Feel guilty for not ever donating to wiki?

[WelshBloke]

Wikimedia supposedly has a huge nest egg of cash. Enough to maintain the site ad-free for several years. They're not exactly hard up. So no, I don't feel guilty. What I don't like is how predatory their fundraising campaign has gotten. This particular one seems to have gone on a lot longer. Banners are also a lot bigger, especially on the mobile site.

Do you not like it enough to stop using their services? Or do you keep mooching?

 

[WelshBloke]

Wiki is the single greatest unwitting proponent of idiocracy the world has ever seen.

No it isn't. Trite, self-serving forum posts have to be way above wiki in that respect.

 

[PlanetJosh]

If a sign up is required to donate to wiki it could put off some people. Maybe that was mentioned already. Who wants to go through another sign up with name, email and all that, then maybe having to check email and click on a link to verify sign up registration just to donate a few bucks.

I noticed some reference to a sign up or registration on the right side of the ad and that has caused me to hesitate to a degree. Maybe it was to sign up to wiki in general but it looked to me like a sign up just to donate. Call people heartless if you want to for not wanting to register in order to donate something. If so then have wiki pots out on the street corners attended by someone for cash donations.

 

[lxskllr]

If a sign up is required to donate to wiki it could put off some people. Maybe that was mentioned already. Who wants to go through another sign up with name, email and all that, then maybe having to check email and click on a link to verify sign up registration just to donate a few bucks.

I noticed some reference to a sign up or registration on the right side of the ad and that has caused me to hesitate to a degree. Maybe it was to sign up to wiki in general but it looked to me like a sign up just to donate.

You can donate through a few mechanisms that are as anonymous as you want them to be.

 

[phucheneh]

While I obviously hate all forms of wikibegging, what I have noticed with this latest bout is not that it's hard to donate...rather the opposite. The ease of donation is...distasteful. I remember seeing a box already filled in with an amount, and buttons right next to it for a credit card, paypal, and other methods.

Like, fuck you wikipedia, don't presume to know what I would [definitely not] donate to you. You're like an asshole washroom attendant that hands you a dirty towel, sprays cologne in your eyes and then holds his hand out, stares at you and starts fake coughing. WHY ARE YOU EVEN HERE, DUDE, I DON'T EVEN THINK APPLEBEES HAS BATHROOM ATTENDANTS.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

How's that? Don't blame the tool because of the user. If you have a specific content complaint, fix it. The world doesn't need more whining leeches. Patches, documentation, or STFU.

The problem is wiki does nothing to inform users to how limited and narrowly focused it really is. I have absolutely nothing against the idea of putting information online. I think it's a very positive and forward thinking idea. The problem is the implementation. You say not to blame the tool but, the tool shapes how it is used and, more to the point, it tends to preclude using the tool in other ways. The vast majority of users think wiki and the internet in general is a bottomless pit instead of a medium large box in a warehouse located in a town they don't even know exists. I'm not saying wiki shouldn't do what they do, I'm saying they should make at least some small effort to inform users of it's limitations. Why do you take my criticisms as some sort of personal attack?

 

[lxskllr]

The problem is wiki does nothing to inform users to how limited and narrowly focused it really is. I have absolutely nothing against the idea of putting information online. I think it's a very positive and forward thinking idea. The problem is the implementation. You say not to blame the tool but, the tool shapes how it is used and, more to the point, it tends to preclude using the tool in other ways. The vast majority of users think wiki and the internet in general is a bottomless pit instead of a medium large box in a warehouse located in a town they don't even know exists. I'm not saying wiki shouldn't do what they do, I'm saying they should make at least some small effort to inform users of it's limitations. Why do you take my criticisms as some sort of personal attack?

I don't take the criticism as a personal attack. I consider the criticism unfounded. Does any other compendium of knowledge give a disclaimer that it isn't a primary source? I know for a fact Americana encyclopedia doesn't. Also, while I haven't read much in recent years, I used to read heavily, and I don't remember a single disclaimer ever.

People have misused resources since ever. That's not new to the digital age. What has changed, is the ease in which things can be fact checked, and corrected. The world is full of genuine experts that previously had no outlet for their special skill. Their knowledge died when they did, and it had to be (hopefully)recreated later.

There's nothing but positive benefits that can come from resources like Wikipedia. Hopefully crowd sourced, libre text books will become as popular, and students won't get raped trying to better themselves, and everyone else in the process.

 

[phucheneh]

Wikipedia is more unbiased and well-cited than any 'proper' resource I ever used in school.

For most things. The more obscure the topic, the more likely that its articles will be shitty. But that's also true in a much wider sense.

For science, history, and other generally fact-based info, wikipedia is pretty damn commendable, really.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I don't take the criticism as a personal attack. I consider the criticism unfounded. Does any other compendium of knowledge give a disclaimer that it isn't a primary source? I know for a fact Americana encyclopedia doesn't. Also, while I haven't read much in recent years, I used to read heavily, and I don't remember a single disclaimer ever.

People have misused resources since ever. That's not new to the digital age. What has changed, is the ease in which things can be fact checked, and corrected. The world is full of genuine experts that previously had no outlet for their special skill. Their knowledge died when they did, and it had to be (hopefully)recreated later.

There's nothing but positive benefits that can come from resources like Wikipedia. Hopefully crowd sourced, libre text books will become as popular, and students won't get raped trying to better themselves, and everyone else in the process.

Books by their very nature are viewed as limited texts. You pick them up and hold them in your hands in their entirety. The internet on the other hand "appears" to be limitless when it most definitely is not. You also seem to think "facts" exists independently of their context which is naive at best. I agree that there are many positive things about putting knowledge online. However, my somewhat cynical viewpoint honed by decades of interaction with poorly educated 'youts' makes me wary of technology that exacerbates the problem at the speed of light.

 

[Thebobo]

Wiki is the single greatest unwitting proponent of idiocracy the world has ever seen.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page ?

BTW look at liberal page

Holy shit this is like reading mine kampf http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

 

[lxskllr]

Books by their very nature are viewed as limited texts. You pick them up and hold them in your hands in their entirety. The internet on the other hand "appears" to be limitless when it most definitely is not. You also seem to think "facts" exists independently of their context which is naive at best. I agree that there are many positive things about putting knowledge online. However, my somewhat cynical viewpoint honed by decades of interaction with poorly educated 'youts' makes me wary of technology that exacerbates the problem at the speed of light.

The internet is about as limitless as you can get in a practical sense. That's a positive. Also, many facts do indeed stand on their own, and require no context. Trigonometry doesn't change based context. My measurements made in Asia, on the Moon, or anywhere else in the universe will be exactly the same.

Go to a library, and 90%(pulled from my ass) of the books will be trash, incomplete, or factually wrong. I'd put money on the general internet being pretty close to the same ratio. The difference is I can quickly verify the data online. If I don't trust the library book, I have to go back to the library, cross reference more books, and build consensus. What should have been an operation that took hours at most, has now turned into a days long project.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The internet is about as limitless as you can get in a practical sense. That's a positive. Also, many facts do indeed stand on their own, and require no context. Trigonometry doesn't change based context. My measurements made in Asia, on the Moon, or anywhere else in the universe will be exactly the same.

Go to a library, and 90%(pulled from my ass) of the books will be trash, incomplete, or factually wrong. I'd put money on the general internet being pretty close to the same ratio. The difference is I can quickly verify the data online. If I don't trust the library book, I have to go back to the library, cross reference more books, and build consensus. What should have been an operation that took hours at most, has now turned into a days long project.

You do know that the internet doesn't cover 90% of human knowledge (most definitely NOT pulled out of my ass)? Trigonometry has little value in of itself, what you do with it, is what matters. Facts by themselves have little value, their use and context is everything. One of the greatest problems with wiki is the unknown bias of most of the authors. That is the huge advantage traditional libraries and publishers have. You are right, the internet has sped things up tremendously, you can now make mistakes at the speed of light.

 

[lxskllr]

You are right, the internet has sped things up tremendously, you can now make mistakes at the speed of light.

Beats the hell out making mistakes by the year, and paying $100 for the privilege.

Edit:
BTW, you can't separate trig from what you do with it. That's disingenuous, and you damned well know it is. You're arguing for the sake of arguing. You made an assertion, and I definitively disproved it.

 

[BUTCH1]

Sort of, but they'll probably get some money from me eventually. My cash is a finite resource, so I can't give to everyone who deserves it. This year I sent money to libre.fm, FSF, EFF, and DeaDBeeF.

I may send out a little more money, but I haven't fully decided yet.

I chipped in the $3, really, it's not a lot they are asking and it will keep it ad-free.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Beats the hell out making mistakes by the year, and paying $100 for the privilege.

Edit:
BTW, you can't separate trig from what you do with it. That's disingenuous, and you damned well know it is. You're arguing for the sake of arguing. You made an assertion, and I definitively disproved it.

I can separate trig, any other type of math and tech, details from knowledge in general. Without a doubt they are intertwined but, it is the media they're perceived in that gives them such an impact today. The world's fastest most capable computer is absolutely worthless without the right person using it. Granting access to more people raises the chance of finding the right person but, it also tends to promote the cult of technology. The problem is twofold. The best and the brightest tend to ignore anything else but mastering the technology while dismissing any data not found on the monitor. The rest want to use it to play video games better. Technology, math, logic, computers et al. are worthless shiny tools that only have value in what they can be used for to build and create.

So no, giving more people access to tools is a good thing but, only if you teach them a screwdriver is not a museum piece because cordless drivers exist or, let them lose focus of the purpose in using one is to fasten two things together not, which can do it "best."

 

[Captante]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page ?

BTW look at liberal page

Holy shit this is like reading mine kampf http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

Please tell me that site is meant to be a joke.

 

[WelshBloke]

Facts by themselves have little value, their use and context is everything.

And why does wiki give less context than any other encyclopedia? A hard copy encyclopedia is great but it's a lot more complicated to start cross referencing articles when you live in Bumfuck Arizona.

One of the greatest problems with wiki is the unknown bias of most of the authors. That is the huge advantage traditional libraries and publishers have.

I hope you're not suggesting that traditional authors have no bias or that your pitching one online encyclopedia against the entire printed body of knowledge?

 

[tcsenter]

I did $20 each to Wiki and Mozilla last week. First time for both.

 

[WelshBloke]

Please tell me that site is meant to be a joke.

This is a shallow and petty point but I'm so glad that it's not my flag in the corner of that site.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

And why does wiki give less context than any other encyclopedia? A hard copy encyclopedia is great but it's a lot more complicated to start cross referencing articles when you live in Bumfuck Arizona.



I hope you're not suggesting that traditional authors have no bias or that your pitching one online encyclopedia against the entire printed body of knowledge?

The answer to both questions is the same. Understanding the bias of the author is another tool to use to apply the "facts." Bias comes in many forms. No matter how careful authors are to provide all sides, pros and cons etc., their perspective is very much shaped by the times and culture they inhabit. That background is what's missing from wiki. Those oh so carefully checked "facts" will either be flat out wrong or irrelevant within a few short years. Putting knowledge online is a good thing just, include some specifications regarding who, where, when and, why the information was put there in the first place.

 

[WelshBloke]

The answer to both questions is the same. Understanding the bias of the author is another tool to use to apply the "facts." Bias comes in many forms. No matter how careful authors are to provide all sides, pros and cons etc., their perspective is very much shaped by the times and culture they inhabit. That background is what's missing from wiki. Those oh so carefully checked "facts" will either be flat out wrong or irrelevant within a few short years. Putting knowledge online is a good thing just, include some specifications regarding who, where, when and, why the information was put there in the first place.

I'm not sure why you'd attack wiki for that and not, say, the encyclopedia Britanica?

Really what your saying is that no one should search for knowledge unless they have the time, ability and access to resources to study and critique every text they read.

 

[Thebobo]

Please tell me that site is meant to be a joke.

Unfortunately no. I know someone who hates Wiki and makes his kids use that.

Of course this is his go to news site lol.
http://www.theantiliberalzone.com/

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I'm not sure why you'd attack wiki for that and not, say, the encyclopedia Britanica?

Really what your saying is that no one should search for knowledge unless they have the time, ability and access to resources to study and critique every text they read.

Not at all. Entertainment has always been a big part of what libraries offer. What I'm complaining about is additional barriers to education being put up that aren't outweighed by the additional utility of wiki. I don't put the onus of education on wiki, I just think they could do a better job. Our schools could do a better job. Those of us with greater technical knowledge could do a better job of describing it's limitations rather than cheer leading it as the latest and greatest when it's not.

 

[WelshBloke]

...the latest and greatest when it's not.

If you know something later and greater it would be nice if you could share it.

 

[Captante]

This is a shallow and petty point but I'm so glad that it's not my flag in the corner of that site.

Did you actually read any of that drivel?

Sadly I believe its intended to be serious however I'm not sure why you would say its petty or shallow to wish it were otherwise.

Unfortunately no. I know someone who hates Wiki and makes his kids use that.

Of course this is his go to news site lol.
http://www.theantiliberalzone.com/

Yikes! D: