Just wondering how many here use Wikipedia? Also wondering how many contribute to keep Wikipedia operating as less than 2% of users do contribute. Users can contribute as little as ongoing $3.50 a month.
I don't know how to set up a poll but I do see OzBargain use Wiki. For more information on creating a poll, see help page on Wiki
I don't know how to set up a poll but I do see OzBargain use Wiki. For more information on creating a poll, see help page on Wiki
It's a different Wiki
Besides sharing and discussing bargains, you can also contribute to this Wiki. A Wiki is a collaborative collection of web pages which can be directly edited by anyone. The goal for OzBargain Wiki is to create a comprehensive guide for all shoppers in Australia.
Oops. Thank you. I had no idea.
I donate each year (when prompted). Its my GoTo site and would hate it to be compromised
Same boat. I chip in a little bit every year especially when consider how much use it as a resource (also provide a dozen or so contributions a year). Definitely something worth keeping independent and away from advertising or profit-focused ownership.
Me too.
Me, too.
Me too!
me too.
I do the same. They don’t pester either, (well, not me anyway☺️). I like the simplicity; no garnish. The wiki conversion from US cup to grams is my fave.
They do pester if you stop donating.
I did it for a few years a long time ago and then stopped.
Now I get prompted yearly (and thanked for helping in the past)
Sorry, but I personally don't consider an annual request an example of pestering..
Same with me.
same here
So do I, and occasionally edit where I have any expertise.
Add poll.
Apparently Wikipedia have plenty of money. They are just accumulating cash to pay themselves a high salary and use the funds to support political activism.
I've donated a few dollars to Wikipedia in the past, but now no longer.
Exactly this.
From that article :
"These banner ads have become very lucrative for the NGO that collects the money — the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit based in San Francisco. Every year the NGO responsible for the fundraising adds tens of millions of dollars to its war chest. After a decade of professional fund-raising, it has now amassed $400 million of cash as of March. It created an endowment, managed by the Tides Foundation, which now holds well over $100 million of that. The Foundation wanted to hit that figure in ten years, but found it had sailed past it in just five. In 2021, the appeals raised a total of $162 million, a 50% year-on-year increase. Yet the running costs of Wikipedia are a tiny fraction of the amount raised each year.
Indeed, in the 2012/13 year the Foundation budgeted for $1.9m to provide all its free information on tap."
1.9M to actually run Wikipedia, which they can easily cover. The rest is for the Foundation.
FWIW I have a couple of hundred edits in Wikipedia and use it multiple times a week.
$1.9m was the hosting bill in 2013.
It takes a bunch of staff to run a top ten web site, impossible for $1.9m.
That bit is misleading, making me question the whole story.
And considering the value they deliver, a few bucks every now and then is a bargain either way.
Funny how when someone suggests anything less than complete self-interest they get so heavily scrutinised. But be blatant about your profiteering (like the other internet behemoths) and hey, take my money no questions asked.
You can actually see their financial reports online. Take 2020-2021 for example, in their balance sheet
I'll say they definitely have a lot of money, although it might not be that much considering the importance of Wikipedia on the Internet.
Disclaimer: yes I've donated to Wikipedia
Yep, I agree. It is not serving any ads and the service is completely free. A lot will go into managing an organisation that complex. I believe they do deserve high salary as well. Nobody seems to question high salaries of Anthony Eisen and Nick Molnar who earned a combined $264.2m for basically a factoring business.
Interesting, but the article reads like it's trying to mislead.
That $1.9m is dwarfed by the actual total in the listed source without even trying to dig.
The author even goes on to mention $10m/year mentioned in the source as a barest minimum figure, why mention the $1.9m figure then but to generate hysteria?
So confusing!
After further investigation I'm inclined to agree with the premise that Wikimedia Foundation is no longer a fundraising instrument to maintain Wikipedia but if I'd only read this article I'd have followed my gut that the article was a massive puff piece with no substance.
Jimbo's racing yachts and bikini babes don't come free.
I had a feeling someone would say something like this. It would be sad if true.
Thank you for sharing this!
Political activism .. they support minorities.
Unlike some charities that give funds to individuals who are against gay marriage etc.
Well looks like I won't be giving them money again.
I use it, but I have not donated and will not donate. They have plenty of money and organisations that are funding them millions and millions each year and the most of knowledge base of articles is actively maintained by volunteers all around the world. They should look into better utilisation of those funding than running campaigns to beg $ from viewers.
Yep, that's why I stopped as well.
I'm glad they have enough money now to sustain the website.
I like Wikipedia and I’ve donated a couple of times in the past decade or so.
I used to edit a lot on Wikipedia, but they kept deleting my articles for being about "un-encyclopaedic" subjects. I used to make and edit images a lot too and I'd see them around all the time because anyone can use Creative Commons images. I don't do it anymore because it takes a lot of time.
I still use Wikipedia mostly out of inertia, but I definitely read articles with a skeptical eye. Even though it's not so true anymore that "anyone could have written that" (on the contrary, the Wikipedia jannies are so active that it's laughable), there really does seem to be a noticeable subjective bent to a lot of their articles.
On a certain Wikipedia article's discussion page (that I wish I could link here but would probably get me banned because the topic was contentious) there is actually a Wikipedia admin shutting down a suggestion to correct an article (with the suggestion based on a factual US governmental report finding), with the admin literally admitting, word for word, that "The consensus says it's true, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to maintain the consensus. It doesn't matter whether it's factually true or false."
Can you PM the link? I find it hard to believe an admin would write something like that (at least in a public forum)
Post it, I would love to see this.
Sounds a bit like Snopes.com and their definition of a terrorist.
It is not a Wikipedia admin saying that, it is an unregistered user (shows up as their IP address), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/51.155.1…
and the comment itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kiwi_Farms&d…
I wonder why you would claim it is an admin?
I wonder why you would claim it is an admin?
Because when that IP gets clowned on in the reply, Wikipedia janny Bilorv comes in, reiterates that he (and by extension, Wikipedia) supports that exact same position, and then later locks the discussion before jannying it from the Talk thread completely.
@whatwasherproblem: Bilorv is not an administrator either. It certainly appears like you are trying to push an agenda with misinformation.
@Shitforbrains: The only misinformation is in that Wikipedia article, that they readily admit is misinformation, but "consensus" rules over facts in their eyes apparently.
I'm not saying that Wikipedia is a bad resource (it's often decent). But definitely read anything written there with a grain of salt. They happily repeat nonsense if enough of the world believes it. You can do it @Shitforbrains, I'm sure your username need not check out in every instance.
@whatwasherproblem: Your claim that a Wikipedia admin made that statement is misinformation.
I am well aware that Wikipedia should be read with some skepticism. In my younger years I vandalised some Wikipedia articles, and some of the nonsense I posted is still there.
In my younger years I vandalised some Wikipedia articles, and some of the nonsense I posted is still there.
Based. We'll make a Wikipedia janny out of you yet, friendo.
@whatwasherproblem: 'They happily repeat nonsense if enough of the world believes it'
are you aware that Wikipedia is free open-source for anyone to edit ?
So asserting that 'they' (the mysterious Other) 'happily repeat nonsense' seems to overlook that any info posted there could be from anyone who just happened to edit a wikipedia page
in other words, your logic lacks some basic scrutiny here.
are you aware that Wikipedia is free open-source for anyone to edit ?
You'd be surprised by how untrue this sentiment is these days. There are Wikipedia editors who do literally nothing but edit-war over contentious articles.
I always donate to Wikimedia when they reach out . i use them a lot and they should be donated. They keep the information flowing. I have used them so many times.
I try and donate. I enter my bank details, which are factually correct. Within 2 mins, somone else updates these details to the incorrect bank details, motivated by one type of agenda or another.
the wikipedia moderators and community are one of the worst on the internet. snobbish, arrogant, and unfriendly unless you're already 'in'. Dare I say - worst than reddit. As much as it portrays itself as an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, you can only do so if you conform to their community rules, and I'd wager most articles are written by a small handful of people.
Wikipedia also receive a lot of money from Google and Amazon and Apple, so don't feel too bad if you don't donate. When you ask Siri about something, "According to wikipedia…."
When most of the information online comes from one website, there is no longer a diversity of information. It's just info rehashed and rehashed again. It's fast coming like the "Today I Found Out" videos.
i remember reading about a teacher (college level, i think) who tried to correct an entry on wikipedia, it was a topic that fell under her purview as a teacher, so she knew it was wrong, one of the "power users" kept undoing her corrections, for whatever reason, so she just gave up, as she had a real job to do and didn't have the time to waste with a janny, who probably got annoyed because they were the one to write the incorrect version.
Who doesn't use Wikipedia? Is there even a better place for news than Wikipedia's current events portal?
I don't financially contribute though, they have plenty of money. I don't edit much these days but I did when I was younger and had more free time m
I donate on a desktop once a year then they start hassling on Android.
Use regularly and donate multiple times a year. Couldn’t be without it.
I see too much too often in the past that was inaccurate and or false, I would probably donate to have it shut down. It could be good…but it wasn't. Many here seem to applaud the platform thou.
I use them fairly regularly and make small donations despite being a pensioner. I firmly believe in paying for good products so developers have an incentive to make more! Same with messiah and other stuff, if the dination or membership requests are reasonable (micro payments!) I am happy to contribute!!
I do use and I paid $3 yesterday as Jimmy sent me an email asking for money :) I did last year as well.
It is a pity that school teachers tell kids to not to use wikipedia - rather than telling them how to research properly.
Funny thing my primary schooler went and told the teacher - "Dad knows about computers and he says wikipedia is good" to which the teacher had said, "tell your dad he is wrong"
The teachers in our school probably don't discourage using Wikipedia so much but rather advise to not use it as the primary reference for a topic. As has been said above, some pieces are great, and others are… not so great.
(FWIW I've given on several occasions and will consider doing so again… despite the patchy quality.)
I pay a couple of bucks annually - probably use 20 times a year - I am fine paying 10cents per use whether they are making a profit or not
I don't pay for many services and I am sure they are profiting off me - this transaction with Wiki is more 'honest' to me
I do sometimes use Wikipedia but i dont trust the information as i have found completely false information several times. Depending what info im after i usually check several sources.
I have browsed arcane medical research topics in Wikipedia and been amazed at the detail and figured wow this is the world expert in this tiny topic who has just posted for free the results of years of their careful research
however contestible controversial or political topics, especially those for individual personalities, tend to be heavily re-edited by vested interests - e.g. GW Bush if I recall - they tend to start out as a self-advertising promo - then get chopped and changed by those who dislike them, re-edited by their supporters, back and forth - I take such pages with a grain of salt and google many other sources before accepting a single one on such
When I want to hear far left views, I will go to the wiki.
and lemme guess - get your regular views from News Corpse media like FOX [FAKE] NEWS - far canal
Every year, I just give then $10, it's a good source of information, even though I don't use it as often as I used to, it's always good to have it there when I do need to look something up.
Don't use it as the information about recent events is pretty biased and doesn't align with my views. Tried to make an edit or two but my changes were reverted back.
Commipedia
I've donated a few times. Note that It isn't a registered charity in Australia so donations are not tax deductible.
I donate $1 everytime I hear from or see Jimmy.
I use it almost daily.
But being honest I've gotten used to not paying for things.. I would never consider donating for something like this.
Love Wikipedia
I use it 1-2 times a month. Mostly if I see something interesting and just want some quick facts (eg summary of a movie). Wouldn't use it for actual research like school work since anyone can update it, but I think it would be a good starting point.
I got the email yesterday - would have donated again - I have regularly - but this time I cliked on Gpay to see what it was, and didn't like what it asked me, so I cancelled out
otherwise I usually donate every time they ask - I think at least for 3-4 years now
I use rarely but donate $5 each year.
Guess I'd miss it if it was gone.
Please give me a link to one of these inaccurate Wikipedia entries? I can't recall ever seeing one but then I only look at entries that are fully referenced, so if a claim is made that sets off my very sensitive BS meter I look at the source.
I use Wiki and donate every few years. Well worth it I feel.
Well I got the email too.