Have you donated to Wikipedia yet?

Broads.ie

I'm sure ye've seen the constant pleading for donations of every Wiki page these last months. To be honest I read an article on it almost every day. the site is pretty much unavoidable as it's always the first result of a google search.

Was thinking of throwing them €5.

Have you donated? Should I?

Oscars Well.

No and won't.

TeddyTedson

I haven't yet. I really should. It's an amazing website and love the way there's no advertising. If I could just throw money in a bucket somewhere it would be easier though, I hate giving credit card details.

Nodin

Broads.ie wrote: »

I'm sure ye've seen the constant pleading for donations of every Wiki page these last months. To be honest I read an article on it almost every day. the site is pretty much unavoidable as it's always the first result of a google search.

Was thinking of throwing them €5.

Have you donated? Should I?

Gave a good few bob a while back.

TeddyTedson

There's a rumor being going around that they're a bit of a cult or something though too, that's putting me off.

seanybiker

Nah never even seen the ads. Won't either.

Mr. Loverman

Why look at Wikipedia when you can look at porn?

SERIOUS QUESTION.

pdbhp

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Why look at Wikipedia when you can look at porn?

SERIOUS QUESTION.

What he said!!


Thread/

TeddyTedson

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Why look at Wikipedia when you can look at porn?

SERIOUS QUESTION.

Your cock will fall off if you keep flapping

My name is URL

I've donated to them a few times before but not for the latest campaign. They need a constant stream of capital so there's no reason that they shouldn't monetise the site. Of all the ad laden pages on the internet, I think I could bare to see a few on Wiki every so often.

Samich

Someone else will donate sure

Keith186

Funnily enough I donated a fiver when I locked a couple of weeks ago. I was using it loads that day and took pity seeing their begging pictures so said why not.

They then sent me an email and told me I was amazing! Ive no more fivers left so no point pming me to tell me how amazing I am.

My name is URL

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Why look at Wikipedia when you can look at porn?

SERIOUS QUESTION.

Two birds, one stone

It's edutainment!

Nodin

My name is URL wrote: »

Two birds, one stone

It's edutainment!

It's people like you Sir, who keep society functioning. Well done.

WindSock

Broads.ie wrote: »

I'm sure ye've seen the constant pleading for donations of every Wiki page these last months. To be honest I read an article on it almost every day. the site is pretty much unavoidable as it's always the first result of a google search.

Was thinking of throwing them €5.

Have you donated? Should I?

Yeah I was all set to throw in a fiver as it really helped me through school but something prevented me from doing so. Can't remember what. Wanted some detail I couldn't give, like my name or something.
Then I Googled why not to donate to justify my own laziness for not trying harder.

pirelli

Broads.ie wrote: »

I'm sure ye've seen the constant pleading for donations of every Wiki page these last months. To be honest I read an article on it almost every day. the site is pretty much unavoidable as it's always the first result of a google search.

Was thinking of throwing them €5.

Have you donated? Should I?

I wouldn't, they should just advertise. They are a very basic service based on a brilliant idea that has not yet become brilliant in practice. What's non profit mean anyway...it is no different than any other company, other than they post a loss through accounting,

They covered the Amanda Knox and Raffelle Sollectio Trial, what transpired was a war between moderators that were pro Knox and anti knox. The anti knox sentiment began to delete all posts either factual or otherwise that were not anti Knox...Moderators were then dismissed if they were pro Knox and it generated alot of false facts about the case and demonised two innocent people.

So they can just advertise and earn their bread and butter like everyone other
schadenfreude.

the groutch

they're even worse than people who beg for money on youtube

later12

pirelli wrote: »

I wouldn't, they should just advertise.

They believe that advertising could compromise their integrity, and I agree that they are right to avoid advertising if they can rely on donations.

Honesty and objectivity are two of the most important traits in the pursuit of knowledge. You'd hardly buy a medical textbook that was sponsored by a drug company, the same principle exists with wikipedia.

I have to admit I'm quite impressed at how wikipedia has developed. Moderation and attention to detail has improved; I only donated a small amount of money in the past, but given how much time I spend idling away on it looking up random information, I probably should do so again.

old_aussie

Nope, not paying for someone who starts up a free service to gain themselves glory and then wants other people to pay for their 15 minutes of fame.