Wikipedia fund request

RandallFlagg

BigBearKris said:

It doesn't say: pay us instead of paying for your Wednesday coffee. It's the 'amount of money' that said coffee costs. 

(Which of course varies greatly).

throw him a fish someone...

Ravenous

TheMarlin said:

57Deluxe said:

Won't get any support from me. The times I have taken to add hard and qualified actual fact to the site only for some arse to come along and remove it with a reason that shows they know Jack about the subject.

My experience exactly.  I swear some topics are
flagged.  Changes are reverted back to nonsense and inaccuracies in days, sometimes hours. 

It seems there are some editors who "own" a particular page and camp there.

I personally use it for a broad read around a subject, but I look up the references where I can... there's a sport of getting fake facts onto there.

I find the "Talk" pages useful, they usually reveal infighting between the editors and contentious information.

And no, I'll admit I've never paid. I really hate the impression of the God Squad I get from there

Sassafras

What sort of coffee are we talking about?
It better be Fair Trade.

quarky

Legionreturns said:

That's an interesting read. 

I don't respond well to begging emails / pop ups or phone calls. I tend to support local causes of my choosing, either by donating or more often volunteering. I find the bigger ones wasteful and dodgy 

It is a few years old now, but I haven't see any evidence that the situation has changed (although I haven't looked either). 

There is image going around on Facebook at the moment about CEO salaries at charities. Some of them are incredible. So I think giving time is a good compromise.

tampaxboo

i love wiki. LUV love. you can work around imperfections by cross-referencing, it references sources for data in most cases and you can cross-check re error or bias as necessary.

textbooks especially are madly expensive (£20-£100) and go out of date quick (yearly even). i'm into science in an amateur way and for that it's an invaluable accesible and current resource.

i think people criticisng it perhaps forget how many times they access it in a year.

anyway, i donate a small amount annually (small means) as a token of support and appreciation.

tampaxboo

ICBM said:

I donate something - usually a fiver, £2 seems too little and a tenner too much for some reason - when they ask, which seems to be about once a year. It's definitely not the fount of all knowledge, but I find it very useful, and I'd rather it stayed ad-free.

ads may also be the thin end of the lobbying/censorship wedge. once an organisation depends on a sponsor for its continuing existence they are always beholden, to a greater or smaller extent.
impartiality has a price, vested influence has a price. wiki has costs.
so it's in users hands as to whether they consider that impartiality something worth chipping in for.

re those who knock wiki for its few (and not critical) imperfections, for relative perspective it's worth considering the prejudiced and inflammatory junk that appears in certain british newspapers on a daily basis, which is taken by many readers to be wholly representative of truth and reality.

at least wiki users have the option to notify the site to correct and update clearly wrong or distorted/partial info as and when it arises.
try writing to the daily mail or express with evidence that we don't send the EU £350m a week (etc) and see how little they care about correcting such spurious shite?