Anyone else donate to Wikipedia?

[SilentZero]

No..don't even use it

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Gl4di4tor

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
You are not alone!

Like I said in the older thread:

No, wiki isn't trustworthy or authoritative since there is no editorial control. $10 is better spent on a copy of last year's Encarta.

I'd be more likely to donate to snopes.com since they provide a more valuable service (IMHO) than a group-think opinionopedia.

I did give to Northwest Harvest (WA food bank supplier) and the Seattle Times Fund for the Needy (collects for a bunch of WA charities)

Please stop regurgitating the same thing over and over again on every thread about Wikipedia. How can you have a central editor to edit so many entries, its impossible, that's why its important for people not to rely on only one source for information. Btw, encarta doesn't have a fraction of the the information that Wikipedia has mainly because they are greedy fvcks who want to own everything rather than letting people share it.

Please learn the difference between "two" and "every."

Real encyclopedias do have editors, and use recognized authorities to write articles instead of relying on interative refinement to (eventually) approach something close to the truth.

It's true Encarta doesn't have entries for Ghastly's Ghastly Comic or the O RLY owl, but you can cite content in Encarta with a much higher confidence in its accuracy.

I'm not saying wiki isn't fun or useful, just that it isn't something I can see giving money to. They should just put in Google ads like everyone else

 

[simms]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Gl4di4tor

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
You are not alone!

Like I said in the older thread:

No, wiki isn't trustworthy or authoritative since there is no editorial control. $10 is better spent on a copy of last year's Encarta.

I'd be more likely to donate to snopes.com since they provide a more valuable service (IMHO) than a group-think opinionopedia.

I did give to Northwest Harvest (WA food bank supplier) and the Seattle Times Fund for the Needy (collects for a bunch of WA charities)

Please stop regurgitating the same thing over and over again on every thread about Wikipedia. How can you have a central editor to edit so many entries, its impossible, that's why its important for people not to rely on only one source for information. Btw, encarta doesn't have a fraction of the the information that Wikipedia has mainly because they are greedy fvcks who want to own everything rather than letting people share it.

Please learn the difference between "two" and "every."

Real encyclopedias do have editors, and use recognized authorities to write articles instead of relying on interative refinement to (eventually) approach something close to the truth.

It's true Encarta doesn't have entries for Ghastly's Ghastly Comic or the O RLY owl, but you can cite content in Encarta with a much higher confidence in its accuracy.

I'm not saying wiki isn't fun or useful, just that it isn't something I can see giving money to. They should just put in Google ads like everyone else

Some articles have much more breadth than just Encarta. Search up the logo of the 1928 Olympics that fast. Find out the subdivisions of S&M, even what 'bears' mean.

Other things, minor events, issues to our subculture, would never be listed in Encarta. Yet we find them in Wikipedia... I go to Wikipedia from time to time to read a quick synopsis about a particular subject - it has what I'm looking for.

It has which IBM Ultrabay fits in what models, and what battery versions work with what. Yet I'd probably spend about 15 minutes on IBM looking for that same information.

All I'm saying is that for non-controversial stuff, Wikipedia = gold. If you want information on current events, etc, then it is probably not the best source because some of it may be biased on the author.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Good points on the breadth of subjects and the depth of coverage of them.

All I'm saying is that for non-controversial stuff, Wikipedia = gold

Sure, I'll agree with that.

It just seems silly to donate when it shouldn't be a trusted source for anything you really care about or need accuracy for.

The Richard Thompson bio is excellent though. :thumbsup:

 

[Gl4di4tor]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Good points on the breadth of subjects and the depth of coverage of them.

All I'm saying is that for non-controversial stuff, Wikipedia = gold

Sure, I'll agree with that.

It just seems silly to donate when it shouldn't be a trusted source for anything you really care about or need accuracy for.

The Richard Thompson bio is excellent though. :thumbsup:

If you find an article with inaccurate information why don't u take a few minutes to report it or correct it yourself, that is the beauty of wikipedia. By the way, no one is asking you specifically to donate but stop discouraging others from doing so, especially people who enjoy reading Wikipedia articles.