Be more disingenuous.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Wikipedia is now pleading for monthly donations
- Thread starter CO_Andy
- Start date
- Status
Be more disingenuous.
Seriously, I've said it before and I'll say it again, wikipedia is one of the most significant achievements in my lifetime
kurtrussell
Banned
You mean like the Esteemed Ruler of this internet vanity project?
Seriously, anybody who places stock on that site as an upholder of virtue, values and independence on the web needs to spend a short while looking through the Wikitruth archives.
A world where Wikipedia consumes itself and dies, and is replaced by a reputable for-profit subscription based encyclopedia (I'm looking at you, Britannica), is one I want to inhabit.
Have fun in your alternate-reality universe. Close the wormhole on your way out.
A HOLOCAUST AND IT IS NIGH UPON YOU. HIRED SICK TEACHERS
ARE PAID TO TEACH YOU EVIL TO
ENSLAVE YOU STUPID AND YOU
NOW POSSESS AN IDIOT CYCLOPIC
MENTALITY. YOU LACK THE BRAINS TO KNOW THAT 4 SIMULTANEOUS DAYS ROTATE IN AN IMAGINARY CUBED EARTH.
Are you high?
ClosingADoor
Member
I hope you're joking. Because if you can't see the value a site like Wikipedia has... It offers the largest amount of information I can think of. Everything you want to look up is there, totally free. It is a great achievement and the kind of thing the internet was invented for.
serotonina
Member
Are you working for/on an online, subscription based encyclopaedia by any chance?
This is the same bullshit they were spouting at my last workplace, trying to promote an online encyclopaedia, by asking money every month. And you know from where we where getting most of our sources? Wikipedia.
And don't think about an high-school project, think six figures and more of investement, and big academic names behind.
You don't pay if you can have it free.
kurtrussell
Banned
Nope. The problem with Wikipedia is that despite what they imply with the sad face banners, they have actually burnt through a boatload of money. An obscene amount. Jimbo has spent a vast amount of this living like a rockstar.
Oh, also see the article where transcripts of Jimmy's IM state that he says he has to work on his "Google killer" so he can buy a jet
So yeah, when they are preying on people with emotional blackmail and bilking them out of money, that they are using in a massively opaque (not to mention innapropriate) way, I have an issue with that.
My preferred alternative. Let a for-profit company in. Remove the 75% of useless fluff pieces on Wikipedia. Lean it up. And then subscribe to view. I guarantee the information would be of a higher quality without the constant, unethical, self-serving changes.
serotonina said:
No.
ClosingADoor
Member
So because some money gets wasted (which is the case in 100% of all companies, both for profit and non profit), you automaticly think Wikipedia is useless?
And who are you to say 75% of the content is useless? People contributed to it because they think it is useful information.
Edit: And what do you mean with 'let a for profit company in'? They can start their own online encyclopedia if they think they can make money of it. No one is stopping that.
Who cares if Jimmy Wales is a douche. You are stating that Wikipedia is useless, and then go on to link some "news" articles from The Sun and that Wikitruther website.
Wikipedia is incredible useful, and what they are doing is amazing There is a 10 year old boy is sitting somewhere , and reading through the Dungeons and Dragons Monster List on wiki. Sorry if that article somehow offends your incredibly high IQ.
You dont like it? DONT CLICK ON IT.
jesus
Wikipedia is incredible useful, and what they are doing is amazing There is a 10 year old boy is sitting somewhere , and reading through the Dungeons and Dragons Monster List on wiki. Sorry if that article somehow offends your incredibly high IQ.
You dont like it? DONT CLICK ON IT.
jesus
You're fucking ridiculous.
1. Your links trying to paint the founder out like some sort of monster are embarrassingly sad. He spent a lot at a dinner once, and tried to have work pay for it (maybe it was a business dinner) but then they didn't. Oh wow.
2. The moral integrity of the founder of wikipedia has nothing to do with the usefulness of the service.
3. Removing the 'useless' information from wikipedia... holy fuck. You're a crazy person, what information is useless? It's all useful, it's all possibly very important to someone, and it is the pinnacle of sharing information that we gather as a world society. To replace it with a subscription based information sharing network - severely reducing the amount of people who will have access to this fount of information... I can't even begin to understand why you think this is a good idea, it makes NO sense.
And to ADD to that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia.
I know it's a wikipedia link, but guess what - you can go to the bottom of the page and click on the external links to the studies themselves, and they all show that wikipedia is as, if not more accurate than other sources of information.
kurtrussell
Banned
So Jimmy Wales, who is an internet squillionaire or something, begs for money whilst bringing into question Wikipedia's entire existence, and then lords it up on the very money he just begged for, and you don't see a problem with that?
I would also argue that it's an established fact that for-profit organisations generally run leaner and more efficiently than public sector organisations.
Has Omnicorp and Robocop taught you nothing?
kurtrussell
Banned
Did you read the parts on Wikitruth where he slept with Rachel Marsden, and after he broke up with her, was so worried she'd paint Wikipedia in a bad light that he blackmailed her and threatened to have her deported back to Canada?
The man is an absolute douche, and whilst he is at the helm, he and a select group on insiders, are preventing Wikipedia from being everything it can be, and more importantly, independent.
News just in! Wikipedia tested themselves to make sure they are reliable. They passed. Phew!
Are you parodying your own positions here?
And a for profit company is probably even more susceptible to coercion to manipulate data... because it's for profit. And you ignore the fact that the data that would be shared would be selected by them - they would decide what would be important enough to share. And your over the top language implying that this founder is wasting millions that we send him (he isn't, he is already a millionaire, and the money is very clearly tracked) is so fucking... unbelievable. I honestly can't begin to grasp how you came to these conclusions - this is the saddest case of confirmation bias I've seen, because the stuff you are relying on to defame wikipedia is soooo damn benign. Really - he tried to write off a dinner as a business expense once, and he still ended up paying for it... Really?
ClosingADoor
Member
And this has to do with the usefulness of Wikipedia how?
The guy might be the biggest asshole in the world, that doesn't mean the website he started isn't one of the greatest things on the internet.
And this is not a public sector organisation, as far as I know Wikipedia isn't part of any government. It is an independent non-profit organisation.
How would Wikipedia and its users benefit from it transfering to a for-profit model? Sure, I wouldn't mind the ads, if they need them to survive. But they don't want ads and instead ask for donations. There is nothing wrong with that.
There is a section called External Links. If you want to know where the info in that article came from, no one is stopping you from reading those sources.
Look, if you can give me objective links showing that he blackmailed this woman, sure - but second hand accounts from a website that WANTS to defame him? That's not going to do anything bro, citation needed.
Did you really cut out the second part of that quote and think that no one would see you do it or something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#References
C'mon, man.
Edit: And beaten, as you should be.
I don't get the "trim the fat" argument. If someone felt the desire to create a wiki page, it's important to someone.
How do we deem what is important or required information otherwise? Who gets the job of vetoing specific entries?
List of Bleach Episodes:
"Lame! Childish Cartoons! NIX"
List of Zombie Films
Zombies are so 2000's! No one reputable watches these! NIX
History of the Arizona Cardinals
"No one roots for the Cardinals, NIX"
History of the St. Louis Cardinals
"My man! Cardinals for life! Let's spruce up that page and get it in there."
How do we deem what is important or required information otherwise? Who gets the job of vetoing specific entries?
List of Bleach Episodes:
"Lame! Childish Cartoons! NIX"
List of Zombie Films
Zombies are so 2000's! No one reputable watches these! NIX
History of the Arizona Cardinals
"No one roots for the Cardinals, NIX"
History of the St. Louis Cardinals
"My man! Cardinals for life! Let's spruce up that page and get it in there."
Wikipedia useless? wow, everything have haters it seems. If the case that Wales is a greedy douchebag is true, it doesn't invalidate the fact that Wikipedia is one of the best source of information that have the internet and his usefulness in the lives of lot of people.
Also:
It maybe not be useful for you, but for other people could be.
Also:
It maybe not be useful for you, but for other people could be.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Wikipedia works surprisingly well without printing out the entirety of its contents, you know. You can type in the name of what you're looking for and it calls up the relevant information in seconds!
CHEEZMO™
Obsidian fan
Wait...
You mean I don't have to keep hitting "random article" until I reach what I want?
Wow, that should save me weeks!
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Also, Britannica is (as far as I know) researched, written, and edited by humans and thus vulnerable to inaccuracies.
Encyclopedia Britannica's usefulness is as a secondary source of general information and as a jumping off point to research more detailed and reliable sources of information in a subject, and should never ever be trusted as a primary source for research.
Stop me when this sounds familiar.
Encyclopedia Britannica's usefulness is as a secondary source of general information and as a jumping off point to research more detailed and reliable sources of information in a subject, and should never ever be trusted as a primary source for research.
Stop me when this sounds familiar.
Zoramon089
Banned
I'm glad kurtrussell isn't in any sort of position to do anything at wikipedia. Just a bunch of terrible ideas
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
kurtrussell, you're wilfully ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is a valuable source of information to point out some political nonsense that really doesn't matter to anyone. Seriously, even if that guy fucked Rachel Marsden and fucked her over afterwards, how does that matter? Millions of people get access to education, real education, like math and shit, through that site without any barriers. Without any real alternatives whatsoever.
And you want to wall those people off with a subscription-based site? Some kids in Africa without anything that hop onto the public internet to get to Wikipedia for looking up how to solve differential equations or some piss-poor Indian dude who wants to know what all the fuzz is about self-modifying code, that without paying shit, you really want to give them the finger? What are you, mad?
And you want to wall those people off with a subscription-based site? Some kids in Africa without anything that hop onto the public internet to get to Wikipedia for looking up how to solve differential equations or some piss-poor Indian dude who wants to know what all the fuzz is about self-modifying code, that without paying shit, you really want to give them the finger? What are you, mad?
Uh, Encyclopaedia Britannica already does an for-profit subscription based internet encyclopedia at their own website. If you think Wikipedia is so bad, why don't you just go support Britannica's online service instead? By the way, I used Wikipedia to find that out. The irony is not lost on me!
purnoman3000
Member
I can't believe how many people are downplaying the importance of Wikipedia.
The issue is not that of intrusion, it's about preventing conflicts of interests.
The issue is not that of intrusion, it's about preventing conflicts of interests.
06nbarnhill
Member
Donated 20......feel better about myself.
Feel I owe them that much since I probably have gotten well over 2k worth of use from in in day to day life as well as in college.
Feel I owe them that much since I probably have gotten well over 2k worth of use from in in day to day life as well as in college.
...which can be avoided by carefully drafted terms. Wikipedia is big enough to dedicate those terms. Governmental funds usually come with string attached, on the other hand, commercial ad spots can be sold for money only.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Wikipedia is cool and all, but because the people who are allowed to edit it don't really have to know anything about what they're writing and must use articles published on the Internet as proof, I'll always have a hard time seeing it as a definitive source for anything. An article on Wikipedia telling us how reliable they are doesn't really prove anything in terms of reliability. The links make a persuasive argument, so there's that.
But that aside, I donated to keep it going because I think it is doing a great job of cataloging knowledge from the perspective of the Internet. Most of the time the information is at least current, which is an advantage over traditional encyclopedias. And it can lead you to more reliable sources of information.
It's worthwhile and I hope people support it. But to me it will always be more entertainment than anything else.
They can't be avoided.
Sure, Wikipedia can dictate its terms, but when they become entirely dependent on ad revenue, then Wikipedia starts to lose power and the ad reseller can start dictating terms.
Encyclopedias aren't supposed to be the definitive source for anything. Even something like Brittanica.
Twitter.com's ad revenue in 2011, with a smaller traffic, is 140mil, and wikipedia's fundraising goal of 2011 is 16mil. So for 1/9 of the price, wikipedia surely can sell the ad and maintain the control.
Gene Ray is right don't hate the language it's alll us evil sick idiots understand.
Jokes aside priceless comment and I'm wondering who else picked up on that.
That cost much more than free, on average, I assume. You're not paying for anything, it's a donation.
If only he had some kind of free online resource that he could use to find out what a donation is.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Holy shit at 'trimming the fat'. Fuck this crazy Kurtrussell guy.
- Status