Have you ever donated to Wikipedia?

Have you ever donated to Wikipedia?
If not, why not?
When can we expect a deposit?
Did you donate yet?
Did you?

Compromised.

I donated $5 once. Shit still asked me to donate for like 2 months

plenty of times

just picture yourself a decade or two ago, and wanting to really know something, but you didn't have money to buy encyclopediae, or couldn't afford encarta

now you can just look for the answer in wikipedia

he needs a head pat

>Have you ever donated to Wikipedia?
I donate $10 every month.

Since SJWs control it I'm sure they can fund it themselves

I will when I have disposable dough. The quad 1080ti's I bought were necessary.

>Mah nabe ith Dibby. I neeb yow monneh fow Bickabebia

It seems they can, user. Does this upset you?

3 bucks last time they had those banners in every page.

...

I get all of my hard data from wikihow nowadays tbqh

...

Off yourself stormweenie.

Terry donated $800. I donated $20 seven or eight years ago and I remember feeling cheated because I thought I wouldn't have to see Wales' fucking face afterwards begging for money.

>Have you ever donated to Wikipedia?
One time a few years ago.
>If not, why not?
I won't do it anymore, they have a clear left-wing/anti-hard science bias.

Marxists.

those are opposites

>primarily used
Apparently you can't read, though.

Also, the black pride article clearly mention black nationalist terrorism and black supremacy.

Opposites? What is?

u dumb? left wing and anti hard science obv
not him though and i disagree that they're opposites

What? You don't seem to understand.

While lefties are pro "science", they mean "soft/social sciences".
See the "march for science" they organised.

Now go to a lefty and show them that scientifically speaking, transgenderism doesn't exist, males are stronger than females, and races have biological and brain differences.
You'll be banned from google and attacked by antifa so fast you won't have time to say "so much for the tolerant left".

They love marxist-corrupted social sciences that go along with their agenda. They're fucking moralists, if you put them in front of a biologist/geneticist, they'll start yelling.

your replying to the wrong person

They're no more anti-hard science than right-wingers that think that evolution is a lie and that global warming is a conspiracy.

Oh, and if you go far enough right, you get classic left-wing anti-science stuff too, like anti-GMO, anti nuclear and anti-vaccines.

You don't need to be leftist or right-winger to be anti-science, rule of thumb is that most people are fucking stupid and will swallow any "red pill" their friends share on facebook.

>the example for appeal to ridicule
i don't see a problem with this

>They're no more anti-hard science than right-wingers that think that evolution is a lie and that global warming is a conspiracy.

>hurr durr it doesn't count because there are people on the other side that are stupid too

Not an argument.

My original argument is that I cannot trust Wikipedia because they are not "neutral" nor "centrist" nor "open to anything", they are clearly left wing, and have their left wing bias, one of them being anti-hard sciences.
You obviously cannot disprove it.

Good one. Too bad those evangelic anti science right wingers you are describing all died out with bush and are completly irrelevant now. On the other hand all lefties are race deniers

The discussion is whether left-wing bias is inherently anti-science or not, you claim it is, everyone else claim that it isn't. You've failed to prove the correlation.

>i don't see a problem with this
While it is true and efficient, it is not an argument per se.
I use it all the time for my own amusement, as much as the "slippery slope", but they're not arguments verbatim.

>Too bad those evangelic anti science right wingers you are describing all died out with bush and are completly irrelevant now
No, they just turned harder to the right during Obama with the ridiculous birther conspiracy, and now they march alongside literal nazis claiming that they are the last defenders of free speech and liberties without seeing the irony in that.

>Too bad those evangelic anti science right wingers you are describing all died out with bush
Except a young-earth creationist is vice president, and two climate change deniers are in charge of the EPA and the secretary of energy now.

>The discussion is whether left-wing bias is inherently anti-science or not
Yes, and I claim it is, and even gave a few examples of hard-science proven things that lefties won't accept.

The "counter argument" has been "well, people on the right side are studip too!" which is not an argument.

>everyone
Appeal to mass opinion, not an argument.

Also, FFS, read the Wikipedia article on IQ and Race, or Intelligence Difference Between Genders, or Circumcision and tell me they're not corrupt as fuck.

And I'm not even talking about pages about people and politics.

even if Im charitable this is a purely american phenomena. I dont care about their religious nuttery

>two climate change deniers
>muh climate change
you belong to that sect as well?

>Yes, and I claim it is, and even gave a few examples of hard-science proven things that lefties won't accept.
Not an argument as there are plenty of people on the left that don't feel that way.

>Also, FFS, read the Wikipedia article on IQ and Race, or Intelligence Difference Between Genders, or Circumcision and tell me they're not corrupt as fuck.
Seeing how they cite authors that "leftist" would traditionally disagree with, I would say that it's not. The article on IQ and Race in the US clearly states that blacks come out worse than whites and asians.

>you belong to that sect as well?
Well, seeing how the temperature station 500 meters from my house has recorded the temperature every day for 100 years show that temperatures has risen with 1.2 degree Celsius on average (with 95% CI) and how see levels have actually risen with almost 2 meters causing people to abandoning their houses along the shores, yes, I have no doubt that global warming is real.

Wow, there are actually people here that have given money to these SJW cunts? Are you even aware that they engage in censorship, and have actual lies/propaganda on their articles which are then locked to prevent edits?

>can show a clear trend
>no no that goes against my argument.
>quickly engage in sophistry

you do realise the whole discussion is not if global warming is real, but how much we humans are at fault, what we can do and what causes it.

>not an argument
>NOT AN ARGUMENT
>NOOOOT AN ARGUMENT REEE!!!!
You watch too much of a specific youtuber, my friend.

>can show a clear trend
You haven't though.

>you do realise the whole discussion is not if global warming is real, but how much we humans are at fault, what we can do and what causes it.
No, right-wing politicians where I'm from clearly believe that it's not getting warm at all because it's clearly still snowing. One of them, inspired by what happened over the pond, even threw a snowball in parliament.

People clearly deny that it's getting warmer all together, just look at Ted Cruz and his retarded graph he brings with him all the time, that just happens to start at the last El Nino.

>read the Wikipedia article on IQ and Race, or Intelligence Difference Between Genders, or Circumcision and tell me they're not corrupt as fuck.
Just read them. They're not corrupt as fuck.

are you even aware that no one cares, and wikipedia is too big to ever be replaced or superceded in your lifetime?

>being this butthurt that they won't let you and the other t_d ledditors edit the Soros article calling him a zombie, Obama calling him Muslims Kenyan that was president illegally, or any of your other retarded conspiracy theories

kek

Take the Pizzagate article for just one example. It's described as a "debunked" conspiracy theory, but it doesn't actually say how it's been debunked, and the sources are just a circle-jerk of MSM articles that give each other as sources.

I'm not saying it should say Pizzagate is true instead, just that it shouldn't say it's debunked or give bullshit articles, or there shouldn't even be a page about it on the site in the first place. Instead, they're just spreading outright lies and locking the article to prevent it being actually corrected.

Wikipedia has lost all credibility and is not a reliable source of information. It's extremely biased.

I would say that the fact that there actually isn't a fucking basement there would make it debunked, but of course you're going to cry about muh MSM media like the little bitch you are.

Not every wild fucking conspiracy out there deserves a thorough discussion. You don't see 120 articles on why Kim Jong-un actually isn't the literal sun god that invented hamburgers.

>It's described as a "debunked" conspiracy theory, but it doesn't actually say how it's been debunked
You see those little numbers behind the claim, right? You know that these are citations that support the claim, right?

>Pizzagate
Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than that if you want me to take you seriously. When you make a claim, you have to support the claim with evidence. You don't get to make a claim and have it be considered true until debunked. Sup Forums has never had any evidence that there's a child prostitution ring for ancient evil god worshipping elites running out of a pizza place.

>encarta

I still have to use Encarta because my area has internet outages often and I need to do research for school.

Also, there's a whole fucking section about how New York time analysed it and countered every point in the original theory.

>and the sources are just a circle-jerk of MSM articles that give each other as sources.
Actually, Wikipedia only uses secondary sources, so no.

You're not very good at reading, are you? Try checking my post again.

See NYT went through the theory point by point and countered them.

>I would say that the fact that there actually isn't a fucking basement there would make it debunked, but of course you're going to cry about muh MSM media like the little bitch you are.
I'm pretty sure you don't even know the details of Pizzagate. But aside from that, the owner of the pizza place said himself that there was a basement in a past interview.

>Not every wild fucking conspiracy out there deserves a thorough discussion. You don't see 120 articles on why Kim Jong-un actually isn't the literal sun god that invented hamburgers.
That's fine. Like I said, maybe there shouldn't be an article on it in the first place. That would be preferable to spreading outright lies.

>believing NYT
Literally a jew-liberal sponsored news site.

>Like I said, maybe there shouldn't be an article on it in the first place
Seeing how a large number of Americans actually believe that Hillary ran/runs a child pornography ring, and seeing how a guy actually showed up with a fucking rifle and the news reported on this, this justifies an article.

>That would be preferable to spreading outright lies.
Dude, fuck off. The only lie spread is the conspiracy in the first place.

That's all bullshit and there's evidence to debunk those false debunking claims. For example, the pizza place owner said himself that a basement exists. Sure, the Pedosta brothers are involved in cooking, but that in no way means code words aren't being used in the emails. And then of course there are plenty of more things Pizzagate investigators have uncovered that they don't even bother to mention there.

Which of the points are jewish lies, in your opinion?

Or are you saying that John and Tony Podesta actually kidnapped Medeleine McCann in Portugal?

You're horribly retarded if you just believe everything they tell you. You should try some independent research and critical thinking sometime.

>For example, the pizza place owner said himself that a basement exists
Source or fuck off.

Why would I donate to that dumpster fire

>Wikipedia is compromised because they locked the article about my conspiracy theory and now I can't edit out all those Jewish lies claiming to have (((debunked))) it
kill yourself

>THE PODESTA BROTHERS ARE RUNNING A CHILD PORNOGRAPHY RING AND HAVE CHILDREN LOCKED UP IN A PIZZA RESTAURANT IN WASHINGTON AND OBERMER AND SHILLARY ARE DEFINITIVELY IN ON IT JUST LOOK AT THIS PICTURE OF A BASEMENT I FOUND ONLINE!!!!!!!

>independent research and critical thinking

Donating to Wikipedia is like seeding torrents.

Your post gave me a good chuckle. I won't comment on Hill because she and her history speak for itself, but do yourself a favor and look into who that guy with a rifle was and related to, and what resulted after his actions.

...

I'm impressed that Sup Forums is this retarded and brainwashed by the MSM and Soros.

Nice Sup Forums thread we got here. I want all of the Sup Forumstards to go and stay go.

No one ever does it.

He's obviously talking about the basement on his farm, you know, where he grows organic tomatoes.

...

>it's impossible for people who harvest 10 tons of tomatos and can them themselves to have a basement somewhere else (like on the farm where they canned and harvested them???? maybe?????) that they were referring to with this
Clearly the only logical explanation is that an illegal basement was excavated for the sole purpose of facilitating a satanic pedophile cult for Jewish elites.

Obviously. Note the harvest party he is talking about. That's clearly a reference to the soul harvesting they do when they suck out the souls of the little boys and grills they have locked up.

Anti hard science basis?
It is quite the opposite here in the Italian version

Those definitions are actually true

Anti-*hard* science just means Wikipedia doesn't call africans "niggers" and inferior, pointing to a handful flawed, biased, decades old American studies with dubious sources of funding as proof. Oh but of course, the 100s of studies that show human influenced climate change is a very real thing is all false and *soft*-science, despite the fact that you have empirically sound proof for climate change and there is nothing proving IQ, however it is measured, is genetically tied to "race".

Oh I see now, I am taking the redpoll.
Thanks

The problem with Wikipedia is many topics can only be edited by certain moderators. Meaning the text will depend on their biases and knowledge. What happens when biased moderators take over? Look at what happened to /r/politics in and after summer 2016. It's as if someone pressed a switch. It's basically r/hillaryclinton.

But the most prominent example to me of bias in Wikipedia (and why it disgusts me) is the topic about MH17, which I've spent easily a thousand of hours on. Ever since after the crash, wiki used information from a site called Bellingcat in all languages (!). Why did they use some site (Bellingcat is literally a rebranded ex-blogger) as credible source? It's because the western media wrote articles about Bellingcat. Now suddenly Bellingcat became credible because western media cited the site. But neither the media nor wikipedia verified or questioned Bellingcat's articles. And we know how credible western media can be (coverage of Trump). This is how fake news are made and spread... But it all, including everything surrounded about MH17, is a part of a large geopolitical game.

...

...

...

20 dollars last year. Might do it again this year. As biased as it is on sociopolitical articles, you probably shouldn't be getting your news from an encyclopedia. It's more useful on math/cs/other science subjects.

Nope. When they renamed Bradley Manning into Chelsea Manning I realized that this site is dominated by leftist ideologists.

Pizza gate is dumb. At least use gamer gate for your example. That distaster of an article resulted in people getting banned from both Wikipedia and rational wiki and it's still a pack of lies.

This, Wikipedia is an incredible source of information on technical subjects.

I've donated a couple times, though I'm pretty unimpressed by how they spend their money.

What a shitty example. Someone changed their name and it's now some left wing conspiracy.

This. The gamergate article is a disaster. Pizzagate was just a prank that went too far.

It feels like every fucking tech thing is becoming infected now. The cancer is spreading.

Are there any good alternatives to Wikipedia? Something unbiased and without censorship?

lol

>Someone changed their name and it's now some left wing conspiracy.
But they're supporting the Trans-extremist agenda by letting them dictate the narrative.

conservapedia.com

Not relevant enough.

Wikipedia gives money to me.

t. wikipedian in residence

>
>
>
>
>
>
>Wow, there are actually people here that have given money to these SJW cunts? Are you even aware that they engage in censorship, and have actual lies/propaganda on their articles which are then locked to prevent edits?
I'm gonna donate because of this post, just to trigger you

You sound like you got massively butt triggered over gamer gate too

HOW CAN THEY DESECRATE THE SACRED ART OF VIDEO GAME JOURNALISM?????

>It feels like every fucking tech thing is becoming infected now. The cancer is spreading.
>Are there any good alternatives to Wikipedia? Something unbiased and without censorship?
living in an RV in the forest

remember a few years ago when they gave up on the fake stores for the editors and literally said "look we know you are tired of this but if you just gave 1 dollar we'd be done in 3 hours"

Kek'd

Wikipedia is not that bad anyway, it's kept in check by organizations of true free speech.
>be in montreal wikimedia some months ago
>lady from free speech org is answering questions after speech
>triggered black transwomyn asks her what are they doing to prevent hate speech
>lady tells her that free speech should cover things you don't like and that's what her org fights for
>[angry noises intensify]
It was pretty funny.

You're a disgusting person. I bet you use Windows and Chrome too.

This looks interesting.

>This looks interesting.
I meant it as a joke user.

That's the thing, Wikipedia is extremely open to different viewpoints, and if there's an article you disagree with for some PARTICULAR reason, you can VERY easily edit it. They have a well developed arbitration committee and process for arguing for hot topic articles, if you look through its history I guarantee you that nobody would be able to find an example of partisan bias.

The admins bend over backwards to appease to conservatives, literally. See shit like the admins allowing cuckservative to exist after several AfDs (Although it EXPLICITLY breaks the rules against neologisms).

But the problem is, not only do those people never actually try to edit Wikipedia pages well, they simply assume Wikipedia is censoring them. Go ahead, go to conservapedia if you want to see "truths" specifically catered to your political alignment.

lel, are you 16 years old?
What a sad response. Regardless, I use Firefox and a Linux distro.

>he uses an operating system
>he uses a browser
>he doesn't post by jamming handwritten letters through ethernet cables
You are sad little man