-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Wikipedia is now pleading for monthly donations
- Thread starter CO_Andy
- Start date
- Status
:lol Photoshopped? Or can you actually edit the header?
It's pretty easy if you know how to.
EDIT: Wow, I love how the site re-sizes the border on the left to fit the picture.
Youta Mottenai
Member
Donated a small amount.
And it's really shocking reading about people complaining about this donation at the same place people talk about how the Steam Sale will "rape their wallets".
It's a donation for fucks sake, you're not obligated to do it. Reserve your disgust for people asking for donations towards anti-science, bigotted institutions.
And it's really shocking reading about people complaining about this donation at the same place people talk about how the Steam Sale will "rape their wallets".
It's a donation for fucks sake, you're not obligated to do it. Reserve your disgust for people asking for donations towards anti-science, bigotted institutions.
Same here and I can only imagine the amount of use a kid growing up today would get out of it.
Done, donated 10$. I hope to donate more next year.
ClosingADoor
Member
Wow, that's disgusting. Especially considering the page I just opened on TIME came with a huge ad filling half my screen (and that's 1200px high, it would be the whole page on most laptops).
I don't get what people have against ads or messages like Wikipedia does. Every websites needs money to survive. They choose to ask for donations, others go with traditional advertising, others sell content. If you don't like it, don't visit :S
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
People complaining about the donation banners annoy me to no end.
Crazy sense of entitlement.
Crazy sense of entitlement.
Wikipedia has failed... its time for a young new start up to take their place.
So... the free internet is dead apparently....
So... the free internet is dead apparently....
Come on. Many of us can donate $100 or more. Do it... Wiki has helped millions of people out there, including the vast majority of college students these days. Its an awesome tool... hell you could say Wikipedia is the reason the Internet was created... so much knowledge in one place.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Is Wikipedia not free? They need money to operate and keep the site free for the vast majority who do not donate.
Lionel Mandrake
Member
Here's an interview with Jimmy Wales by Stephen Fry... Because why not?
It is actually very relevant to this discussion.
It is actually very relevant to this discussion.
ClivePwned
Member
when i was a kid (a loooong time ago), we had these things called encyclopedias. They were huge and they were motherfucking expensive and they dated very quickly. Also, you couldn't look up Star Trek episode guides in them.
monty python's take on encyclopaedia salesmen
http://youtu.be/-lSLzYKVd2s
So yeah, I'll donate something.
monty python's take on encyclopaedia salesmen
http://youtu.be/-lSLzYKVd2s
So yeah, I'll donate something.
what a petty life you have if a wiki site with mostly questionable information is the crowning achievement
wikipedia is simply a platform run by an asshole, something else would take its place
What's your minimum standard for achievement, exactly? Building a Dyson Sphere with your bare hands?
blame space
Banned
building a shit mountain with your own poop
So, have you done that?
i played dragon age 2
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
Seconded.
I definitely don't think ads or any other type of corporate sponsorship fits the Wikipedia's goals.
On the other hand, I just have a sinking feeling that donations won't work forever, either. I have donated to them, but I am seriously getting donation fatigue. There are so many worthy causes, especially in the past 24 months, that I have been giving, too, like all the disaster relief projects (and there have been a LOT this year, even in the U.S. alone) and NPR.
I know this is a bad attitude to have, but I almost feel nickled and dimed because of the donations, year after year, and I have a feeling Wikipedia is not getting money from me next year. I'd much rather governments take up the cause, honestly, and possibly even take it into the government (as opposed to simply funding them as an outside organization).
On the other hand, I just have a sinking feeling that donations won't work forever, either. I have donated to them, but I am seriously getting donation fatigue. There are so many worthy causes, especially in the past 24 months, that I have been giving, too, like all the disaster relief projects (and there have been a LOT this year, even in the U.S. alone) and NPR.
I know this is a bad attitude to have, but I almost feel nickled and dimed because of the donations, year after year, and I have a feeling Wikipedia is not getting money from me next year. I'd much rather governments take up the cause, honestly, and possibly even take it into the government (as opposed to simply funding them as an outside organization).
Conciliator
Banned
Wikipedia and NPR are the two charities I donate to every year that I guess I would categorize as non-humanitarian. Worthy causes for sure. NPR's funding is more important than ever now that the government cut funding so they could save .00000001% on their deficit.
Yep, I've done several homework thanks to their site (and all the info people put in it) It's a life saver
not your poop
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Secretly, I wish wikipedia goes down (for a month, maybe). Let's see how people cope without it.
P.S. Can't someone make a backup of wikipedia and run ads in it like other wikis do? That'll be a huge blow.
P.S. Can't someone make a backup of wikipedia and run ads in it like other wikis do? That'll be a huge blow.
I hate people bitching about how Wikipedia is not a good source. Most of them are the idiots, who go to a dictionary from 1987 in the school library when they need to know about something. Then, when they realize, its like 4 sentences written about their topic, they start to moan how there is no information to get about it. So they, search in the library systems, and finds some damn book written 1995.
Of course, that book is just 1 single authors perspective, yet they end up on google and on some shady damn websites written by individuals. Meanwhile, Wikipedia might have 20 sources for their page about the thing and if you click the discussion you can actually realize how the different views from the different authors, are on such a detailed level that its unnecessary for any layman anyways. Who, cares if Yao Wenyuan went to primary school for 5 years or 4 years.
If you use Wikipedia for a master-thesis, sure, that would be a fucking joke but no one is and for the work and essays these idiots moaning how a terrible source wiki are doing, Wikipedia is fine.
and...for instance when it comes to say, Chemistry , Wikipedia can be truly awesome and detailed.
Of course, that book is just 1 single authors perspective, yet they end up on google and on some shady damn websites written by individuals. Meanwhile, Wikipedia might have 20 sources for their page about the thing and if you click the discussion you can actually realize how the different views from the different authors, are on such a detailed level that its unnecessary for any layman anyways. Who, cares if Yao Wenyuan went to primary school for 5 years or 4 years.
If you use Wikipedia for a master-thesis, sure, that would be a fucking joke but no one is and for the work and essays these idiots moaning how a terrible source wiki are doing, Wikipedia is fine.
and...for instance when it comes to say, Chemistry , Wikipedia can be truly awesome and detailed.
yeah who cares about history we live in the here and now man
StalkerUKCG
Banned
Slap someone hot on that appeal banner and the donations will increase 10 fold.
Does the government demand control over PBS or NPR?
True for a bunch of my history classes when the book was to dry to read I'd hit up Wikipedia to read about people, places and times in history. Works amazingly for getting the gist of what is going on.
RumblingRosco
Member
I've never had a teacher that allows me to use wikipedia for school work
Step 1: Find your topic on Wikipedia.
Step 2: Find information you need.
Step 3: Look at the citation within Wikipedia. Cite that source. Win.
Step 3b: If no citation is given, that means it's up to you to use Scholar.Google or whatever website of your choosing to find the source yourself.
hockeypuck
Member
I had a classmate in medical school who passed his board examinations using Wikipedia as one of his main sources for study material. He got his M.D. thanks to wikis. Wasn't a dumbass, either; got into a top 3 ophthalmology residency.
I use it myself all the time at work when I want to refresh my memory on a drug mechanism, or learn about certain anatomy (great source for vasculature origins and branches) before an operation. Much faster using one of the million computers around the hospital than fumbling through my smartphone.
Almost felt obliged to donate $20 given how much I use it.
I use it myself all the time at work when I want to refresh my memory on a drug mechanism, or learn about certain anatomy (great source for vasculature origins and branches) before an operation. Much faster using one of the million computers around the hospital than fumbling through my smartphone.
Almost felt obliged to donate $20 given how much I use it.
AlimNassor
Banned
I used Wikipedia a looot. The reference pages are usually useful.
Because thats really not what i meant...
What i meant was that Britannica, probably would never pay any attention to how many years Yao Wenyuans spent in school. Book A, would say he went 4 years. Book, B would say 5 years. His own biography would say 4 year, but the official records says 5 years. Then, at the wikipedia discussion page, 3-4 "Sino-experts" are debating what is the correct answer.
In many ways, this is the discussion and fluctuation of facts on wikipedia for a lot of things. Now, noticed i said a lot of things, i did not say all things or no things.
Many times, the wikipedia pages are written by pure nerds. which i find to be much better than encyclopedias that are so simplified and generalized that they often just tell you the already obvious things.
Wikipedias articles are often compilation of information from like 10 sources and written by nerds on the subject who then discuss it day and night in an never ending editing process. Sounds quite, good to me.
The funny thing is that when you look up things in encyclopedia, that is where you find often times the biggest prejudices and common myths or often times, to carefully mild content that you get nothing out of it.
Rocket Punch
Member
<3 Wikipedia
What the fuck?
I mean, sure Wikipedia's been much better in recent years as far as quality control goes, but seriously?
- Status