WTF is this? Wikipedia asking for $

[PieceWork]

I think the insult is that here you have a company that could make their needed funding goals in an instant and yet choose to ask for others hard earned cash.

I understand the local soup kitchen or homeless shelter asking for money, they have no way to make their own way, but Wikipedia does. They ask for money as a "high brow" way of saying they are "above the fray" and not "for profit".

They could probably run paid PSA's and still make their nut.

 

[BluAffiliate]

I think the insult is that here you have a company that could make their needed funding goals in an instant and yet choose to ask for others hard earned cash.

I understand the local soup kitchen or homeless shelter asking for money, they have no way to make their own way, but Wikipedia does. They ask for money as a "high brow" way of saying they are "above the fray" and not "for profit".

They could probably run paid PSA's and still make their nut.

Wrong. They don't accept money from advertising because they are styled as a non-profit, not influenced by any institutions. Why compromise this when they can just get the money needed through donations? Do you want a wikipedia beholden to funds from oil companies, governments, etc.?

Maybe I can see them accepting advertisements from PSAs or some "tame" agencies but even then people can pidgeonhole wikipedia as "biased" for accepting money from source x.

 

[PieceWork]

Wrong. They don't accept money from advertising because they are styled as a non-profit, not influenced by any institutions. Why compromise this when they can just get the money needed through donations? Do you want a wikipedia beholden to funds from oil companies, governments, etc.?

Maybe I can see them accepting advertisements from PSAs or some "tame" agencies but even then people can pidgeonhole wikipedia as "biased" for accepting money from source x.

All non profits, OK Most, accept donated funds from institutions/corps/politically slanted foundations. Do you think that non profits that accept $1MM from the Rockefeller foundation, or Bank of America, are pure and not subject to being tainted?

Wikipedia is an unaccountable organization that by design has set up a system whereby they cannot even track who posted what. It is far from a trusted resource and should not be looked at with such high regard.

I am saying that it is disgraceful for an organization that is capable of making its own way to ask for money. How is it that you cannot see this?

 

[BluAffiliate]

All non profits, OK Most, accept donated funds from institutions/corps/politically slanted foundations. Do you think that non profits that accept $1MM from the Rockefeller foundation, or Bank of America, are pure and not subject to being tainted?

Wikipedia is an unaccountable organization that by design has set up a system whereby they cannot even track who posted what. It is far from a trusted resource and should not be looked at with such high regard.

I am saying that it is disgraceful for an organization that is capable of making its own way to ask for money. How is it that you cannot see this?

Yeah it's true that a lot of non-profits get funds from biased organizations. However, what is wikipedia trying to be? A completely, unbiased, credible source of information - that is peer reviewed and corrected to make sure there's no bullshit going on. Accepting funds from corporations and governments, especially when they have extensive pages covering them, would be a major hit to the credibility of wikipedia.

Wikipedia isn't perfect.. it can be biased, incorrect, etc. But it's good where it does count. It truly is the "sum of human knowledge" and we've never seen anything like it before. I probably learned more from wikipedia than any other source out there.

Disgraceful? Please. I'm sure your life is severely impacted by wikipedia running an ad for a few weeks twice a year. No one misses the irony that this criticism is coming from a forum of internet marketers.

To sum it up: They do it because it works and gives them credibility. Get over it. Wikipedia > 99% websites out there.

 

[PieceWork]

Yeah it's true that a lot of non-profits get funds from biased organizations. However, what is wikipedia trying to be? A completely, unbiased, credible source of information - that is peer reviewed and corrected to make sure there's no bullshit going on. Accepting funds from corporations and governments, especially when they have extensive pages covering them, would be a major hit to the credibility of wikipedia.

Wikipedia isn't perfect.. it can be biased, incorrect, etc. But it's good where it does count. It truly is the "sum of human knowledge" and we've never seen anything like it before. I probably learned more from wikipedia than any other source out there.

Disgraceful? Please. I'm sure your life is severely impacted by wikipedia running an ad for a few weeks twice a year. No one misses the irony that this criticism is coming from a forum of internet marketers.

To sum it up: They do it because it works and gives them credibility. Get over it. Wikipedia > 99% websites out there.

Why then does Wikipedia go out of its way to have no accountability?

Why, in a forum filled with people that love "science" is not one concerned about the lack of peer review? The lack of any sign that a professional has written an article? A Wiki volunteer can write and edit information from a PhD? Who's to say the PhD or the volunteer is right? Wales?

Wikipedia can slander someone and never be held accountable. In the past, it may be different now, they erased all logs of which editor wrote information or made edits within, I believe it was 72 hours, so that no one could ever prove who was responsible for a particular piece of incorrect information.

We now have a world where a group of unaccountable, unknown, "mystery editors" are teaching the world. Students who have written papers and used Wikipedia for their entire lives for "research" have no idea if the information they used and now have packed into their little brains, is correct or not.

Wikipedia is the "Sum of Hearsay", not the "Sum of Human Knowledge".

By the way, yes, it is disgraceful to ask for donations when you could survive on your own. They could design a program where they are "above the fray" and yet still produce their own revenue. Its an elitist approach and people with money, who have never really felt what it is like to truly be poor and against the wall with no money, will never understand this.

 

[seohug]

I like Wikipedia. Always a good source of info without the sales pitch. Donations are the only way to keep them alive. No one will edit or help in anyway if they start any kind of ads and leave the non-profit state.

 

[PieceWork]

I like Wikipedia. Always a good source of info without the sales pitch. Donations are the only way to keep them alive. No one will edit or help in anyway if they start any kind of ads and leave the non-profit state.

With revenue they could pay professionals to validate the information. As it stands, we are told to take as "fact" or "gospel" information provided by the unaccountable. Where are all of the members here that would insist on rigorous academic review of religion and science and yet not Wikipedia.

For many people, sad as it is, the only research they will ever do is in HS and College. If all of that information is from Wikipedia it will form the foundation for their beliefs into the future. Over time and as Wikipedia is the "source" across the population we will eventually have generations within the population that has all many of their foundational beliefs ultimately controlled by a single individual, Wales. Sound like a good idea?

They can remain a non profit and run advertisements.

They could run ads that do not have any real or perceived editorial sway.

 

[Rexibit]

You're talking shit about one of the greatest resources of information in history because your shitty content sites gets outranked by them.

^

It's honestly not impossible to outrank a Wikipedia page, or even that difficult if you are smart about it and take a few minutes to plan out a decent strategy.

 

[Rexibit]

With revenue they could pay professionals to validate the information. As it stands, we are told to take as "fact" or "gospel" information provided by the unaccountable. Where are all of the members here that would insist on rigorous academic review of religion and science and yet not Wikipedia.

For many people, sad as it is, the only research they will ever do is in HS and College. If all of that information is from Wikipedia it will form the foundation for their beliefs into the future. Over time and as Wikipedia is the "source" across the population we will eventually have generations within the population that has all many of their foundational beliefs ultimately controlled by a single individual, Wales. Sound like a good idea?

This statement assumes that unless someone is paid, the information can't be validated properly. It also assumes that the information will become biased and incorrect over time, in order to support your second paragraph's slanted view that a single individual's views become the basis for all educational views across the world.

The vast majority of articles on Wikipedia are maintained regularly by 5+ individuals to ensure accuracy against tampering with the content and all of the information is sourced quite well and written in such a way to only deal with facts, and not a single view of a situation.

I've had a number of my own edits, even though they are quite good and added a lot of information on a subject, removed due to "bad" sources within a few hours of publishing them - then allowed once I found more reputable sources to back the information.

Honestly, a lot of people take great pride in keeping Wikipedia up and credible, most of those with Master and Doctorate degrees, and probably from the exact same places you'd get to "validate" information anyway. People who volunteer their time for these kinds of projects tend to invest a lot more energy than those who you'd pay. Once it becomes a "job", they'd lose interest faster and let crap through.

 

[PieceWork]

This statement assumes that unless someone is paid, the information can't be validated properly. It also assumes that the information will become biased and incorrect over time, in order to support your second paragraph's slanted view that a single individual's views become the basis for all educational views across the world.

The vast majority of articles on Wikipedia are maintained regularly by 5+ individuals to ensure accuracy against tampering with the content and all of the information is sourced quite well and written in such a way to only deal with facts, and not a single view of a situation.

I've had a number of my own edits, even though they are quite good and added a lot of information on a subject, removed due to "bad" sources within a few hours of publishing them - then allowed once I found more reputable sources to back the information.

Honestly, a lot of people take great pride in keeping Wikipedia up and credible, most of those with Master and Doctorate degrees, and probably from the exact same places you'd get to "validate" information anyway. People who volunteer their time for these kinds of projects tend to invest a lot more energy than those who you'd pay. Once it becomes a "job", they'd lose interest faster and let crap through.

I believe you read my post and forgot that I was answering the following:

No one will edit or help in anyway if they start any kind of ads and leave the non-profit state.

You are "schooling" me, yet I did not make the point you are arguing against in your first sentence.

I do believe that having no specific qualifications in the subject areas they are "reviewing" can lead to a slanting of knowledge over time and in fact, can lead to a slanting of knowledge immediately.

In addition to this, no five individuals can police "the sum of human knowledge". Who is to say their personal, political, and social biases are not interjected into the pages on issues they care about? This is the same for the other "editors", are you saying that all of them are pure of heart?

Is it not reasonable to assume that people with an agenda on specific sub issues become editors, correct hundreds of pages not related to their pet issue, and then they sneak into the pages they want to influence and add bias? This specific technique is mentioned in threads here on WF as a way to get Wikipedia links to a site. Does no one believe that those that are motivated by a specific movement or cause are not doing the same thing to advance their agendas?

 

[1yerrot]

Don't fuck with our moniez, bro.

You're right, my bad, haaa. arty-smiley-004:

 

[-joe-]

Why then does Wikipedia go out of its way to have no accountability?

Why, in a forum filled with people that love "science" is not one concerned about the lack of peer review? The lack of any sign that a professional has written an article? A Wiki volunteer can write and edit information from a PhD? Who's to say the PhD or the volunteer is right? Wales?

Wikipedia can slander someone and never be held accountable. In the past, it may be different now, they erased all logs of which editor wrote information or made edits within, I believe it was 72 hours, so that no one could ever prove who was responsible for a particular piece of incorrect information.

We now have a world where a group of unaccountable, unknown, "mystery editors" are teaching the world. Students who have written papers and used Wikipedia for their entire lives for "research" have no idea if the information they used and now have packed into their little brains, is correct or not.

Wikipedia is the "Sum of Hearsay", not the "Sum of Human Knowledge".

By the way, yes, it is disgraceful to ask for donations when you could survive on your own. They could design a program where they are "above the fray" and yet still produce their own revenue. Its an elitist approach and people with money, who have never really felt what it is like to truly be poor and against the wall with no money, will never understand this.

That's what the citations at the bottom are for, and why they no longer accept citations from non reputable sites. Sure, some slip through the net, but it's come on a lot from a few years ago, when I remember it telling me that the black death was caused by "the dirty jews". You shouldn't rely on information from wikipedia without checking where it's cited from. That said, I'd trust wikipedia over pretty much any wickedfire member's site.