-COOLIO-
The Everyman
what compendium does it better?
unless you're merely scoffing at the notion of it being perfect, in which case, sure, it's not. but what is?
-
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
what compendium does it better?
unless you're merely scoffing at the notion of it being perfect, in which case, sure, it's not. but what is?
Earthbound64
Banned
I'm not "scoffing at the notion of it being perfect."
I'm saying that attributing these things to it is extremely misguided.
The fact that there are issues with other things as well doesn't change the fact that those things should not be attributed to Wikipedia.
Phoenix RISING
Banned
I'm dead serious when I say that in the advent of #45 and the rise of white nationalism, I seriously question the viability of a site like Wikipedia when so many people would rather reference their confirmation biases.
Feels like my money would go to waste, and I'm better off just buying more books for me and my own.
Feels like my money would go to waste, and I'm better off just buying more books for me and my own.
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
White nationalists get all their info from YouTube not Wikipedia
Princess Viola
Member
White nationalists don't edit Wikipedia.
Well they do, but then they complain about the site's 'anti-white' bias when their edits get reverted.
Wikipedia is like the purest version of what the web used to be. It consolidated the millions of would-be weird fansites into something readable.
adamantypants
Member
Same. Of everything web-based that I give money to, Wikipedia absolutely deserves it the most.
They ask for help maybe twice a year. Alexa ranks them as the #5 most visited website in the world. They don't use ads. I'm surprised the donate banner isn't permanent.
tonysidaway
Member
I've contributed content to Wikipedia and was for some time very active in shaping its policies, so obviously I have a strong bias towards its culture.
If there is a single remarkable thing that I can show you to demonstrate its value, it's this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
Wikipedia painstakingly documents criticism of itself, in an article subject to exactly the same open editing, verifiability and neutral point of view principles as the rest of its content.
Wikipedia is the main one of several projects owned and managed by an American registered charitable foundation, which you can find about here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation
Significant Wikipedia scandals are also assiduously recorded on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies
If you can afford it, please donate.
If there is a single remarkable thing that I can show you to demonstrate its value, it's this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
Wikipedia painstakingly documents criticism of itself, in an article subject to exactly the same open editing, verifiability and neutral point of view principles as the rest of its content.
Wikipedia is the main one of several projects owned and managed by an American registered charitable foundation, which you can find about here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation
Significant Wikipedia scandals are also assiduously recorded on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies
If you can afford it, please donate.
IamDodongo
Member
Excellent example of why Wikipedia is incredibly important.
_Aaron_
Member
I have never donated to Wikipedia. I help Wikipedia by writing and maintaining content for it. I have over 50,000 edits and have created over 100 articles.
It's an invaluable resource for millions of people, yet the majority of constructive content is written by a very small percentage of users.
It's an invaluable resource for millions of people, yet the majority of constructive content is written by a very small percentage of users.
Not trying to be a dick, but were you around before Wikipedia?
Nothing "too bad" about it. Students should learn to find, evaluate & use original sources, not to rely on someone's summaries on subjects.
shnurgleton
Member
Wikipedia is an excellent source for those sources.
If one is cautious enough with those sources, yeah.
DUFFMCWALIN
Member
Exactly. I donate every time I get a pop up. Its one of the most invaluable pieces of humanity we have.
I never liked this argument. I heard it a lot in college. Wikipedia is a perfect launching pad for deeper research in a subject. Should you trust everything you see on your monitor? No, but you should give Wikipedia more credit than this.
I honestly think Wikipedia is the pinnacle of for what internet should be used. I gave a chunk of my first paycheck to them as a thank you of all the times it had helped me during my studies to catch a quick concept or some details in some side-topic... anything.
Each person decides what to do with their money, but I honestly believe that helping wikipedia stay as it is a more than justified cause to give some money to them.
Each person decides what to do with their money, but I honestly believe that helping wikipedia stay as it is a more than justified cause to give some money to them.
Wikipedia should be funded by all countries in the world in my opinion. If every country donated a little each year, it would be great!
It is the biggest and most accessible knowledge repository in the History of man kind.
BlackRainbowFT
Member
removed
Last edited:
disappeared
Banned
I always tell myself to donate but I never do. Just super lazy about it. :/
I've used it for years and it's been such an valuable asset.
I've used it for years and it's been such an valuable asset.
thesoapster
Member
I've donated a few times. It's a wonderful thing. I've donated to other charities/causes here and there in the past, but Wikimedia always feels worthwhile to me.
Moral Panic
Member
I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed and my eyes were opened.
Wikipedia gets more funding, so it increases it's activities, so it needs more funding. They are not in a desperate situation they just want more money.
Wikipedia gets more funding, so it increases it's activities, so it needs more funding. They are not in a desperate situation they just want more money.
That's because they need to maintain more servers for more information and more features. Feature creep is a good thing if it encourages growth.
tonysidaway
Member
Yes, obviously they need public money. It's how charities work. We give them money and they continue to advance the aims specified in their charter. Giving them money is like saying you want more of what they're doing.
Paquete_PT
Member
A website with that much information about everything the human race as ever done, providing it for free, helping millions of students and people around the world reach information that a couple of decades ago would be insanely harder to get...yes, they do deserve our sympathy and the ocasional donation
ghostofsparta
Member
I'd pay for a subscription if all the wikis were kept up to date with credible information. It wasn't until I got older and clicking on the references, that I noticed half of the links are dead.
On top of that, I regularly run into, clearly, bullshit information.
I just don't trust it for any real research
On top of that, I regularly run into, clearly, bullshit information.
I just don't trust it for any real research
Moral Panic
Member
What's wrong with doing one thing well? Is it necessary for Wikipedia to demand more money every year?
Look at the OP! Wikipedia makes more and more intentionally misleading campaigns to make you think they are on the brink and need cash to keep the site running. They are not poor and helpless they are extremely rich and well funded. Your charity money will go way further in other causes.
You've obviously never seen public television/radio during fundraising time. They do the same thing, because it's how you get people to donate. They won't go bankrupt if they don't meet their funding goals, however they will have to downsize cutting many valuable features that people use.
as with all sources
is anyone actually arguing that Wikipedia should the only source of information?
Twilight Princess
Member
I donated before and keep getting emails asking me to donate again. The thing is, the more emails I get, the less I want to donate to them. If I dont get these begging emails and only see that they need help when I visit Wikipedia, Id give more.
tonysidaway
Member
Doing one thing well isn't their stated purpose. The purpose of Wikimedia Foundation is described as follows:
You continue:
I looked at the original post, which is a confused query about why this charitable foundation (like every other) appeals for money. The poster also, for some reason, seems to think Wikimedia is saying it's in a "desperate situation". The original poster provides no evidence that they claim this. He just assumes it to be the case because "the help windows are bigger than in the past."
Yes, they're well funded, and most of their money comes in small donations from such appeals. It follows that such appeals are very successful.
The decision on whether to donate to this particular charity is up to the individual, but if you never visit Wikipedia you'll never need to see an appeal in the first place. Even if you do see one, you can just click on the "hide" button and it'll go away.
Similar threads
- Poll