Fulminator
Member
i donate a few dollars to wikipedia once a year. and by a few i literally mean 3 lol
so i guess
so i guess
-
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
shnurgleton
Member
Yes
Wikipedia is the most humanistic good thing on the internet. If anything on the dubya dubya dubya is deserving of funding and protection, its wikipedia.
Wikipedia is the most humanistic good thing on the internet. If anything on the dubya dubya dubya is deserving of funding and protection, its wikipedia.
NullPointer
Member
This.
Its honestly one of the best things to come out of this whole internet thing. Its a modern wonder and a sign of civilization advancing.
Palette Swap
Member
What kind of question is this? Are you assuming this is a scam, OP?
Of course they deserve the funding. Im glad they run these windows as it reminds me to donate.
Of course they deserve the funding. Im glad they run these windows as it reminds me to donate.
PeskyToaster
Member
I've donated in the past and it hasn't given me a fundraising banner in a while. Give em some love OP!
lordfuzzybutt
Member
I gave them money every time they ask and you should too, OP.
Finale Fireworker
Member
Wikipedia is one of the most vital and valuable resources of the modern age. I donate every year. I must read at least a Wikipedia article a day. I can't imagine my life without it. When I haven't heard of something before, I don't Google it, I check for a Wikipedia page first.
Some Nobody
Junior Member
lol of course they do.
Also, random: Does anyone remember when Wikipedia was first created and everyone called it trash and a reason for the downfall of students doing academic research? I'm amazed how much opinions have changed in a little over a decade.
Also, random: Does anyone remember when Wikipedia was first created and everyone called it trash and a reason for the downfall of students doing academic research? I'm amazed how much opinions have changed in a little over a decade.
Captain Europe
Member
Yes! Wikipedia is an amazing accomplishment.
A professor at my uni still calls it trash, he's an elitist weirdo tho.
A professor at my uni still calls it trash, he's an elitist weirdo tho.
German language (was, might still be) the second largest language wiki after English. It's entirely true that the smaller language wikis have some serious problems, especially when administrators basically rule by fiat (when I was a member of the English Arbitration Committee we'd regularly get pleas from other language wiki users to do something because there was no way to appeal an admin's decision there.)
For Wikipedia, fewer numbers of contributors (IMO) results in more interesting prose and better esoteric coverage, at the danger of more significant systemic error possibility; more contributors waters down the language and adds potential for errors from text formatting and additions (references disjointed from their supported statements, etc.) but also does a much better job at mediating biases.
The big threat to bias in Wikipedia, especially in political or social articles, is almost never in main articles, but in small content forks that don't get as much attention.
Finale Fireworker
Member
That GAF article on Wikipedia falls victim to this. There's a couple instances of seemingly intentional ambiguous phrasing and the article is fairly negative overall.
Take this excerpt:
NeoGAF is also a good example of how when there's not good overarching coverage, an article just turns into a litany of grab-bag facts. NeoGAF is clearly important enough for an article, but not important enough that it gets a lot of good coverage that can make the article much better than sentences about what X person thinks about it.
Just looked it up.
Talks about Evilore saying both sides, removal of Bishop, Amirox being a pedo, top Clinton site, For or Against from Denis, etc.
You can imagine the individual that wrote it.
Thought, I didn't know the history prior to 2005, so that was nice.
It's become especially amazing since the Wikipedians have been pushing so much for citation and quality information gathering. 'Citation needed' made the website so much better.
Finale Fireworker
Member
I wanted to rewrite the whole article with proper contextualization and adding more information other than just shady insinuations, but I don't even know where to start. How you cite sources for the experience of a forum, especially when the current article relies on websites like "recitygaming.com" for their sources?
It would be great to have an article as good as other internet staples like, say, @dril.
But I'm getting off topic. Forgive me. This is about funding Wikipedia, which we all should. Wikipedia belongs to us all. We share the responsibility.
Astral Dog
Member
God bless Wikipedia.
The fact that it's a free depository of knowledge available a few seconds away at my whim forces me to donate what I can when the prompt does the rounds.
To think that countless people throughout the ages would have been purely overjoyed at such a prospect of Wikipedia is cause to do it. Imagine what Aristotle would have done. That is your answer.
To think that countless people throughout the ages would have been purely overjoyed at such a prospect of Wikipedia is cause to do it. Imagine what Aristotle would have done. That is your answer.
Nothing on the internet is more worth your money than Wikipedia.
They have changed mankind, and for the better - which is generally a rarity when you're talking about the internet.
It is the largest known repository of knowledge in existence, and is available in almost every single language on the planet.
What Jimmy Wales and his organization have accomplished is nothing short of astounding.
They have changed mankind, and for the better - which is generally a rarity when you're talking about the internet.
It is the largest known repository of knowledge in existence, and is available in almost every single language on the planet.
What Jimmy Wales and his organization have accomplished is nothing short of astounding.
Robot Carnival
Member
I usually donate about $20 or so whenever I get their email. I like them and use them a lot so it's definitely worth it for me.
Astral Dog
Member
Glass Shark
Banned
.
IamDodongo
Member
I donated to Wikipedia this week. They deserve it.
Vire
Member
Knowledge is not a benefit to humanity?
Just donated a fiver, Wikipedia is the best site on the internet.
the-pi-guy
Member
Wikipedia is like the pinnacle of what the internet can be. A vast wealth of knowledge from subjects from politics, math, physics, billions of years of history summarized, engineering, chemistry, cars, planes, video games, chairs, guitars, religion, famous books, people, animals, etc, etc.
Nearly 5.5 million articles. Easily accessible and all available for free.
Nearly 5.5 million articles. Easily accessible and all available for free.
and yet no one will let you use it as a source. lol
Glass Shark
Banned
.
Earthbound64
Banned
And_Gignac
Member
I dont think they are. Encyclopedism is basically the reason why we live in the world we do. Wikipedia is crutial to continue with such tradition.
UltraMagnanimous
Member
Just gave $20. Super easy as they have Amazon Pay set up so a couple of clicks and you're done.
Ravensmash
Member
Most things are sourced on there though, and there's nothing stopping you from clicking on those sources and using those...
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
Yup.
Similar threads
- Poll