is part of a programme that receives funding from the UN.
I think people have forgotten about the encyclopedia books and software and there's a whole generation now that has only ever used Wikpedia and not the former, while the former were great for their time they pale in comparison to Wikipedia. Not to mention the wide range of language support.
Think about how often you use the site just to get some general information on a topic that might drive your interest to research later on with books and such, no point in history has information been so easily accessible for free.
I also feel it should be something that is part of a programme that receives funding from the UN.
I think people have forgotten about the encyclopedia books and software and there's a whole generation now that has only ever used Wikpedia and not the former, while the former were great for their time they pale in comparison to Wikipedia. Not to mention the wide range of language support.
Think about how often you use the site just to get some general information on a topic that might drive your interest to research later on with books and such, no point in history has information been so easily accessible for free.
I remember Encarta. Dunno how much that cost my parents. Probably a lot. And before that they bought an entire encyclopedia (like dozens of vulumes)...don't even want to think what they paid for that.
Westbahnhof
Banned
Wikipedia won't help me stay awake during boring lectures.
Or, it could, but not in any helpful way.
I do agree that Wikipedia deserves support though.
NHarmonic.
Member
Wikipedia actually reminds me of the foundation? I think it was called, from Isaac asimov's book. It's always useful, when you need to quickly understand a concept or you're curious about mostly anything.
ZackieChan
Member
I edited the grammar on the page for "quesadilla" a few years back. I've done my part.
You're free to use the citations included on the page. That's where the info is coming from (theoretically), and is probably a better and more specific source than Wikipedia itself.
stan423321
Member
This is actually surprisingly complicated. Obviously Wikipedia needs some money to work the way it does now. However, there are concerns about the way Wikimedia Foundation manages stuff, the cost raises don't follow the workflow raises for their primary projects. And objectively, the fundraisers used to be rarer, I think. I used to give a little at every one, then one happened soon after another and I just decided to stop, all I do now is shifting Humble Store's 5% to them.
TatteredHat
Member
I remember a world before Wikipedia, it's one of the greatest achievements of the internet age.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Yes. Kind of a dumb question imo.
That's because most people don't use it correctly. In school you use it as a repository of citations. You don't cite Wiki as the source, you cite what Wikipedia cites (this is why they have all their sources at the bottom of a page).
That's because most people don't use it correctly. In school you use it as a repository of citations. You don't cite Wiki as the source, you cite what Wikipedia cites (this is why they have all their sources at the bottom of a page).
This. Wikipedia is sourced itself, so it would be bad form to use it as a source even if it was allowed. Always make sure you source the original work.
Patrick Young
Member
If Wikipedia went subscription I'd pay for it. I've been using it forever and never given them a cent so I owe it to them.
I should've given them money years ago.
I should've given them money years ago.
I get that and it's how I do it. It just seemed annoying to me that I can cite other research papers that summarize the topics from their own sources, but not Wikipedia which basically does the same thing.
Stead Fast
Banned
I think given the amount of questionably reliable information available online designed purely to trick you and make a profit off of you, having a site purely ad free, with a massive goal of remaining factually accurate, unbiased and free for anyone to view is one of the most worthy recipients of charity on the planet.
teruterubozu
Member
True, but often the citation sources are incorrect or even outdated with dead links. I find many schools are outright discouraging the use of Wikipedia for anything these days.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I say no fucking mercy for encyclopedias. Jimmy knows what he did.
llien
Member
Explain please.
Non-English Wikipedia is trash. Their equivalent article is always lacking in content and elaboration. It's only good for local, English-irrelevant information. I suppose the much smaller pool of contributors will do that to your encyclopaedia. They should have a policy of machine-translation for all the big English articles.
That's because Wikipedia is always changing and anonymously edited. When you quote a source you have an author to contact and follow, and a set article that you can retrieve. Also if you quote Wikipedia you are removed from the actual information: the reader would have to check the wiki to retrieve the actual source and check it too. Cut the middle-man, cut wikipedia.
I think Wikipedia does not want to be beholden to getting funds from large organizations, be they government or corporate. They do these public fundraisers because they want their funding to come primarily from small private donations.
I can understand the motivation as government & corporate funding can be politicized and used to cast doubt on objectivity.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
If you don't trust them then check a charity watchdog:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212
AlteredForms
Banned
Those links still make me shiver. I've spent too much time on Wikipedia because of them.
Seraph_Nicholas
Member
This is a pretty great idea, actually. Put a banner at the top announcing the article as machine translated, link the original, and ask for grammar/translation improvements. That's a much lower barrier of entry than writing an article from scratch.
Not true. I've read a ton of excellent articles on the German Wiki. It's just that pretty much all admins are weird pseudo-elitists who don't know jack.
Similar threads
- Poll