Time is running out in 2016 to help Wikipedia. When I made Wikipedia a non-profit, people warned me I’d regret it. Over a decade later, it’s the only top ten site run by a non-profit and a community of passionate volunteers. Has it crossed my mind how much money we could have made if it had ads? Sure. But I believe people wouldn’t want to build it and we wouldn't be able to trust it. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We're sustained by donations averaging about $15. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. That's right, the price of a cup of coffee is all we need. People say we live in a media environment where facts have become subjective. At Wikipedia, we reject that idea. We believe facts matter. Please help us keep Wikipedia online and growing. Thank you — Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder
Time is running out in 2016 to help Wikipedia. When I made Wikipedia a non-profit, people warned me I’d regret it...
Other urls found in this thread:
conservapedia.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Take away your 700KB of senseless JavaScript and you'll find your bandwidth cut in half.
Wikipedia is not currently running a fundraiser in your country
>Wikipedia dies.
>Suddenly thousands of personal web pages on specific subjects resurface
I approve of this. Down with the monolithic web.
I believe what you mean is
>Wikipedia dies
>is replaced by several copycats with no compunctions against ads
Let it die.
>People say we live in a media environment where facts have become subjective. At Wikipedia, we reject that idea. We believe facts matter.
Tell that to gamergate
>Wkipedo
>not botnet
>factual
I always get something like
" If everyone reading this right now gave $300000, our fundraiser would be done within an hour"
How does that work?
around the same lines like hitler tried with the jews to make all their money problems go away
Reminder that Wikipedia was mostly built by ripping off random peoples web pages - and then they refused even link back with the claim those ripped off pages are not "reliable sources".
Reminder that most "contributors" and admins there are paid shills. Who has time to monitor articles on certain subjects all day long? Paid shills do.
If this propaganda menace goes away then thag would be great.
And yet something to that effect already exists, in the form of Wikia
There's wikia for everything these days and if you actually want to learn something just watch a lecture on youtube or pirate a textbook or whatever. Wikipedia is unnecessary.
its $3 and its very simple (dumbass). the number of people using wikipedia at any given time is such that if all of them gave $3, the fundraiser would be over nearly instantaneously. all you people talking about wikipedia dying are such fucking morons, as if you don't constantly use and refer to it in your day to day life. quit being contrarian retards and donate the cost of a fucking spicy chicken sandwhich from mcdonalds to keep the worlds most expansive online encyclopedia open and free you cheap, ungrateful fucks.
>keep the worlds most expansive online encyclopedia open and free you cheap, ungrateful fucks.
Why? It has no value to me.
good goy
>keep the worlds most expansive online encyclopedia open and free you cheap, ungrateful fucks.
no, YOU pay the whole thing instead
this.but sadly user in this world they are more jerks than wikipedians
Nah, I think I know what happened. They seem to convert it to local currency (and round it).
my god, the abject horror!! voluntarily donating $3 every year for arguably one of the most valuable unified sources of information in the history of civilization! fucking retard.
you are so absolutely and entirely full of shit, and even if you weren't, you're still a moron for not recognizing the objective value of such a service.
Nice blog post, we don't give a shit. Fucking moron.
Its value is only objective if you think humanity has value
Look what website you're on
>you're still a moron for not recognizing the objective value of such a service.
It offends my religion and has caricatures of the prophet on his wikipage. And they refuse to change it so it can burn for all I care.
To many americunts in this thread.wikipedia won't die
kill yourself then you useless teenage nihilist
poor form, had me going till this
>not recognizing the objective value of such a service.
Value statements can never be objective. As David Hume showed... It is logically impossible to have a situation where you can logically deduct that something is objectively good.
>doesn't use the meme properly
>"we"
if I wanted a retard to represent me I'd be German.
>current year
>caring if plebs have easy access to free knowledge
I must have given you $50 already Jimmy fuck off and bother someone else
zzzz... zzzz....
Yeah, but that's still not your blog and your post has no value. Go to Facebook or somewhere.
>Time is running out in 2016 to help Wikipedia.
[citation needed]
>When I made Wikipedia a non-profit,
[citation needed]
>people warned me I’d regret it.
[citation needed]
>Over a decade later, it’s the only top ten site run by a non-profit and a community of passionate volunteers.
[citation needed]
>Has it crossed my mind how much money we could have made if it had ads? Sure.
[citation needed]
>But I believe people wouldn’t want to build it and we wouldn't be able to trust it.
[citation needed]
>To protect our independence, we'll never run ads.
[citation needed]
>We're sustained by donations averaging about $15.
[citation needed]
>Now is the time we ask.
[citation needed]
>If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour.
[citation needed]
>That's right, the price of a cup of coffee is all we need.
[citation needed]
>People say we live in a media environment where facts have become subjective.
[citation needed]
>At Wikipedia, we reject that idea.
[citation needed]
>We believe facts matter.
[citation needed]
>Please help us keep Wikipedia online and growing. Thank you — Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder
[citation needed]
>weeb shit
Opinion discarded
well considering you're posting about it it's worth your time so I mean either it has value to you or your time is worthless, one makes you wrong the other means no one should care about what you have to say
Get raped and kill yourself, you retarded fucking faggot sack of nigger shit with down syndrome.
this is Sup Forums my dude
nobody's opinion has any value, and everybody's time is worthless here
>complains about anime posters on a board made by a literal weeb for weebs based on a Japanese imageboard system
wow
oh sorry, didn't mean to invade you safe space
fucking faggot
the cool kids have taken over, weebs no longer welcome. back in the locker you go.
>complains about people complaining about weebs on a site where 80% of the boards including this one are centered around non-weeb topics
If you want to post on a board that has next to nothing to do with anime, Reddit's always accepting new users.
>literally millions of articles in the english language alone
>unnecessary
I understand that you are an edgy faggot but come on.
Wikipedia is lefty biased. No one should donate to them. It would be better if the project died, was mirrored and hosted somewhere else.
if you want to post on an anime board, I hear Sup Forums and /jp/ are good this time of year
conservapedia.com
a nice safe space for you
>Wikipedia is lefty biased. No one should donate to them. It would be better if the project died, was mirrored and hosted somewhere else.
Completely agree. Used the site through middle and high school but once I got to college I started to see the huge amount of bias in ordinary articles AND the community's tendency to legitimize extreme left-wing views through making articles about them. Avoid.
It's literally just "technology" not "anime and technology" or "japanese technology."
in the spirit of this thread, can you actually provide citations of your claims?
I'm not a yank are the left trump supporters or SJWs
how the fuck would the mirror run it if wikipedia couldnt?
>Wikipedia is lefty biased
Sure thing
>Wikipedia is lefty biased.
Nah, you're just a paranoid conservaturd. Wikitards have edit warred me for attempting to remove conservative bias from the site. I've been harassed for trying to keep social justice nonsense out of articles as well. Wiki attracts retards from all sides of the spectrum.
>wikipedia is lefty biased
i'm so eager to hear what leads you to believe this. is the lack of holocaust denial upsetting to you?
>waaaaa dont make artiklez bout le commies or U R A COMMIE USELF
t.buttmad altright redditors who get triggered when a website doesn't conform to their shit ideas
It's very well-known that facts and truth have a liberal bias
Nobody's opinion has any real value, since you can't value something that cannot be sold
You're literally talking out your ass and posting anime pictures to get free (You)s and I won't stand for that
You really should just look at the wikipedia editors. Nobody ever does bu behind the curtain is the most concentrated forms of sjw and autism on the planet.
Do remember there are real people behind every article on that site. Everyone forgets that.
Nice face heheheheh
still waiting
>Nobody's opinion has any real value, since you can't value something that cannot be sold
musicians sell their opinion on other smaller bands music so it can be sold
that's it? you don't like the editors? god you're fucking stupid. how about an example of wikipedia actually publishing something that is biased and untrue? just because you disagree with the authors personal views doesn't mean the content itself is erroneous you MASSIVE FUCK
It's not my job to educate you, shitlord
en.wikipedia.org
knock yourself out.
still waiting
>talk page
seriously?
>if you don't like leftist bias, you need le safe space!
Shut the fuck up with this. Yes I happen to be conservative, but I just want a goddamned encyclopedia, not a brainwashing instruction manual.
Just read this article and tell me it isn't assuming the point it's trying to prove.
Why are reception sections still a thing? Why are controversy / criticism sections and articles still a thing? Why do admins insist that nominations for deletion aren't a democratic action, but then delete or keep pages based entirely on voter approval? Why are there millions of non-encyclopedic articles about shit like e-celebs and video games? Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, it's a soapbox and social media platform.
>People say we live in a media environment where facts have become subjective.
Except Wikipedia enforces the same mindset. "Facts" need only have a source that conforms to Wiki standards, which can be virtually any type of publication or Web site. The information doesn't actually have to be factual in nature.
>pro-lifers crying about the fact that fetuses aren't babies
wooooowwwww
oh my god, an article that describes the concept of white privilege, how awful. they're not pushing anything, they're providing an objective description of what the term means, regardless of whether or not you agree with it being prominent or "real".
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Neutral articles my ass.
Musicians selling song-writing advice is different from people's opinions on the internet. One actually contributes something and the other is just an opinion.
Come at me with another hot meme though I'm sure it'll work the second time.
I skimmed through it and it seems pretty scientifically written i.e. it doesn't seem to preach but quote proponents and detractors etc. It's ok to have articles on bullshit theories, there's a pretty extensive page on modern flat earth societies too
>I'm offended at the very mention of things I disagree with
...
most of the first article describes why SJW is a pejorative term in a neutral language. Where's the bias?
Except Wikipedia doesn't have any value for anyone but children copy-pasting the first paragraph for their homework. No self-respecting adult would use it as an actual source of information.
unless you're writing an article or a paper it's a perfectly fine source of information. If I want to know about King Tut I don't need to read 3 books on the matter, I just want to glance at the surface details
They should publish Wikipedia into an actual encyclopedia with the pages made out of flexible e-ink. It will have 2g built in and auto update itself.
>Neutral articles my ass.
Neither of those articles should exist, but that's the least of all the cruft that's been added to Wikipedia, and it certainly doesn't reflect any bias predominantly held by the site's editors.
Wiki also has articles with politically conservative leanings
en.wikipedia.org
You won't get away with trying to tone down the bias in that article. Conservative watchdogs and the good ol' boy admins they're pals with will get you blocked very quickly. The article is already protected as is.
automatic self-editable books are scary to me
>Jimmy Wales
Let me use your own line against you: "seriously?"
Read the first sentence of that article.
>White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.
White privilege is a theory within identity politics, but here it is stated as a fact with no citation.
Look at the way it's written, too-- "white privilege... is a term for societal privileges"-- it's like the magnum opus of a undergrad sociology C-student.
My point is this: once you realize the type of person and approval process behind Wikipedia, you see that it's extremely subject to echo chamber groups, the biggest and most powerful of which is SJWs. Sorry, it's just true, and I hate that a thing purported to be an encyclopedia could be so politicized.
Fuck it, let's dig deeper:
en.wikipedia.org
This is hardly an encyclopedic entry, it's a SJW opinion and gossip piece.
en.wikipedia.org
Oh shit, it's part of a SERIES ON ISLAMOPHOBIA.
Do you see how people are using wikipedia articles as a means to reify their political beliefs?
...
...
you are beyond reason mate. its not stating factually that white privilege is a thing, nor that it is significant in its effects on society. it is A TERM used to describe societal privilege. that is objectively true. it is a term, and that is what it is used to describe. whether what it describes is really a social epidemic is not asserted by the article. quit being such a fucking crybaby.
The point being that unbiased language would describe it as a term for assumed or alleged privileges.
It literally says beyond what a non-white person would experience, meaning that the definition is only refering to privileges which are inherently due to being white. It's just a tautology, it doesn't say anything about whether these privileges actually exist, just that if they did then they would logically be considered "white privilege". Learn to fucking read you paranoid shit, the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia have nothing to do with politics or other bullshit that might trigger you
i think you're reading way too heavily into it just to affirm your existing idea that there is bias in wikipedia. like i said, quit being a fucking crybaby man.
I edit Wikipedia and I am not paid
It's a hobby, it's kinda cathartic to write a good, well sourced article on some obscure subject or fix a flaw that at least dozens of people would see each day. You learn new things while doing it, and you help create something that will help many other people.
The consolidation of internet activity under only a few domains is most definitely an issue but of all the top players on the web today Wikipedia is by far one of the most controlled and transparent organizations. You can have a say in how Wikipedias money is spent without sitting on the board or working for Wikipedia, all you need is an acocunt. Wikipedia is a not for profit and most of the work on the site is done by volunteers. Even if much of the early content on Wikipedia was taken from other sites, that is certainly not the case today - most articles are written FOR Wikipedia from generally a few sources. And keep in mind the information on Wikipedia isn't supposed to be unique, even if writers don't directly copy web pages most are gonna be derivative of other web pages in some form. It's a place where somewhat trustworthy info can be congregated on the web.
Is all content on Wikipedia good? No. Is all of it well sourced and without bias? No.
But Wikipedia is still much more trustworthy than some random site which holds content about some topic. If you wanted to learn more about something Wikipedia is generally the first place most people go, for virtually anything. And if Wikipedia didn't exist anymore... Where do you reccomend I go to learn about the Ürümqi riots? What about Thomas Sowell? Or Bertrand Russell? Or Sai Baba?
Wikipedia doesn't give the whole picture, but it gives you a start. This process would be much more laborious without it.
If you believe this is a problem then remember that YOU have a voice! You have as much editing power as I do. It's a collaborative project.
hope dbpedia would finally take off then
>implying
>world's largest encyclopedia
>can't be used as a source when writing papers
Into the trash it goes.
>implying i'm going to donate to his secret club
if any of you have tried editing, you'll know
too bad its so damn useful though
T H I S
H
I
S
>Wikipedia dies
>Microsoft Encarta gets a revival
>Google buys a small shitty wiki company and pushes it until everybody thinks it's cool
>Facebook starts "Facebook Facts - your personal wiki"
>oh noes, we fucked up
>facebook facts
please no, i can imagine the bias would be even wrose than wikipedia could ever be
>
for fucks sake..
You CAN use the sources from the Wikipedia page most of the time though. It's kinda up to your own jurisdiction if it's legit or not. (scroll to the bottom of the page.)
That's the thing about the internet, website services aren't valuable at all to the end consumer. If Google or Wikipedia ever go down they'll just be replaced by an alternative of the same quality. There's literally 0 reasons to support them from a consumer standpoint.
Some PS fags lurking?
Somebody please shoop it with that "just" haircut..
I'm too busy right now to do it myself, but I will donate one internet for the artist.
Yeah, are they mining bitcoins on my machine or something?
Fuckin' porn peddling merchant and his site.
literally this