Looks like Wikipedia is doing fundraising again. Usually I ignore their money request but then I think what’s a couple bucks to them.

I tend to refer to Wikipedia when I search for stuff.

Anyone help these guys out with contributing to their cause?

Their censorship falls largely in pro-progressive ways. Fuck ‘em.

I contribute $5 when they ask.

I've noticed some bias but I use them for general information about things I come across. I certainly wouldn't use them as an accredited reference source but I appreciate their effort in general so I donate now and then. I get enough enjoyment that it's worth a couple dollars a month.

It's quite the rabbit hole for me. I was watching "Fury" a few days ago and went to wikipedia about a thought triggered by something in the movie; don't remember what. Started off in WW2 Europe and an hour (and who knows how many hyperlinks) later I was on their page about sinkholes. Couldn't retrace those steps if I had to. lol

Dan

I've generally found Wikipedia to be fairly unbiased in their editing. They're not perfect, but who is?

I usually send them a few bucks every year, about this time. I will do so, again, this year.

quote:

Originally posted by KBobAries:
I certainly wouldn't use them as an accredited reference source ...

Years ago somebody did some kind of research thing where they compared Wikipedia's content to one-or-another of the commercial encyclopedias. They found Wikipedia's content to be pretty darn good.

History via mob rule? What could go wrong?


My childhood best friend is a college professor and won't allow students to cite Wikipedia as a source. He'll do the little presentation where he goes and edits it in front of them.

Actually, Wikipedia is a decent source of open-source intelligence, it's just a matter of drilling down thru the original citations and vetting them for validity and reliability.

I like Wikipedia's format and readability, a useful and thorough source and related links -- depending on the topic. It can be entertaining to check the "Talk" tab and run through the anal retention and hoops being jumped through.

Just recently, Wikipedia has been in the news over its suppression of genocide perpetrated by leftism through history. Yeah, Wiki is great for some stuff, criminally awful for other stuff. It doesn't take much to know when Wikipedia is tapdancing or throwing poop.

I use it regularly and always include a disclaimer when I quote it. It's good for general background information and for the citations that lead to original material. Yeah, I give them 50 bucks or so whenever I'm motivated.

quote:

Originally posted by kidcop:
Actually, Wikipedia is a decent source of open-source intelligence, it's just a matter of drilling down thru the original citations and vetting them for validity and reliability.

I generally agree with this. I haven't found the open-source material to be any more biased than would be expected. The real value for me, though, is the references at the bottom. A Wikipedia article can be a great launching pad for serious research into a topic.

I look things up there fairly often, and recently answered their appeals with $25 for the third time.

I basically only use them to look up track listings for albums or rock band history. I do that often though. I may send a few bucks.

Personally I gave up on them years ago when I couldn't change something. (they kept changing it back when I did) It was a local thing that sort of involved me personally, but the wrong information they had, had a linkable reference source (somewhere else online, also wrong), where as mine did not. So the wrong info held more weight than my first hand knowledge.

They're no more fact based than Snopes in my mind.

I donate.

I get $5 worth of value from them.

Sometimes, I just need to know, generally, what someone is talking about. Great for science-y stuff.

Below is a good example of the biased misinformation you can find on Wiki. Screw them - I hope they go broke. If they can write this, how they hell can you trust anything you read there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

I read it all the time just for entertainment and maybe even picking up a little knowledge. No knowledge is ever useless, even if you don't have a particular use for it.

Its a mixed bag for sure. I've never donated. but thought about it. I think it is biased and craptacular for political, social, and related issues (varies widely), but for history, science, geography, etc., it is a great resource to learn about an issue...at least superficially. And I'm a scientist. So I hit up wikipedia from time-to-time.

At the beginning of the Covid Plandemic, Wikipedia locked out Judy Mikovits from editing her own Wiki page. She exposed Fauci and a number of people at the CDC. You can go to her page today and see the lock on it. They are as bad as CNN.

Go to the 20:22 mark in this video to learn more about Wiki.

https://brandnewtube.com/v/ui8bHp



If the video will not play, try another source.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/nqTTratcn73X/
This is the most censored video on the web.

quote:

Originally posted by Batty67:
Its a mixed bag for sure. I've never donated. but thought about it. I think know it is biased and craptacular for political, social, and related issues (varies widely), but for history, science, geography, etc., it is a great resource to learn about an issue...at least superficially. And I'm a scientist. So I hit up wikipedia from time-to-time.

Thank you. I fixed it a little for myself.

I have contributed several times, and I am not a heavy user.