Wikipedia and donations

[chriswright03]

In the last couple of days I have visited  Wiki to look for information.  I notice they are asking for donations today (Min £2) to help fund the site.  So I suppose it set me thinking do we rely on this sort of thing and just take it for granted that someone (advertising) will pay for it or do we contribute?

 

Like when this place was run by Andy and sometimes some of us dipped into our pockets to help out.  Is it right just to expect someone to provide a service that we expect to be there for free? 

 

I at this point would say that I fully understand not everything on Wiki is correct so cannot be relied upon for 100% accuracy but then you can say that about answers on here or anywhere on the net at times.

[Andy Y]

I used to chip in to Wikipedia but then had a period where a malicious individual was targetting me, any correcting edits I made would get removed (as I hadn't quoted references) so I lost all faith in their validations of what is fact and what is fiction.

 

I no longer give a contribution.

[chriswright03]

Only thing I could contribute to the site is money as my knowledge of anything is minimal!

[Dagworth]

Only thing I could contribute to the site is money as my knowledge of anything is minimal!

I don't bother with Wikipedia, I just ask my wife, she knows everything 

 

 

(Several here know my wife in real life and will know that actually she is nothing like that, oh and that she is a member here...)

 

Andi

[kevinlms]

I 

 

In the last couple of days I have visited  Wiki to look for information.  I notice they are asking for donations today (Min £2) to help fund the site.  So I suppose it set me thinking do we rely on this sort of thing and just take it for granted that someone (advertising) will pay for it or do we contribute?

 

Like when this place was run by Andy and sometimes some of us dipped into our pockets to help out.  Is it right just to expect someone to provide a service that we expect to be there for free? 

 

I at this point would say that I fully understand not everything on Wiki is correct so cannot be relied upon for 100% accuracy but then you can say that about answers on here or anywhere on the net at times.

was also getting a notification that I'm a regular user, well most days, I'd look up something. But that seems to have gone now.

[jonny777]

I might have contributed in the past, but since I received an email warning me that I had been identified as a troll and that if I interfered with any other Wikipedia pages they would be taking action against me, I have felt disinclined to support them financially. 

 

I am not sure how genuine the threat was, but someone had taken umbrage to my correction of errors on a page they seem to have created. They believed they were the fount of all knowledge and the contents of their pages was sacrosanct. 

[chriswright03]

There are some on here like that but thankfully not many as most left with the hump.  Not to say they don't sneak in in another name from time to time and try and stir things.

[beast66606]

I find Wiki useful and make a small donation annually ( < £5 ) - same with FireFox and Irfanview both of which I use regularly and are free.

 

I too have had issues with an individual who was editing pages on Wiki and putting utter rubbish into them - "There's a new brick in this retaining wall which is evidence that a station must have existed here at one time" (I kid you not, even though no map or documentation ever mentioned it or even plans for it) so I registered with an official sounding name and the re-editing stopped.

[jjb1970]

Wikipedia is a very good resource provided you are aware of its limitations. I wouldn't rely on it and cringe when I see it referenced in supposedly serious reports or student work but as a portal to further reading and as an introduction it can be excellent. Avoid the political entries or the stuff that attracts tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nuts and I find it reasonably reliable for the most part.

I'm also getting the please donate thing and will give them a fiver.

[Jonboy]

I tend to use it as a starting point, and then look for further information to backup, or disprove its information.

[Arthur]

 

I chip in a fiver every now and then. It’s a handy reference source and a useful springboard for further research. Always right?, No, but what source is?

 

.

[Zomboid]

I have donated in the past. Not done so yet this year, but I have no objection to doing so. I am only a consumer, and reckon I get my £2 a years worth out of it.

[The Blue Streak]

I also have a look at it most days, but usually try to use it to supplement other sources. I don't mind giving them $3 once in a while.

Edited December 10, 2017 by The Blue Streak

[Reorte]

Don't give anything to Wikipedia but do to one or two other things. They all cost to run but I figure that if everyone gives a bit to a few sites it all averages out so you can treat your donations as contributing towards everything you use for free.

[wollastonblue]

Have to admit I use Wikipedia a lot when I'm writing pub quizzes, I do donate, maybe not as much as I should, but I do think that Wikipedia could make a lot of money down the advertising route like Facebook et al.

[jjb1970]

Advertising is one way to fund Wikipedia, personally I'd not really object but I do think we'd see a lot of people whinging about advertising banners and especially if they adopt the more intrusive or data consuming options for advertising. I do think there is a much wider issue with web based services in general, somebody has to pay for them and if it isn't by means of charging for access (or receiving sufficient donations from users) then it means advertising or corporate support. The problem is many want these services to be free and also advert free.

[chriswright03]

Oh and I just realised I didn't actually say but I did contribute and will do from time to time.  If ever I have been on a forum that accepted contributions I have always done so as I think it only fair.  It isn't as though it is a lot of money and what does £2, £5 or whatever buy you these days anyway?  Could make that up just by using my T bags twice every day.

[Reorte]

Advertising is one way to fund Wikipedia, personally I'd not really object but I do think we'd see a lot of people whinging about advertising banners and especially if they adopt the more intrusive or data consuming options for advertising. I do think there is a much wider issue with web based services in general, somebody has to pay for them and if it isn't by means of charging for access (or receiving sufficient donations from users) then it means advertising or corporate support. The problem is many want these services to be free and also advert free.

When something's been free to access and advert-free for quite a while it's going to be hard to persuade people that they have to put up with adverts. FWIW I don't think there is such a thing as a non-intrusive advert (although they're less so in printed media for some reason, might simply be because I'm used to them in newspapers and magazines and at least magazine adverts tend to be relevent to the subject). As a revenue model on the internet it probably gets hit hard by ad blockers anyway.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Reorte

[PhilJ W]

I have donated £2, I use adblock so if they do use advertising I am getting it for free otherwise. I don't mind donating but for a week after I had donated I still got requests for donations.

[MJI]

I will not donate as the owners have plenty of money and a lot of writers treat it as their private fiefdom.

 

Yes had stuff removed where the details were correct so gave up.

 

Like many on here

I no longer give a contribution.

 

HEnce my like

[Ozexpatriate]

I used to chip in to Wikipedia but then had a period where a malicious individual was targetting me, any correcting edits I made would get removed (as I hadn't quoted references) so I lost all faith in their validations of what is fact and what is fiction.

... someone had taken umbrage to my correction of errors on a page they seem to have created. They believed they were the fount of all knowledge and the contents of their pages was sacrosanct. 

I will not donate as the owners have plenty of money and a lot of writers treat it as their private fiefdom.

 

Yes had stuff removed where the details were correct so gave up.

It's a shame that there are self appointed jobsworths who patrol their own content, which is clearly counter to the intent of crowd sourced knowledge.

 

I sometimes wonder whether the (understandable) rules about quoted print references will eventually starve content, as relative access to print diminishes. Plus of course there is plenty of factual knowledge that is not printed and bound.

 

As a user (never having contributed) I continue to donate a small amount.

[chriswright03]

I will not donate as the owners have plenty of money and a lot of writers treat it as their private fiefdom.

 

Yes had stuff removed where the details were correct so gave up.

 

Like many on here

 

HEnce my like

Whilst I don't agree with your view about the owners having plenty of money I fully accept the rest and Andy's view.  I have not posted on there or tried to correct anyone so know nothing of the troubles you speak of.  I fully understand though that there are people on the internet who leave a lot to be desired in respect of manners.  It is the same on here at times but I never let a minority interfere with my view that this is an excellent resource.

 

I use Wiki from time to time and I am happy to contribute a token gesture for that.  Had I experienced what you and Andy had no doubt my view would change.

[MJI]

One of the problems is that sometimes people want to go into more detail on a certain subject, lets say for example GWR wagons, so say an expert produces a page on Minks a page on Toads and so on, with references to books.

 

Someone will decide too much information and remove, even though they do not understand the subject (I have seen this with various transport topics).

 

I had turned one stub page about a beach into a refered page, but was stripped back within a few days despite nothing wrong.

 

Also anyone can set up a spoof site with made up facts and as long as they are refered too they stay despite being wrong.

 

As I said before too many people have their own private fiefdoms on there.

 

 

 

Now I think it is a shame there is no big online resource with lots of detailed information as this is what wikipedia couild have been. But it always seems to return to lowest common denominator.

[locomad]

One of the problems is that sometimes people want to go into more detail on a certain subject, lets say for example GWR wagons, so say an expert produces a page on Minks a page on Toads and so on, with references to books.

 

Someone will decide too much information and remove, even though they do not understand the subject (I have seen this with various transport topics).

 

I had turned one stub page about a beach into a refered page, but was stripped back within a few days despite nothing wrong.

 

Also anyone can set up a spoof site with made up facts and as long as they are refered too they stay despite being wrong.

 

As I said before too many people have their own private fiefdoms on there.

 

 

 

Now I think it is a shame there is no big online resource with lots of detailed information as this is what wikipedia couild have been. But it always seems to return to lowest common denominator.

I've noticed the same in another subject and another hobby, I myself in something quite unusual wrote quite a bit on winky then noticed some time latter whole parts had been removed.

 

Years later found out that the person who removed it wrote a book on the subject I was the "competition", there's a clause in winky about stuff been too irrelevant assume to keep the space on the site down, it's used a lot to get rid of stuff.

 

What I find a lot is there's a small mention about say about some local history, a link to another website which has since "gone" error 401, couple of references to books long out of print and unobtainable and a society/club link to organisation which has disbanded, most frustrating. Course could try local library but long since closed

[beast66606]

Also anyone can set up a spoof site with made up facts and as long as they are refered too they stay despite being wrong.

 

There are a lot of "hardware" authors - ie books-  with the same problems, in the railway context alone I know of many books which have glaring mistakes, one of which I was involved in the proof reading cycle , corrected the (factual) mistake but the author decided the "original" was a more interesting "fact" (despite it being fiction) - however when such things are said, apparently it's me at fault for moaning not those who continue to publish fiction ..

 

If you use Wiki then you should contribute a little- that's all I do, a very little but I don't agree with letting others pay for something I use and imho it's useful enough for a tiny donation per year.