For those who use Wikipedia, have you've ever considered donating to them?

Takes Two To Tango

The one who doesn't fall, doesn't stand up.
Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
34,065
Reaction score
45,535
It's that time of year where you get that message on Wikipedia to help them keep it going.

If you do use that site often, I think it's worth considering to donate.

It's a good cause and one of if not the best sources about various information online.
 
They are an intelligence agency tool, and I highly doubt that they are actually ever in any financial turmoil.

They are a source of misinformation which makes them undeserving of any donations anyway IMO.
 
What exactly is “that time of year”? They’re constantly begging for money at all times of the year it seems. I can’t imagine why I would ever give them a nickle. If it went away tomorrow I would be just fine.
 
They are an intelligence agency tool, and I highly doubt that they are actually ever in any financial turmoil.

They are a source of misinformation which makes them undeserving of any donations anyway IMO.

That's a plausibility indeed.
 
What exactly is “that time of year”? They’re constantly begging for money at all times of the year it seems. I can’t imagine why I would ever give them a nickle. If it went away tomorrow I would be just fine.

Ok I may have missed the few notifications throughout the year. That's fine if you don't want to give. Nothing wrong with that.
 
No.
Fuck them.
Started as a grassroots idea and became the biggest disinformator in the world.

Censured, curated bs. Not in everything, but on many, many subjects.
 
No.
Fuck them.
Started as a grassroots idea and became the biggest disinformator in the world.

Censured, curated bs. Not in everything, but on many, many subjects.

Really you think there not giving legit information? Not factual or evidence based information?
 
Really you think there not giving legit information? Not factual or evidence based information?
Wikipedia is good. Plenty of article or page has journals or news article in the reference column. The biggest advantage and disadvantage of wikipedia is that it can be edited by anyone.

I think mostly it has done really good as a source of information especially if you just want to look at something without going too deep into it. But Sherdoggers are just whiney bunch that will only look at the downside.
 
Really you think there not giving legit information? Not factual or evidence based information?
Most of shit they post is ok.
Some subjects related to certain political issues are heavily censored/censured and often openly misrepresented.
 
Wikipedia is good. Plenty of article or page has journals or news article in the reference column. The biggest advantage and disadvantage of wikipedia is that it can be edited by anyone.

I think mostly it has done really good as a source of information especially if you just want to look at something without going too deep into it. But Sherdoggers are just whiney bunch that will only look at the downside.

It can be edited by anyone? I've seen articles that have been locked, I know I can't edit it.
 
Most of shit they post is ok.
Some subjects related to certain political issues are heavily censored/censured and often openly misrepresented.

Oh ok that's fair. It's not a perfect site/system. But it's better than most I would say. But I could be wrong. lol
 
I donate to them.
 
Back
Top