People Who Donate to Wikipedia Just Better People?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I see articles like this and the only reason I post them is because I know you guys will have a field day on the topic. ;)

Regardless of whether or not you gave money to Wikipedia, someone would give money to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia would continue to serve all your question-answering, information-gathering needs. Of course, if everyone thinks this way, we have what is known as a free rider problem. Luckily, some people actually donate. But who? Who are these people? Are they just better people in general?
Click to expand...
 
I dont donate to foundations that actively alter the truth to satify someone's politics.

"In November 2008, while in Afghanistan doing research for a book, Rohde and two associates were kidnapped by members of the Taliban. After being held captive for seven months and ten days, in June 2009 Rohde and one of his associates escaped and made their way to safety. The other associate escaped a month later.[34] During his captivity, Rohde's colleagues at The New York Times appealed to other members of the news media not to publish any stories relating to the abduction. The resulting media blackout of Rohde's kidnapping has caused a wider debate about the responsibility to report news in a timely manner.[2][35][36] The debate has included Wikipedia itself due to its co-founder Jimmy Wales being asked to maintain the blackout on Wikipedia by The New York Times, which he did through several administrators.[3]"

Either you are a repository of facts or not, period. He knowingly and with forethought altered, repeatedly, a known truth to further a personal agenda.
 
If there was suddenly no wikipedia, another one would take its place. It would be good if two or three actually took its place.

I don't 'truth' on some topics being left to a few who have the time to camp and game the wikipedia system. Some of the political topics are rhetoric and if they are rhetoric you should let everyone offer a version equally instead of victory going to the best topic camper.
 
If they wanted money, they should make it a paid service... or place ads. Don't make a free site then demand money. Though I guess they aren't technically.
 
I use it myself, when I just want a quick overview of something or another.
However, when you google a topic, as often as not, the sources used by in Wikipedia articles come up as well as the wiki page.
Life would not end without Wikipedia, it would just take a few extra clicks and a bit more thought to get what you want. I do not donate, as much because of how they ask for donations, as anything. I mean, I almost always have a few bucks in my PayPal account, I do use the service it provides, so why wouldn't I? Oh! that's right, it is because they annoy the piss out of me, and even if I don't donate Wikipedia will still be there, and even if Wikipedia is no longer there, the info I am looking for will still be out there on the net.
 
Wikipedia only goes so far as to give an overview and general conceptions of a given topic. It's pretty much only useful for casual reading/browsing.

If you actually wanted to learn/write a topic you would actually have to find: peer review articles/journals, primary literature, literature that properly cites primary sources and is reviewed.
 
I donated some money because I use wikipedia pretty often. It's helped me learn about a topic pretty quick. Of course, it doesn't have all the details but I don't really want them to have to result to putting ads on the site either.

I'd donate to hardocp/hardforum to have the ads removed and to support the people here.
 
No. If you want to give money to a site that can be easily vandalized by anyone, that's your call. Wiki is a helpful basic resource, but if they went away, I wouldn't be too bothered. There's always other sites with whatever information you want to find.
 
Because people who update Wikipedia articles... are fully trust-able sources of reliable information.


Fucking logic, how does that work?
 
donated twice in the past, done my part

wish the stupid notification would go away and stop trying to make me feel guilty!
 
so many people use Wikipedia that putting a banner ad at the top would likely be enough to pay for their servers.

Suck it up and put up the ads. Most people don't care.

We are bombarded with ads everywhere else. Wiki shouldn't be any different.
 
Love that website. I'll donate when I'm actually making money and not being a college student.
 
I use wikipedia, but I wouldn't be crying if it vanished. My only real motivation to pay would be I appreciate not having ads, though the gigantic "please donate now" sign doesn't encourage me either.
 
The pleas never bothered me, but I gave them $5 cause I've used them periodically for summaries/overviews on old history stuff over the years and just now got around to sending them something to defray server costs. I don't trust them for disputed and volatile subjects cause people can mess with the articles.
 
I like wikipedia because it has introduced me to a vast number of topics I have not previously considered looking into or researching. Wikipedia itself has not educated me to the point of a Ph.D on any particular topic, but that is not its purpose. There have been times I have literally spent hours reading through it, checking linked topics in the articles, and even the cited resources for more material on whatever subject it is I'm reading.

We sit and bitch and moan about how kids today are growing up into becoming completely and utterly stupid. And yet here is a resource that is only one google search term away to opening up their eyes and minds to whatever it is that interests them, or whatever they have to research for school. No, they won't be getting a bachelor's out of a few articles, and they won't be able to cite it for their reports, BUT the fact that it helps generates enough interest to willingly pursue higher knowledge should be worth SOMETHING. We should not complain and nag about something this easily accessible to a generation that is threatening to become the reality version of Idiocracy if something isn't done soon. We should be finding ways to refine it and turn it into an even better resource than it already is. Wikipedia is an excellent starting point to higher knowledge, and given how easy it is to access it on virtually any topic you can think of, I would rather have that as a resource than for it to not exist at all.
 
I donated, I love Wikipedia and I love that they aren't a corporation. I also more than anything love that they don't have ads, the cancer of the internet.
 
Do i think there better people for donating to wikipedia specificly? Nope, do I think there better people for trying to support something they use but have the option to recieve for free? Sure do!

And I think thats what the question boils down to, are you a free loader that takes everything for free without a care, or do you support those that give you services for free that you use alot and ask for nothing directly?

I know one thing Ive donated to, the eyefinity aps developers from widescreen gaming, without them alot of my favorite games would not work in eyefinity. (atleast properly)
 
Spire3660 said:
I dont donate to foundations that actively alter the truth to satify someone's politics.

"In November 2008, while in Afghanistan doing research for a book, Rohde and two associates were kidnapped by members of the Taliban. After being held captive for seven months and ten days, in June 2009 Rohde and one of his associates escaped and made their way to safety. The other associate escaped a month later.[34] During his captivity, Rohde's colleagues at The New York Times appealed to other members of the news media not to publish any stories relating to the abduction. The resulting media blackout of Rohde's kidnapping has caused a wider debate about the responsibility to report news in a timely manner.[2][35][36] The debate has included Wikipedia itself due to its co-founder Jimmy Wales being asked to maintain the blackout on Wikipedia by The New York Times, which he did through several administrators.[3]"

Either you are a repository of facts or not, period. He knowingly and with forethought altered, repeatedly, a known truth to further a personal agenda.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you're out of your god damn mind
 
Gilbert_pwns said:
Wikipedia only goes so far as to give an overview and general conceptions of a given topic. It's pretty much only useful for casual reading/browsing.

If you actually wanted to learn/write a topic you would actually have to find: peer review articles/journals, primary literature, literature that properly cites primary sources and is reviewed.
Click to expand...

Nah, any topic you want to learn about, regardless of how deeply you plan to research it, the first step is to always get an overview of the subject. Wikipedia does this well. If you actually want to learn about a subject, you don't skip the overview and jump straight to reading journal peer reviewed articles. Saying 'it's pretty much only useful for casual reading/browsing' is wrong. People use it all the time as a first step to give an overview on a subject they plan to further research. It is useful to them too.

Also in general, the ratio of number of subjects you learn a little about to subjects you learn a lot about is huge. Its silly to trivialize the first when it is far more common. It would be like saying a car is pretty much only useful for going short distances. If you really want to go a long distance you need to take a plane or a train. Well true, but I far more often want to go short distances than long ones. And I far more often want to get quick overviews of a topic than I want to deeply research them. Only getting an overview is extremely useful.
 
I chucked some cash in 'cause more often than not I find Wikipedia to be a good resource and at the very least it's a great idea. Of all the sites over the years that have cropped up Wikipedia is the one I keep coming back to for info on subjects I'm not familiar with.
 
I'm fine with appeals to donate as long as it's not making noise, slowing my browser in any way, or blocking the content I want to see, which Wikipedia's not doing. You have to understand that the site actually spends money to deliver to you the content you see and they only survive through donations. It's not like most other sites on the internet that at least try to cover their bills with the advertisements on a page. If you still don't give a shit, then at least admit that you're a selfish ass.
 
Finger said:
If you still don't give a shit, then at least admit that you're a selfish ass.
Click to expand...
I prefer to think of myself as an apathetic arse rather than a selfish arse :D I give money to causes as I see fit. Wikipedia has not yet made the list.
 
Wikipedia isn't useless just because some of you guys doesn't find any use in it. Many pages are a collective of information that are otherwise sometimes hard to obtained.

Of course there are alternative sites out there on quantum mechanics for example, but many of this site, if its meant for laymen, only offers a simple introductory article to the topic. Anything more and you would need to read up technical books which will then be too involved with its mathematical approach. Wikipedia offers a middle ground, it summarize every major topics in quantum mechanics without a full mathematical approach.
 
SamuraiInBlack said:
I like wikipedia because it has introduced me to a vast number of topics I have not previously considered looking into or researching. Wikipedia itself has not educated me to the point of a Ph.D on any particular topic, but that is not its purpose. There have been times I have literally spent hours reading through it, checking linked topics in the articles, and even the cited resources for more material on whatever subject it is I'm reading.

We sit and bitch and moan about how kids today are growing up into becoming completely and utterly stupid. And yet here is a resource that is only one google search term away to opening up their eyes and minds to whatever it is that interests them, or whatever they have to research for school. No, they won't be getting a bachelor's out of a few articles, and they won't be able to cite it for their reports, BUT the fact that it helps generates enough interest to willingly pursue higher knowledge should be worth SOMETHING. We should not complain and nag about something this easily accessible to a generation that is threatening to become the reality version of Idiocracy if something isn't done soon. We should be finding ways to refine it and turn it into an even better resource than it already is. Wikipedia is an excellent starting point to higher knowledge, and given how easy it is to access it on virtually any topic you can think of, I would rather have that as a resource than for it to not exist at all.
Click to expand...

QFT

I don't understand why people are complaining about information being easily accessible. Must everything be difficult? :rolleyes: There is a dire need to reach out to the public, especially the young ones and get them interested in science for example. Anything that will make it easier is a good thing. Not everyone is knowledgeable enough to know where to find the appropriated information scattered around and most people would lose interest.
 
well wikipedia sure is better then about.com and all those other ad infested "information" sites... I hope it doesn't go away or change too much. I don't know much about the possibility of this, but can it be shared across all computers on the internet, like a huge distributed peer-to-peer service... that way there's little chance of it going away because they can't support their central server?
 
Cyraxx said:
Because people who update Wikipedia articles... are fully trust-able sources of reliable information.

Fucking logic, how does that work?
Click to expand...

By and large, Wikipedia's articles are very high quality. Higher than any encyclopedia's, and often better than many textbooks, especially on "new" information.

Yes, people do get into political edit wars, there are questionable decisions from the directors, etc. But that happens everywhere. Overall, Wikipedia is an amazing and accurate source for information on almost anything you would ever want to know.

I've donated, and I'm not sorry for it one bit. I've gotten more benefit out of Wikipedia than I have many games, and I've spent more money on those games.
 
I donated $5 :) As a student, I often use wiki to look for general information but if i need more detail I would go to different site or read the book.
 
I donated for past use because I can. However, I think its use has become more harmful than helpful at least in an academic sense (10 points off if you use wiki as a source :) ). It is definitely showing its age. Now that google books, jstor, pubmed and scidirect are really taking off I find wiki's far less useful. I do appreciate it for the architecture though... setting up an internal wiki for a dept is really advantageous if you can get people to use it (I have done a few personally).
 
Commander FAT said:
I don't donate because I wouldn't give one fuck if Wikipedia shutdown today.
Click to expand...

umadbro ?

Gilbert_pwns said:
Wikipedia only goes so far as to give an overview and general conceptions of a given topic. It's pretty much only useful for casual reading/browsing.

If you actually wanted to learn/write a topic you would actually have to find: peer review articles/journals, primary literature, literature that properly cites primary sources and is reviewed.
Click to expand...

Even if Wikipedia contents are shallow and only good enough for casual browsing and forum discussions, their source reference list is always a good start point to more deep research.

Spire3660 said:
I dont donate to foundations that actively alter the truth to satify someone's politics.

"In November 2008, while in Afghanistan doing research for a book, Rohde and two associates were kidnapped by members of the Taliban. After being held captive for seven months and ten days, in June 2009 Rohde and one of his associates escaped and made their way to safety. The other associate escaped a month later.[34] During his captivity, Rohde's colleagues at The New York Times appealed to other members of the news media not to publish any stories relating to the abduction. The resulting media blackout of Rohde's kidnapping has caused a wider debate about the responsibility to report news in a timely manner.[2][35][36] The debate has included Wikipedia itself due to its co-founder Jimmy Wales being asked to maintain the blackout on Wikipedia by The New York Times, which he did through several administrators.[3]"

Either you are a repository of facts or not, period. He knowingly and with forethought altered, repeatedly, a known truth to further a personal agenda.
Click to expand...

Some topics may be biased or simply incorrect, but then the printed versions aren't exactly better. Wikipedia at least provides some way to people contribute and fix the errors. If it's not working well enough is our own fault. Besides, IMHO it's up to the readers to check facts against more than one source. Do you believe in everything you read in newspapers or see at the TV ? Same thing here.

Knowledge is the most valuable thing in the world. Wikipedia is full of flaws, but it's much better than we had before. I am a confessed Wikipedia free rider, but I wouldn't discard donating in the future if necessary.
 
Cyraxx said:
Because people who update Wikipedia articles... are fully trust-able sources of reliable information.


Fucking logic, how does that work?
Click to expand...

Yarr, there were two incidents that brought into sharp relief for me how untrustworthy and even occasionally dangerous wikipedia is, one was the naked shorting/patrick byrne debacle.

The other was an interview with a physicist who was asked what he thought the value of WP was to the academic community, and he told the tale about made some correction he made to an article about a theorem he invented getting reverted back almost instantly, and after a couple of attempts his account got banned. His conclusion was that it was totally useless as a primary source (though you'd have to be an idiot to use it that way anyway).

Wikipedia is a great idea, but it's is controlled by bots and unemployed basement dwellers who have more time on their hands than actual experts and exercise that position to police their favorite articles like little dictators, so it can never really reach it's potential.

Note to self: Check wikipedia to see what it itself says about how it was used to discredit Patrick Byrne and his stance on naked shorting (who was subsequently proved to be totally right by reality and the SEC).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top