Wikipedia and Archive.org are two of the most fantastic projects in existence. Their contributions to humanity rival NASA imho.
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)
[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation
6591 readers
1 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Can we all just take a moment to stop and appreciate just how much content Wikipedia delivers to us completely ad-fucking-free???
Oftentimes, I find myself just skipping a search engine entirely and going straight to Wikipedia first.
The power of community driven projects! Tis' a beautiful thing.
As an ex-contributor, what goes on behind the scenes is absolutely wild. If you're ever bored and want something to take over your life... Start editing Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is one of the few online orgs that I donate to every year. Even if I can only throw a couple of bucks their way, I usually try to gift at least $20 or something.
Same here! I have a monthly donation going, and the $2 is well worth the hundreds of hours I've spent on it.
Don’t. I used to, until i found out that they have a ton of money and their begging and their pleading is a disingenuous emotional appeal to make people like me donate
This is a bad take to me. Them having a surplus of money is good. We want them to be operating as strongly as possible. Is it shitty to use an appeal to emotion like that? Absolutely. However, that shouldn't mean we all stop donating to them. For some people, the shitty appeal to emotion doesn't outweigh the importance of what wikipedia provides. Don't donate if you don't have it, but if someone still sees the value in what they do and it is easy for them to donate then they should do so. Personally, I put my money elsewhere, but discouraging people from donating at all is a weird stance to take.
I've never donated, but I don't mind seeing them ask. It really is all the information in history in your pocket. That's a great thing in my book, and has never been done before ever at the scale they make possible. I see zero problems with them having money in the bank.
Should contributors be paid? I think that's a valid question. But I'd want to know what actual contributors think on that subject.
I don't mind contributing to a service I use pretty much daily. That seems a fair thing to do regardless of their financial state.
That site has some huge yikes material on it. They basically pride themselves on being contrarian, as well.
Imagine someone advocating for Wikipedia like it can't be wrong at all cuz too lazy to visit a library or research yourself.
It's generally correct for a quick answer. I don't think anyone here would be naïve enough to think it can't be wrong at all but if say it's definitely right more often than it's wrong.
And at least it has the openness to say (citation needed) unlike many other websites