Wikipedia appeal

[edcayton]

Any thoughts?

 

Ed

[Mod5]

You really will have to do better than that. About what? Is there a link?

[PrestburyJack]

Is this it?

 

http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=WMFJA1/GB&utm_source=2010_JA1_Banner3&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=fridayOpening&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMain_Page

[Coombe Barton]

You really will have to do better than that. About what? Is there a link?

 

Every Wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - or select your own. Annual appeal for donations.

[Mod5]

Thanks for that guys but my point is that members should not have to go hunting for stuff just to find out what it is about and many just will not. So if this is important enough to post about then to do it justice and to assist others a link would have been helpful.

 

As it is without following the links provided there is still not a clue as to what it is all about. So many will not bother and just move on to the next thread.

[edcayton]

I can't do links! It IS the first thing that comes up when you use wiki, so I thought the title would be enough. Basically, they're after money and I just wondered what others thought.

 

Ed

[Coombe Barton]

Basically, they're after money and I just wondered what others thought.

In reality if Wikipedia doesn't get money there won't be a wikipedia. It's not a commercial operation. It's lust like RMWeb - we can't expect Andy to fund it himself so we donate. This is the same but on a (slightly) larger scale.

[Oldddudders]

The principal difference between Wikipedia and RMWeb is that the RMWebber knows what he or she is getting into. We all have the ability to judge the quality and veracity of others' contributions, because most of us know at least a little about the subjects that interest us. Where historical or dimensional facts are quoted, there will be plenty of others willing to challenge duff data. If I choose to pass a few pence to Andy Y, it is because you lot are feeding me what I want to eat!

 

Wikipedia, on the other hand, encourages anyone to write what they know about a subject. In most cases those writings will be sincere, but they may contain inaccuracies, some repeated from the inaccurate writings of others, which then become perpetuated as facts - Wikipedia is hugely successful at being read. Internet myths can be inadvertantly started here! And how do you or I challenge the Wiki we have just read? Do we bother? Probably not. For most readers, Wikipedia is believed - that being its founder's admirable aim. So what about the small % of Wikis written by those with a negative motive, or who would re-write facts or history with a misleading slant, e.g. for political or religious reasons - how do we spot those?

 

Wikipedia is a great idea, fatally flawed by depending on humans to input the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts. The impossibility of regulating the quality always leaves me dubious about what I read. I have been known to quote Wikipedia on here, but make the source very obvious, so the reader can choose to add a pinch of salt as appropriate!

[Baby Deltic]

I wrote the first article (anonymously) about the Class 23's on Wiki. It has since been 'Wikified' and looks a lot better with pictures and what not, but the text is essentially the same, save for others padding out the sentences with a bit more detail. It wasn't long before there were labels appearing stating 'citation needed', so they must question the accuracy of the source. I had to add the sources of where I found the info mentioned.

[Coombe Barton]

... so they must question the accuracy of the source. I had to add the sources of where I found the info mentioned.

The 'they' is other Wikipedia contributors. It's a cooperative effort and despite its faults, arguably the most comprehensive source of knowledge around, if referenced coorrectly. Notable hijackings include when Tony Blair's middle name appeared as something like "Whoopee-doo".

[Ian J.]

...It's lust like RMWeb...

Lust? Well, I suppose there are some here who lust after RMweb, but I don't think I'm one of them... ;)

[Mod5]

I can't do links! It IS the first thing that comes up when you use wiki, so I thought the title would be enough. Basically, they're after money and I just wondered what others thought.

 

Ed

 

Well if you ask we can show you how to Ed. My main point is that many people me included will not go to look at something like this unless there is a reason to. So had you for arguments sake put in your opening post that Wikipedia are requesting donations to be able to carry on it would have given a reason to go and look if one had the mind to. I am not criticising you in your attempt to publicise their plight merely stating that a little more information would have been helpful.

[Pete Piszczek]

Wikipedia is a great idea, fatally flawed by depending on humans to input the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts. The impossibility of regulating the quality always leaves me dubious about what I read. I have been known to quote Wikipedia on here, but make the source very obvious, so the reader can choose to add a pinch of salt as appropriate!

 

'Fatally Flawed' is being a bit harsh!.

 

As to the 'impossibility of regulating the quality', you should spend some time reviewing just how Wiki works...