Support NeoGAF

[C4lukin2]

The Guardian is the worst. Because they have a subscription model, they have just random ads on their website, and then they ask for private contributions on top of that. So that they continue to spread there particular politics, while you will see a PS4 add, or any number of clickbait garbage, while asking for you to subscribe or donate, so that they can stay independent.

Now Wikipedia is a different matter. And I have been ok with it for the most part, because it was dependent on contributions...

But this Holiday season, they explained that 98% percent turn the the other way.

As if we are simply ignoring the truth. A lot of various Wiki articles, some disagree with.

But whatever the case, the message they sent was 98% of us just turn the other way.

No, you present an awesome service, that very often when it coMes to who knows a lot about a few things, you get it totally wrong.

Wikipedia is not definitive.

But I am fine with them, let’s say use advertising banners instead of begging for the other 98%. to contribute.

Just a single ad each month. Let’s say Frozen 2. for December. Considering the amount of views, that would be a 100 million dollar month. Or even bigger then that you get into MS , or Tesla, or whatever.

Point being. Each month Wikipedia could get a single advertisement from a mostly not controversial company, and still ask for private contributions. They can remain solid, just make sure the company with the banner is keeping up a certain level of goodness..

 

[C4lukin2]

Nobody is into this.

Maybe I am alone with being irritated by this thing!

 

[Durask]

I gave some money to Quillette.
Wikipedia and The Guardian can f**k off.

 

[Bullet Club]

Hi, reader on NeoGAF, it seems you use NeoGAF a lot. It's a little awkward to ask, but this Tuesday we need your help. Time is running out in 2019 to help us. We’re a non-profit forum and we don't have salespeople. We depend on NeoGAF Gold, and fewer than 2% of readers have it. If you donate just 1 month Gold to somebody, the price of your Tuesday coffee, NeoGAF could keep thriving. Thank you.

Also, give me some money as well! A 1 month Bullet Club 2 Sweet membership is just $4.99.

 

[Blade2.0]

Wikipedia remaining independent is a very good thing and they only ask during December of every year. I think that's more than enough to tolerate for such an awesome website.

 

[llien]

Wikipedia is not definitive.

But I am fine with them, let’s say use advertising banners instead of begging for the other 98%. to contribute.

I find it great that WIKI doesn't let ads in.
It would be a catastrophe once they change their minds.

Money needs to come from somewhere so asking for donations for a phenomenal free resource is well within reason.

 

[AV]

I have no problem with Wikipedia asking for donations as irregularly as they do. It's an incredible resource that, yes, might contain some false information now and then, but 99% of the time is reliable and impartial, and is something I use weekly.

The Guardian can fuck off and die and the day can't come sooner.

 

[ROMhack]

Don't agree. Not a fan of the guardian but would rather it ask for donations and be owned by the Guardian group than the non-donation owning owners of other UK papers — Murdoch (Sun, etc), the Telegraph (Barclays bros), and whoever owns the Daily Mail (4th Viscount Rothermore or whatever his name is).

Only good UK paper btw is the FT which is owned by Nikkei. They're Nihongo so you know that's cool.

Complaining about Wiki seems downright strange.

 

[SurprisedPikachu]

Wikipedia remaining independent is a very good thing and they only ask during December of every year. I think that's more than enough to tolerate for such an awesome website.

Wokepedia awesome? I might use it to find a movie or TV show but everything else is straight up propaganda masquerading as locked articles to prevent vandalism. Fuck that site.

 

[ROMhack]

Wokepedia awesome? I might use it to find a movie or TV show but everything else is straight up propaganda masquerading as locked articles to prevent vandalism. Fuck that site.

Really? Me thinks you're being a bit of drama kween, Pikablue.

 

[keraj37]

Wokepedia awesome? I might use it to find a movie or TV show but everything else is straight up propaganda masquerading as locked articles to prevent vandalism. Fuck that site.

Saying that wikipedia is independent is like saying pigs can fly. In your sweet dreams.

I found so many editorial interventions against plain truth there I use it only if I have to with salt.

 

[Lanrutcon]

I give money to Wikipedia.

Because I remember the days before the internet.

 

[Starlight Lotice]

Wikipedia is fine. It asks very irregularly and even explains that if they got $2 from everyone they could go on for years.

It is usually regulated too to not be as bias as other places.

I use it for casual understanding of research and use other sites for more thorough stuff.

 

[Noboru Wataya]

Wikipedia are moderated by revisionists. Fuck that place.

 

[Pallas]

Got nothing against Wikipedia asking for donations since they pretty much rely on it and have no other means to support them. Guardian can fuck off though.

 

[KorbinDallas]

Wiki is a fine, first-year university project. To say though it contains truth is highly misleading. It seems to follow though the flow of culture which is not interested in truth anyway.

 

[Jacknapes]

No problem with Wikipedia asking for donations, it's not as in your face as The Guardian is

The Guardian can do one. You pay a sub, then they ask for more on top.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

I'm fine with any site asking for donations.
Generally speaking, if you don't ask, you don't get.

Ultimately it's my choice whether to donate or not. And whether I care to keep visiting the site or not.

On the topic of the integrity of Wikipedia:
I regarded it not as an authority on any topic, but a well curated place to read up on popular understanding of a topic. I feel that's a significant distinction.
More recently, politically motivated behaviour has definitely seeped into its content management policies and some bad actors abusing their editing powers.

I naturally am distrustful of any one entity being considered as the authority on a broad range of topics. Whether it's Google or Wikipedia.
I think the homogenisation of this side of the internet is not a good thing in the long run. It lulls people into accepting times when bad information seeps into good - simply because the voice is one that is familiar.

To that end I would have no problem with Wikipedia, going the way of the dodo.

 

[ToughestSoul]

I just wish the page would stop pestering you once you actually donated something.

 

[KingGhidorah]

The Guardian is a far-left site, stay away from it

 

[June]

I just click X, barely even read it nor do I feel "guilted". *shrug*

 

[Nymphae]

I use the "Block Element" feature with the Ublock extension, it never shows up now. That feature is a lifesaver.

 

[Blade2.0]

Wokepedia awesome? I might use it to find a movie or TV show but everything else is straight up propaganda masquerading as locked articles to prevent vandalism. Fuck that site.

Lol. Ok man. Stats don't care about your feelings. Just because you don't like what something on Wikipedia says doesn't mean it's biased or wrong.

 

[Southern Gentleman]

I use the "Block Element" feature with the Ublock extension, it never shows up now. That feature is a lifesaver.

I have four privacy extensions and force-block Google analytics, but the only way to truly escape Big Brother is to go off the grid.

As others have said, Wokepedia is clearly biased, particularly on hot-button SJW topics. I still use it, but skepticism is in order.

 

[SurprisedPikachu]

Lol. Ok man. Stats don't care about your feelings. Just because you don't like what something on Wikipedia says doesn't mean it's biased or wrong.

But a lot of content on it is biased and wrong, that’s why I have a problem with it.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

The Guardian is the worst. Because they have a subscription model, they have just random ads on their website, and then they ask for private contributions on top of that. So that they continue to spread there particular politics, while you will see a PS4 add, or any number of clickbait garbage, while asking for you to subscribe or donate, so that they can stay independent.

Now Wikipedia is a different matter. And I have been ok with it for the most part, because it was dependent on contributions...

But this Holiday season, they explained that 98% percent turn the the other way.

As if we are simply ignoring the truth. A lot of various Wiki articles, some disagree with.

But whatever the case, the message they sent was 98% of us just turn the other way.

No, you present an awesome service, that very often when it coMes to who knows a lot about a few things, you get it totally wrong.

Wikipedia is not definitive.

But I am fine with them, let’s say use advertising banners instead of begging for the other 98%. to contribute.

Just a single ad each month. Let’s say Frozen 2. for December. Considering the amount of views, that would be a 100 million dollar month. Or even bigger then that you get into MS , or Tesla, or whatever.

Point being. Each month Wikipedia could get a single advertisement from a mostly not controversial company, and still ask for private contributions. They can remain solid, just make sure the company with the banner is keeping up a certain level of goodness..

can I borrow 20 bucks?

 

[Jill Valentine]

Wikipedia has a massive political slant so I find it hard to care. If you have anything that does not agree with their agenda, your page has a hit piece tacked onto it just so everyone knows you're garbage. I don't know how I would solve that problem.

 

[Secesh]

Wikipedia and Guardian begging for donations. Going to tip my garbage man a $50 this Christmas. At least he performs a service worth paying for.

 

[johntown]

Any website can ask me to contribute money or disable my ad blocker. I will never do it but I don't care if they ask. If I cannot get information I need from one site I will just go to another one.

I've gotten so used to it, it really does not bother me anymore.

As far as donating money if I donate it is always to what I consider to be a worth cause (like a charity etc.)

 

[Amory]

I think Wikipedia, of all sites, is perfectly justified in asking for donations. They only do it what, like once or twice a year? And they have no ads on the site.

I use that resource literally every day to learn about things. I don't mind tossing them $10 every now and then.

 

[haxan7]

It seems every time I go there to look at the bio of a figure the modern left doesn’t like, there’s a visible undercurrent of condemnation written into the page.

Cant claim to be moderate and impartial when half of all contributors are brainwashed by marxists.

 

[ManaByte]

Wikipedia has become as annoying as a PBS pledge drive.

 

[AfricanKing]

Don’t like em then don’t donate

 

[Southern Gentleman]

Daily reminder that there is a giant wall of text full article on Rose Tico.

It's not about her character, obviously, because there are only so many things you can say about such a paper-thin, inconsequential character.

But the actress being oppressed because people hurt her feelings online? Yeah... there's plenty of that. On the Rose Tico page.

Kind of sums up modern Wikipedia right there.

 

[zeorhymer]

Wikipedia is pretty bad. People keep referencing it as the truth because they can't be bothered into actually looking up stuff. Google is the top donor with more than $1 million in 2018.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I don't mind it with Wikipedia, personally. It's a yearly reminder for me to donate a small amount of money to help keep the site going.

 

[dorkimoe]

donated to wiki twice. Would again.

 

[TUROK]

Uh, if you don't want to pay, then don't fucking pay.

Problem solved.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Wikipedia

"Non-profit site that survives on donations asks for donations sometimes"

Is this really what triggers you, OP? Just click the close button.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

Daily reminder that there is a giant wall of text full article on Rose Tico.

It's not about her character, obviously, because there are only so many things you can say about such a paper-thin, inconsequential character.

But the actress being oppressed because people hurt her feelings online? Yeah... there's plenty of that. On the Rose Tico page.

Kind of sums up modern Wikipedia right there.

It was a story, I don’t see an issue with documenting that drama. Maybe I’m wrong though.

 

[Lionel Richie]

Why the fuck are you reading The Guardian OP?

 

[C4lukin2]

You are misunderstanding. And if you had read my initial post never mind the dozen after, I have no problem with paying.

It is about that I would just prefer, they advertise to make money, and not constantly beg people who go to said website, to donate.

And they can do it in a cool way.

They can have an Audi banner, and I think they could make 100 million off of Audi in that month. and during the course of that Audi banner month nobody can access Audi related stuff on Wikipedia. But they only get a month.

So 100 million dollars, you are only dealing with one company. And the next month you move on.

Most of Wiki is not from scientists, people with really dark pasts get that shit removed.

 

[C4lukin2]

You are looking at over a billion a year in advertising, and that 2 percent who contribute, while the rest of us turn our backs.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

Wikipedia remaining independent is a very good thing and they only ask during December of every year. I think that's more than enough to tolerate for such an awesome website.

Wikipedia is hardly independent. I should say, it's moderation is hardly independent. Anything controversial is controlled by sock-puppets out to control a narrative.

Socked Into the Puppet-Hole on Wikipedia

How a lowly WIRED columnist got caught up in a secret war at one of the world's biggest websites.

www.wired.com

 

[C4lukin2]

I agree. Which is why I have a problem with donating.

But if Wikipedia simply advertises a thing, that is not so bad. I am fine with it.

Just pick a non controversial thing each month to advertise. Just a banner at the top.

I am okay with that. I am not ok with 98% of us are turning our backs.

We are not turning our backs. but simply acknowledging that Wikipedia does not get it right all of the time, and there is a flaw in the system.

 

[godhandiscen]

“Wahhh wahhh they are asking me for money in exchange for their services”

“wahhh wahhh, the internet should be free”

This is why I don’t give two fucks around working on advertising. People don’t have a clue about the cost of online services and they are just happy paying with their data.

OP, even if you live on food stamps, your data is more valuable than the $10 it would cost to compensate Wikipedia for your lifetime consumption, but enjoy your privacy invading ads.

 

[C4lukin2]

What you seem to be ignoring, is that some of us have zero trust in Wikipedia or the Guardian.

So while we will entertain the info provided from such places, we will not pay for it, because it is not, well it is not beyond the scope of general truth.

But my perspective is, advertise.

Instead of asking Wiki users to contribute, just put a bar at the top of each wiki article advertising M&Ms

 

[C4lukin2]

Who had a problem with that.? A month of advertising from the Mars Corporation, and each time you watch a Wikipedia entry, there is a Snickers bar at the top of it

 

[Stiflers Mom]

If Riley Reid and a couple of other pornstars had a patreon account, I'd love to give them a few bucks directly.
And I am sure many others would..

 

[eot]

Friend of my who lost too much of his life editing wikipedia told me they get way more than they need, so I don't feel guilty not donating. 7/10 believable, don't care