Would you/have you donated to Wikipedia?

Nulty

They seem to be getting desperate. Theres a constant banner on the site now appealing for money. Apparently it costs $50 million dollars a year to run it. Won't be long before we see images of children crying.

In case you are too lazy to type it in the address bar...

Wikipedia

This is the appeal

KeithM89_old

They do this every year - and every year it works. As much as its helped me, im still to tight to donate

Saila

yep, I base mine on accuracy so they dont get any $$$

Teutorix

Probably would if I wasn't a poor 18 year old with no job living at home in full time education. Cant see where the 50mil comes into it, i know people that can run websites for free.

Jesus Wept

A few dodgy edits for lols.

FreudianSlippers

Saila wrote: »

yep, I base mine on accuracy so they dont get any $$$

The whole inaccuracy thing is years old now. The accuracy on wikipedia in the past 2 years has greatly increased and I doubt you can find much that is inaccurate on there ATM.

Saila

OisinT wrote: »

The whole inaccuracy thing is years old now. The accuracy on wikipedia in the past 2 years has greatly increased and I doubt you can find much that is inaccurate on there ATM.

tell that to college lec s :pac:

alwaysadub

Only use it the odd time actually, plus i'm broke so no i wouldn't, nor have i ever, donate to it.

FreudianSlippers

Saila wrote: »

tell that to college lec s :pac:

They just don't want you to get all your info from there usually. Many articles are just a superficial summary of the topic.

Nulty

They'll surely manage but without advertising?

It's one of the last places on the net (bar boards etc) not tainted with bollix flash ads that make you want have an epileptic fit

Teutorix

Always check the sources on wiki before writing a college essay. Also better still just use the source list to find books to get info from firsthand.

Nulty

OisinT wrote: »

The whole inaccuracy thing is years old now. The accuracy on wikipedia in the past 2 years has greatly increased and I doubt you can find much that is inaccurate on there ATM.

I've seen reports on the issue of accuracy and they are on a par with major encylopedias like Brittanica who also make mistakes. Obviously the trouble is that no one can intentionally falsify the Brittanica. But then, paper takes up space and can only be published periodically.

Benefits -v- Shortfalls?

1-0 Wikipedia I'd say

starbelgrade

Nulty wrote: »

I've seen reports on the issue of accuracy and they are on a par with major encylopedias like Brittanica who also make mistakes. Obviously the trouble is that no one can intentionally falsify the Brittanica. But then, paper takes up space and can only be published periodically.

Benefits -v- Shortfalls?

1-0 Wikipedia I'd say

You took that result straight from Wiki.

The real score, according to official FIFA records was 4-3 after penalties.

Teutorix

Nulty wrote: »

I've seen reports on the issue of accuracy and they are on a par with major encylopedias like Brittanica who also make mistakes. Obviously the trouble is that no one can intentionally falsify the Brittanica. But then, paper takes up space and can only be published periodically.

Benefits -v- Shortfalls?

1-0 Wikipedia I'd say

You ever tried to edit a wiki article with bull****? changes get reverted in minutes. The moderators are very efficient.

2-0 to wiki if i may say so.

Nulty

starbelgrade wrote: »

You took that result straight from Wiki.

The real score, according to official FIFA records was 4-3 after penalties.

Thats odd....cause they were playing hockey.

strobe

They have every right to ask for donations, they provide a wonderful service.

I still won't give them anything of course. They should probably just .comify and stick a few non invasive ads up there.

Saganist

I donate 10Eur every year. I feel its more than value for the service they provide...

stovelid

I have.

It's pretty invaluable.