It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Supporting wikipedia(?)(23 posts)(23 posts)
(23 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 29, 2014
I decided to stray from my no-money charity path and donated some money for wikipedia. I use it daily, but do not contribute to by editing, so i suppose that was only fair thing to do after all these years.

..usually i donate by giving away used (good quality) stuff instead of money, but that was kinda impossible in this case :)

Has anyone else thought about supporting wiki? I bet most do use it quite often - or someone suspect it of using money in wrong way or anything?
Posted January 29, 2014
I donated to wikipedia several times, because it's a useful resource. I tend to use it just to get a broad overview over a topic, or when I need to research something and I have no clue where to begin.
Posted January 29, 2014
Jimbo is evil.
Posted January 29, 2014
When I get back to gainful employment again I will donate. It's not to far off from what my parents and my friends parents did back in the day for public television. This time around it's not tv programming, but rather a freeish useful online resource.
Posted January 29, 2014
Wiikipedia is controlled by some people is not an unbiased source of information, from politics to games it's all biased and controlled I would never put any cent into wikipedia.
Posted January 29, 2014
Donated 5 euros, since I use it very frequently and have never donated before.
Granted, accuracy of the articles is often disputed but as a handy resource to get a quick idea about anything at all it can't be beaten.
Posted January 29, 2014
I donated before, simply because I've accessed it so much.
Posted January 29, 2014
iippo, how I now like you even better, besides the measured, kind and well argued divinity debate! :-D

You do somehow remind me of my rather reluctant but now accomplished purchase of MS Office for home use at about 100 Eur.

My issue is that there it is not too much transparency how much "overhead" there is with Wikipedia - which I think is something we users should consider how to push for. If we see an ad asking for a donation, should we not all e-mail and ask for the accounts?

Mind you, quite possibly ironically, one has to ask Wikipedia to print out and mail the payment formular within Switzerland - I trust taking in dictators' wealth is a whole lot less complicated that this charitable operation, as such!

Edit: grammar.
Post edited January 29, 2014 by TStael
Posted January 30, 2014
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BerVluzCMAAivh9.jpg
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
GastonArg: Wiikipedia is controlled by some people is not an unbiased source of information, from politics to games it's all biased and controlled I would never put any cent into wikipedia.
rather difficult to make something like wiki that is not controlled by anyones is it? Anyways, wiki is not taking commercial money - so that is already saying something to me atleast.
avatar
TStael: -snip-
heh, thanks i suppose :)

about wikis transparency - well i just havent had the time to spend and find out really. Based on my user experience of wiki, i havent got too much to complain about and thats good enough for me.

Yes someone is getting paid by wiki, probably alot of better than me as well - but what gives? Not reason to be jealous really. So far wiki has provided very useful and from what ive seen, rather neutral service, which is simply enough for me.

If wiki wasnt around, the basic information searching would be pretty much dependant on random internetpages, which would hardly be a good thing. Then again, i am surprised how totally the old encyclopedias have lost their balance in the internet age.
Post edited January 31, 2014 by iippo
Posted January 31, 2014
When your government modifies the pages and the info gets locked down, same with many games( for example gone home) gives you a lot to think about...
avatar
GastonArg: Wiikipedia is controlled by some people is not an unbiased source of information, from politics to games it's all biased and controlled I would never put any cent into wikipedia.
avatar
iippo: rather difficult to make something like wiki that is not controlled by anyones is it? Anyways, wiki is not taking commercial money - so that is already saying something to me atleast.
avatar
TStael: -snip-
avatar
iippo: heh, thanks i suppose :)

about wikis transparency - well i just havent had the time to spend and find out really. Based on my user experience of wiki, i havent got too much to complain about and thats good enough for me.

Yes someone is getting paid by wiki, probably alot of better than me as well - but what gives? Not reason to be jealous really. So far wiki has provided very useful and from what ive seen, rather neutral service, which is simply enough for me.

If wiki wasnt around, the basic information searching would be pretty much dependant on random internetpages, which would hardly be a good thing. Then again, i am surprised how totally the old encyclopedias have lost their balance in the internet age.
Posted January 31, 2014
i found some info there to be wrong, it's a business

can you trust them completely?
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
darkplanetar: i found some info there to be wrong, it's a business

can you trust them completely?
Its actually non-profit organization, not business. But no, you cant and should not trust anything completely.
avatar
GastonArg: When your government modifies the pages and the info gets locked down, same with many games( for example gone home) gives you a lot to think about...
avatar
iippo: rather difficult to make something like wiki that is not controlled by anyones is it? Anyways, wiki is not taking commercial money - so that is already saying something to me atleast.

heh, thanks i suppose :)

about wikis transparency - well i just havent had the time to spend and find out really. Based on my user experience of wiki, i havent got too much to complain about and thats good enough for me.

Yes someone is getting paid by wiki, probably alot of better than me as well - but what gives? Not reason to be jealous really. So far wiki has provided very useful and from what ive seen, rather neutral service, which is simply enough for me.

If wiki wasnt around, the basic information searching would be pretty much dependant on random internetpages, which would hardly be a good thing. Then again, i am surprised how totally the old encyclopedias have lost their balance in the internet age.
avatar
GastonArg:
I wouldnt know about the games, but isnt the editability the exact point of wiki? Anyways, governments write history books too, so its not like you can just blindly believe anything in the first place.. Information age really puts huge demand on media-reading ability of the user.

Stuff gets changed there one way and then other -> if its hot topic, i believe it may take some time to get nailed down properly. Anyways, clear misinformation and propaganda does get removed when spotted, so i think that is fair enough.

Ofcourse one could edit wiki if they have better info themselves :)

Anyways, I think wiki gives good general idea about roughly anything. Its not scientific source though - but average Joe (=me) has rarely need for scientific sources to begin with.
Post edited January 31, 2014 by iippo
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
iippo: ...
No, you cannot edit the info yourself even if you complain about it formally and they now when something has "misinformation" that is the point I'm making, and admitting that there is propaganda because there is and supporting it with your money that is what I will never do, not with wikipedia not with a newspaper or nothing EVER.
Post edited January 31, 2014 by GastonArg
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
iippo: ...
avatar
GastonArg: No, you cannot edit the info yourself even if you complain about it formally and they now when something has "misinformation" that is the point I'm making, and admitting that there is propaganda because there is and supporting it with your money that is what I will never do, not with wikipedia not with a newspaper or nothing EVER.
Wikipedia is open to extensive abuse because of how open it is, they do the best they can to control this abuse and occasionally they have to lock things down etc because of nut job/extremists and many groups who try and hijack things.

Wikipedia takes no government money so they have absolutely no incentive to have any crazy conspiracies with governments going on, if something gets locked it is just them doing the best they can to stop the abuse.
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Supporting wikipedia(?)(23 posts)(23 posts)
(23 posts)