Feel guilty for not ever donating to wiki?

[tcsenter]

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/

How do you know my brother? Staunch conservative, racist, and (LAO) law and order worshiping cop, who comment on articles saying things like "We don't profile blacks because we're racist or because of their color. We profile them because they commit all the violent crimes. It's not racist, it's the truth! But I'm the racist to the race-bating liberals."

No, I'm not kidding. When he knows that he is in the right company, the PC terms get tossed out the window in favor of 'monkeys', 'apes', 'animals', and '******s'. Him and his buddies get their news from the Breitbart/Beck/Fox News network of websites and blogs; the Blaze, Townhall, Western Journalism, IJReview, etc. Any source that will worship cops and the military, really.

Oh and did you know? Snopes.com is run by a couple "Kalifornia librals" whose information cannot be trusted because of their libral agenda, too. As well as CNN, CBS, ABC, Time, and any other mainstream centrist media outlet = leftwing/libral.

 

[Thebobo]

Add me to the people that don't believe in wikipedia. It's almost all heresy.

Wow

 

[CPA]

Sorry, but I will never feel guilty for someone providing a free service. If they need the money, let them charge for their service and then I will decide whether to pay for it or not. Until then, if you're going to hand it to me, why should I feel guilty for using it?

 

[mikeford]

Wiki gets something out of me most years, but not without criticism.

 

[amdhunter]

If I don't care enough to donate to ATOT forums, I for damned sure don't care about Wikipedia. :awe:

 

[Howard]

I don't feel guilty but I do on occasion donate. I think I've donated during two of their past fundraising runs.

 

[norseamd]

Somewhat.

 

[Blanky]

It's the only site I would consider donating to. It is an amazing site.

Some people are too stupid to realize what wiki is for and what purpose it serves so they just ignore it outright because "anybody can edit it", then go to some stupid site with even less oversight.

 

[DigDog]

i dont feel guilty of not giving to wiki or any other begware. so many companies launch as free to use/free to play (games comes to mind, but they are the same) and then when their business model doesnt work they beg, and tell you "without your money we will close" and "you will miss us so much".
go ahead, shut it down.

 

[Kushina]

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.

I feel this way, but it's just a feeling.

 

[norseamd]

No, wiki is pretty useless.

Its the way they cite references, they must be free references from the internet, open source and all that. In 2014 the good information is increasingly behind pay-walls and the quality of information on wiki has fallen in lock-step.

I find stuff like the actual journals (ie nature.com, science direct etc.) and oddly enough TED talks (if you know who you are looking for) as infinitely better sources of good information. I'd rather cite quotes out of a TED video than some university of shanghai paper translated into broken English linked at the bottom of a wiki.

This comment right here is basically false and those who read science are instantly able to tell so without much wasting of calories.

 

[OverVolt]

This comment right here is basically false and those who read science are instantly able to tell so without much wasting of calories.

Hmm by senior year or so those who were relying on wiki started to get their asses kicked. Legend says they are still there to this day, 2 years late graduating, still trying to google their answers where none are to be found.

Now chegg on the other hand... :hmm:

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

Well since I don't really ever use their site...no I don't feel guilty at all.

 

[Fritzo]

I gave them $10 this year.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Wiki is just an oversized google for useless (semi)fact confirmation. Why the hell would I donate money for something that is maintained in part by random users, as well as simple information that google provides?

Fuck off Wiki, go put in Googleads like everyone else so I can adblock them and not give a shit. Until I start maxing out my 401k, IRA, and then start shitting out money every year, I would never think to donate money to a website.

 

[norseamd]

Hmm by senior year or so those who were relying on wiki started to get their asses kicked. Legend says they are still there to this day, 2 years late graduating, still trying to google their answers where none are to be found.

Not even sure what you are talking about here. There is huge conflict right now in the scientific community as capitalism tries to maintain their fragile control over scientific publishing while also wanting to prevent open distribution of scientific data and articles.

http://www.plos.org/

 

[smackababy]

I certainly do not support anything whose entire business model is "beg in increasingly annoying manners every so often to pay the bills". They can go get a job or fuck off like every other bum.

Do what any normal fucking website does and put a small add somewhere. With the amount of traffic, a small banner ad should be a gold mine.

 

[Craig234]

This is partly about the ad that appears at the top of wiki articles that asks for donations. It says if every reader donated $3 usd then the wiki fundraising would be satisfied in less than a day. Wondered if anyone else feels a little guilty if you've never ever donated money or anything else to Wikipedia.

No, because I have donated. It's very much worth it.

 

[tcsenter]

I certainly do not support anything whose entire business model is "beg in increasingly annoying manners every so often to pay the bills". They can go get a job or fuck off like every other bum.

They do kinda come-off as having spent all that time and effort writing-up all that content, rather than just providing a CMS front-end and servers for others to spend all their time and effort putting content on.

 

[Craig234]

Wiki is just an oversized google for useless (semi)fact confirmation. Why the hell would I donate money for something that is maintained in part by random users, as well as simple information that google provides?

Fuck off Wiki, go put in Googleads like everyone else so I can adblock them and not give a shit. Until I start maxing out my 401k, IRA, and then start shitting out money every year, I would never think to donate money to a website.

So, you're a leech, using the product but refusing to pay a few dollars for it.

Time and again, the best if not only useful google result is a link to Wikipedia.

 

[Craig234]

They do kinda come-off as having spent all that time and effort writing-up all that content, rather than just providing a website and servers for others to spend all their time and effort putting content on.

Bottom line is it results in a very useful site that wouldn't otherwise be there and it has some costs.

 

[Craig234]

If I don't care enough to donate to ATOT forums, I for damned sure don't care about Wikipedia. :awe:

AT has ads and lots of wrong information outside of a few people's posts, like mine.

Wiki doesn't have ads and a high level of accuracy.

 

[HRIP7]

what do the people at wikipedia do anyway? all the content is user created, right? So they just have to pay for the servers?

They've massively expanded their software engineering department, and opinions are divided on whether that is a good thing: several of their high-profile software projects were failures that riled the volunteer community. In 2005, the Wikimedia Foundation had one employee; now it's around 250 (and the headcount is steadily increasing). Quite a lot of them are former Wikipedia volunteers who were looking for a paid job.

The current fundraising banners create the impression that the Wikimedia Foundation needs money to pay for the servers (using wordings like "keep Wikipedia online and ad-free for another year"). Given that in the financial statement published in September 2014, they reported having over $50 million in cash, cash equivalents and investments, and they spent just $2.5 million on Internet hosting in that financial year, numerous longstanding Wikipedians have accused them of plain dishonesty, and of trying to manipulate people into donating.

For background incl. quotes from Wikipedians see

1. http://www.quora.com/How-well-is-Wikipedias-fundraising-program-going-on
2. http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/21/wikipedia-keeping-it-free-just-pay-us-our-salaries/

 

[Carson Dyle]

No, I feel no guilt whatsoever. No more than I do for using an ad blocker on every web site that I visit.

I remember posting a suggestion once on HardForum, about how they might improve the layout of HardOCP, and included a screen shot. The douchebag owner of the site (Kyle something, IIRC) left a nasty reply about my having ads blocked on his web site. I laughed.

 

[HRIP7]

AT has ads and lots of wrong information outside of a few people's posts, like mine.

Wiki doesn't have ads and a high level of accuracy.

Citation needed.

At any given time, there is a lot of false information on Wikipedia. Most of these cases never see the light of day. However, there are exceptions.

Here are a few cases where Wikipedia provided patently false information, and people believing it ended up with egg on their faces:

1. http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/07/2...ation-undermine-the-reliability-of-wikipedia/

2. http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/10/12/wikipedia-re-writing-history/

3. http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-bicholim-conflict-hoax-deleted/

4. http://www.dailydot.com/lol/amelia-bedelia-wikipedia-hoax/

Charles Seife (check out his book, "Virtual Unreality") put it best:

Wikipedia is like an old and eccentric uncle

He can be a lot of fun—over the years he's seen a lot, and he can tell a great story. He's also no dummy; he's accumulated a lot of information and has some strong opinions about what he's gathered. You can learn quite a bit from him. But take everything he says with a grain of salt. A lot of the things he thinks he knows for sure aren't quite right, or are taken out of context. And when it comes down to it, sometimes he believes things that are a little bit, well, nuts.

If it ever matters to you whether something he said is real or fictional, it's crucial to check it out with a more reliable source.