Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you?
It's that time of year again. As the Christmas lights go up, Wikipedia's donation drive kicks off. Wikipedia claims that the donations are needed to keep the site online. Guilt-tripped journalists including Heather Brooke and Toby Young have contributed to Wikipedia in the belief that donations help fund operating costs. …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: if only...
"Not notable enough" is usually a euphemism for not compatible with their politics. e.g. Conflicts with US propaganda.
You didn't try to insert something about Maude / Tube Alloys did you? They're particularly aggressive about expunging that from "history"
Re: MAUD / Tube Alloys
Supersonic flight, packet switching, just about everything the Brits invented during "the war" in fact. Facts about any of that stuff are forbidden.
You should have been there for the battle over their "Edison invented the light bulb" crap!
The MAUD / Tube Alloys situation isn't nearly as insane as it was a few years ago. The site's general "History of nuclear weapons" has been completely re-designed and re-written and is now about half-way to becoming an honest account. Some information has slowly crept into the Tube Alloys page over the last five years or so too... although largely under the spin of being an insignificant understudy to a Great American victory. Yes, it's been allowed a page of its own at last! All the juicy stuff is still non-grata of course.
All this would be a scandal if Wikipedia was a real encyclopædia... but no-one’s pretending it is.
It's a slog but progress is being made.
Anonymous because my handle there is the same and I'd be punished. ;)
Re: MAUD / Tube Alloys
Thanks for that. Never knew the story of how we ended up with a reactor at Chalk River producing a large chunk of the world supply of medical isotopes.
Re: if only...
Yeah I have added an entry on "stainless steel", how it was originally developed as a NON staining (no rust) steel for making cutlery with, where as the carbon steels did rust, especially with acidic / salty foods etc..
I also added in how, that despite the reputation of stainless steels being impervious to corrosion, that under the right conditions in terms of PH and electrolytic potential (salty / mineral saturated and oxygen free solutions) - you can rot holes in stainless steels faster than kids teeth sucking on candy.
The idiot Wikipedia Nazi Moderator came along and deleted that.... just out of being a fucking prick with an attitude.
I have seen them delete a section in resistors, called "Water Resistors" - while pure water IS non conductive, a controlled ionic solution can be made that has an exact resistance, more or less as how many teaspoons of salt per ton of pure water. The "water resistors" are able to absorb staggering amounts of energy because they are so easy to make so enormously huge - think water trough or swimming pool (pick size).
And the person who posted them listed the link on how they are used especially in load dumping from extremely high voltage power supplies for cyclotrons etc., rather than have the capacitor banks explode...
I read the links and yes, "Water Capacitors" do exist and are used... and another shit head Wikipedia Nazi Moderator deleted all of that - just out of being a fucking arsehole.
They just do shit like that ALL the time. I have seen SO much of that kind of crap being done...
A lot of them really are just stupid nasty people - incompetent arseholes on power trips...
My other main fights with them are about things like people who write articles who's whole purpose is to educate others, but they write like they are talking to themselves, with complex formula and mathematical functions and all of that, and yet most of them make NO effort to explain what all of the cryptic symbols mean and or how they are meant to be used, before they write the fucking complexities.
Hello - what do the four dots with the squashed "S" mean - more so that this symbol is only found in old latin / and the French adaptions of it.
While MUCH of the material on there is really good, overall seeing how these Nazi Shit Head Moderators, operate, and the endless cash grabbing, my basic opinion is "Fuck Wikipedia..."
Re: if only...
Couldn't agree more. I made a couple of edits regarding the town I've lived in for twenty years (including fixing an out of date link to a website I run), and the page owner (who lives in Thailand, I believe) reverted them. I sent him an appropriate message, put the changes back in, and strangely they stuck the second time.
I'm not convinced...
that the original charges laid against Wikipedia have ever been addressed. While there is some stuff on there that is both accurate and authoritative, any person using it as a primary reference source - and far too many news outlets do, as previously mentioned ad nauseum - risks their reputation every time they do.
I don't believe that JW's original idea could ever have worked, and I think it's a crying shame that so many volunteers waste their time with it; their motives may be of the highest but random changes to pages to suit today's political fan base don't inspire confidence...
Gimme a well-resourced encyclopedia with professional editing and paid expert contributors, and I'll pay for its use. I won't use the cess-pool that is Wikipedia for free.
Wikipedia is a byword for an unreliable source of information
So who cares if it disappears?
Has an over-infalted sense of self-importance if you ask me....
Re: Wikipedia is a byword for an unreliable source of information
Indeed, I hate to see the destruction that Wikipedia has caused to numerous other online reference sites. Too many people unconsciously view Wikipedia as some form of ultimate "truth", allowing mass manipulation of it as a propaganda tool by those who are the most zealoted and are the most globally vocal.
(e.g. any potentially controversial political topics which have a global audience who like to poke their noses in where it doesn't belong democratically. One example would be Northern Ireland articles: Northern Ireland has a tiny population and the majority population within Northern Ireland are a tiny minority within the UK as well as being a minority population on the island of Ireland, therefore majority opinion within Northern Ireland is rarely expressed due to the zealots from Boston and Dublin outnumbering those who actually live in NI. The result: a mess of propaganda and massive distortions of truth.)
Re: Wikipedia is a byword for an unreliable source of information
Try Ten Word Wiki ( http://www.tenwordwiki.com) instead, it's still inaccurate but gets to the point a lot quicker and includes a measure of humour, usually.
"The executive's convictions included cheque fraud and unlawfully wounding her boyfriend with a gunshot to the chest"
Actually i'd say she is the perfect boss. I bet few people were caught slacking on her watch.
Felon executive
Actually she was very warm and friendly, calm and professional. Nobody guessed there was a problem. Yes, background checks should have been done, but you have to admit, it was tremendously bad luck for the Foundation. I think she was only the third employee to be hired in an accounting role.
Ok, so who can come up with the best new wikipedia page for "The Register" after this article
"The Register"
A so called 'online' magazine, known for supporting crime, drugs and probably has links to the Mafia. Also known for depriving organisations of financial assistance
"A so called 'online' magazine"
Pah! Described as a highly respected online magazine in the High Court, I think you'll find.
Merry Christmas,
C.
Re: "A so called 'online' magazine"
That's the thing about lawyers - you can never tell when they're being ironic.
Re: "A so called 'online' magazine"
but not by the beak IIRC
Re: Re: "A so called 'online' magazine"
"but not by the beak IIRC"
Close enough.
C.
Yes, it's no wonder many editors are dropping out. It's because the casual 'normal' person will inevitably lose an edit war with the kind of mental case who sits at wikipedia all day deleting any changes, especially on particular articles they have some kind of nutty political interest in.
On one forum I hang out with, quoting from wikipedia is now considered (perhaps a little unfairly) to quoting a straw pole of people in your local pub. In actual fact, it's more akin to listening to the nutty drunks at the bar who shout loudest because those are really what prevails in wikipedia.
What they really need is some kind of mechanism that prevents some lone nutty zealot from overriding 100 normal people.
Agree
I've only tried to correct something once. With citations to peer reviewed sources and reports from government bodies.
It was deleted within hours. I try not to rely on Lie-pedia for anything.
Re: Agree
I work in the airline industry, and the "plane spotters" on wiki do an OK job of keeping the details of airlines and their equipment up to date. However, there is a lot of wrong information in there. Since I use wiki for information sometimes, I thought I would contribute with some updates.
What a waste of f*ing time that was.
a) arcane is a polite term when describing the process
b) in this case the "plane spotters" were mostly plain nutters
Wiki is not a bad point of departure for completely non-controversial data. For anything with a remote political angle, the teams are lined up and they wage war. The "climate change" brigade are a notable example, but I can name several others where it is clear that dubious public figures have staffs employed to "whitewash" their image at an alarming rate. As far as I can tell, there is no effective mechanism in place for stopping this and as such Wiki is highly unreliable in a vast array of areas.
Re: Agree
Curiously, when I correct something (usually spelling mistakes or vandalism--I won't spend more than a few seconds on it), I leave an insulting comment or rude or nonsensic words in the edit summary. That seems to distract their attention from the actual edit which is then allowed to stand while they bitch and moan about my supposed rudeness.
(Believe it or not, even spelling mistake corrections are reverted sometimes. Really makes you wonder.)
One of the great side effects of the blackout is I no longer ads..
Wikipedia implemented the blackout using their banner code. So when I disabled the blackout I also disabled the banners. Bliss.
So, Opera users, delete the blank lines from the script below and then save it to your user javascript directory. And, suddenly, you'll be able to read the encylopedia anybody can edit, guilt free.
// ==UserScript==
// @include http://en.wikipedia.org/*
// ==/UserScript==
Object.defineProperty( window, 'insertBanner', { value: function(){}, writable: false, configurable: false, enumerable: true } );
Re: One of the great side effects of the blackout is I no longer ads..
You can just click a "don't bug me" or similar option on the banner. I did a few weeks ago so now I can't see what the exact option is called.
Re: One of the great side effects of the blackout is I no longer ads..
Some of us browse in porn mode / do not allow cookies.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED
Actually, I'm not.
You say that " awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating." but then completely fail to stand that up. Yes, sure if the Foundation did no R&D and didn't try to improve the platform then they would be "awash". As it is - they have healthy reserves, but hardly awash:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers#How_did_2011-12_play_out_from_a_financial_perspective.3F
> The architect of the current, highly aggressive funding drive is Sue Gardner.
"Highly aggressive? Really? Better than last years' with Wales' fizzog staring at me.
> Described by one insider as "very savvy politically and excessively diplomatic"
Ooooh How awful. You should see I, as an "insider" describe some of the people I work with.
The article makes an awful lot of the fact that Wikipedian editors are unpaid. And then lambasts the organisation for having the temerity for paying photographers to get pictures of politicians and popstars. The amounts do see large, but from the look of it, it would appear that the Foundation is buying some photographic kit and is budgeting for staff to attend 30 festivals. I might not think that's the greatest idea, but I can't say it worries me hugely.
> Wikimedia Foundation UK, admitted to racking up a bill of £1,335 for business cards, calling it "a failure to make the most effective procurement choices"
Indeed - it says in the minutes that this was a screw-up and asks for details about how proceeders and polices have changed.
> Few politicians or media figures now dare criticise Wikipedia.
Would that be because it is widely regarded as an extraordinarily useful free resource?
> But the organisation does seem to be presenting an incomplete picture.
Except that you found all the damming facts in their published minutes and strategic plans.
In summary: The only thing that gives me qualms here is the spending on photographic equipment and festival attendance. Not my cup of tea or area of interest, but I can see how it might be useful to have updated creative commons pictures of popstars to keep the site useful for da yoof.
Most of the increased spending seems to be on R&D; the visual editor project is running late, but I'm not that surprised.
I'll probably donate this year.
Disclosure: I'm not associated with the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia in any way though my kids and I use it a lot. I have over the years tweaked perhaps 4 or 5 wikipedia articles - which I guess makes me a wikifiddler.
So when you say: "All this has been met with dismay by the hard-working enthusiasts who do all the hard work of keeping the project afloat - and who still don't get paid." - Ummm, no - not really.
Paris - because that shot will need updating soon.
Re: I'm shocked, SHOCKED
"> Wikimedia Foundation UK, admitted to racking up a bill of £1,335 for business cards, calling it "a failure to make the most effective procurement choices"
Indeed - it says in the minutes that this was a screw-up and asks for details about how procedures and polices have changed."
I keep getting crap from Vistaprint offering free business cards, someone should sign them up to their mailing list.
Re: I'm shocked, SHOCKED
Defend them all you want, but I would urge you to reread the appeal that they put on their website before doing so. They did not ask for money to defend internet freedoms. They did not ask for money to get certain photographs that WP contributors hadn't been able to source for free. They asked for money, and they cited only the operating costs of the website: servers, power, rent, programs, staff and legal help. It is not unreasonable for readers to assume that they need this money for the free volunteer encyclopedia bit.
It is dishonest.
Re: I'm shocked, SHOCKED
As an insider, can you explain why your operating costs are scheduled to triple in 4 years? Seems like you might need less money if you weren't planning to needlessly expand your organization.
Well-known Wikipedia-hater in Wikipedia hating shock!
Herpdiderp, I guess.
"The executive's convictions included (...) unlawfully wounding her boyfriend with a gunshot"
Wait, are there circumstances where an executive can lawfully wound someone with a gunshot?
I knew there was more to this management thing than fiddling with spreadsheets!
Re: "The executive's convictions included (...) unlawfully wounding her boyfriend with a gunshot"
Self Defence? Seems to be in the constitution or summat.
Open source for open pockets
Oh come on Orlowski,
Next you'll be telling us that the top brass at the Mozilla Corporation are all paying themselves 6-figure salaries, driving super cars, have second homes on Caribbean islands and will eventually retire from or leave the corporation with a pay-off that makes George Entwistle look like he was shafted... instead of living the life of Trappist monks spending 18 hours a day in front of Vi, coding for food so that one day they can take their rightful place beside Wren, Stephenson, Brunel and Telford, like we all know they do.
Talking of Brunel, everyone be careful with coins in your Christmas puddings this year.
Income Stream
It seems these days, as an earlier El Reg article said, "Web 2.0 depends on someone not getting paid."
But Wikipedia does have its uses - it's occasionally entertaining when someone manages to get a quick edit in before the obituary researchers get chucked out of the pub and have to go to work - and it's useful for settling arguments - the first person to quote Wikipedia loses the argument.
Great article, but why didn't I read about it in...
Wikipedia
Wikipedia has a lot of problems
The biggest problem with Wikipedia these days is the collection of admins who will ferociously monitor a page to prevent anyone else from editing it but themselves. Therefore making sure that the information on the page is basically their own opinion.
1. Edit the page to add some information about a subject
2. Admin reverts your edit, using one of the myriads of rules Wikipedia has about editing
3. You revert their revert
4. They lock the page, preventing you from editing it further
5. (Optionally) They ban your account if you had one
And because of this, I will never donate to Wikipedia.
Re: Wikipedia has a lot of problems
One of the biggest problems with wikipedia these days is the idiots who think they know more about a subject than other people who have written on the subject or who wont say where th einfo comes from
The biggest problem with Wikipedia these days is the collection of admins who will ferociously monitor a page to prevent anyone else from editing it but themselves. Therefore making sure that the information on the page is basically their own opinion. As a result
1. They edit the page to add some text which they hold to be self-evident truth
2. Another editor then has to remove the edit, because its badly written English, doesn't make sense, or doesn't comply with the standards for sourcing
3. They revert their revert, without reading or taking notice of the reason why it wasn't acceptable in the first place. (2 and 3 may repeat a couple of times)
4. An admin then has to lock the page rather than editors spending any more time on the moron, preventing casual editors who might be able to contribute constructively from editing the page, and therefore putitng off others from helping
Re: Wikipedia has a lot of problems
This is exactly what happened to me.
I had edited a page of a local radio DJ (at the invite of his co-host who had also edited it) to include the fact that he had previously had a hair transplant (which was true).
His co-host added a line saying the DJ had won a Sony Radio Award (which was also true)
Within minutes, both edits had been reverted, and when I asked why, the pompous prick moderator told me something along the lines of "you don't make the edits, we do" and banned my account.
Fuck Wiki.
Re: Wikipedia has a lot of problems
One of the biggest problems with wikipedia these days is the idiots who think they know more about a subject than other people who have written on the subject or who wont say where th einfo comes from
The biggest problem with Wikipedia these days is the collection of admins who will ferociously monitor a page to prevent anyone else from editing it but themselves. Therefore making sure that the information on the page is basically their own opinion. As a result
1. They edit the page to add some text which they hold to be self-evident truth
2. Another editor then has to remove the edit, because it doesn't fit his pedantic, public-school idea of good English ("you and me"?!? Egads!), doesn't make sense, or he just doesn't like it so points out that it doesn't comply exactly to the letter of one of the many woolly standards for sourcing
3. They revert their revert, rightfully ignoring the spurious reason why the self-important mod claimed it wasn't acceptable in the first place. (2 and 3 may repeat a couple of times)
4. An admin then locks the page, puffs up his chest in a self-righteous rage and says: "he was wrong".
{{ref|http://xkcd.com/386/}}
Re: Wikipedia has a lot of problems
That's what the discussion page is for - to have a grown up discussion with a view to finding a neutral point of view which captures the main points of interest. Fools who think they have the ultimate truth on a controversial topic generally get the treatment they deserve, while those who have something relevant to contribute tend to do just that if they do it with a view to arriving at a consensus.
Re: Wikipedia has a lot of problems
Grown up discussions usually involve people with a name.
Re: Wikipedia has a lot of problems
And on wikipedia I go by my given name.
Re: Wikipedia has a lot of problems
"That's what the discussion page is for - to have a grown up discussion"
HARHARHAR!!!!
See you at the Fringe next year?
Someone should make a film ....
They could call it
The Outlaw[citation needed] Jimmy Wales
RE:
Jimmy Wales seems pretty reasonable (Not sure how much power he has over it now though).
That junk about Gibraltar was pretty corrupt.
Thanks for reminding me that Toby Young is a twat.
Somedays, I don't think about him at all, so it's good to know that he's just as much of a twerp as he ever was.
Re: Thanks for reminding me that Toby Young is a twat.
Yep - what I got from that article is just more evidence that Twitter is all about self-aggrandisement..
Loads of people have donated money to charity. And most of them don't boast about doing so, or show off about how much they've donated.
I remember there was a similar problem in the 90s with Guide Dogs for the Blind. A perfectly fine charity, but the combination of a good cause, incredibly cute puppies and the lack of blind people who both need/want a dog, and are capable of handling one, meant that they were racking up massive surpluses.
I seem to recall they had about £300m in the bank, and their annual outgoings were in the low tens of millions. But they just couldn't stop themselves fund-raising, because of all the lovely moolah that kept rolling in. Even though they had 20 odd years of operating budget in reserves (and growing).
Other visual impairment charities suggested sharing the bounty, but the trustees decided they couldn't spend the money on things other than it was raised for. I wonder how they resolved it?
Probably by hiring people who quit three days later, having people who spend more time off sick than actually working, organising meetings to discuss organising meetings, sending people to vocational courses that you can't fail because the tutors actively help you pass and paying for private transport when public transport is available and cheaper.
"I wonder how they resolved it"
Their HQ is now in Bermuda, on a large yacht anchored just off the beach.
Re: "I wonder how they resolved it"
Bought the world's dog food companies.
Freetards
That's the thing about most freetards, they certainly don't understand the value of money and seem more than happy to keep the gravy train rolling on donator's hard-earned income. I have no fundamental problem with wikipedia being a professionally run non-profit organisation getting it's income from various sources, including some discreet advertising if necessary, especially as I use adblock anyway, but I recoil when I know that my pounds have been wantonly wasted to some extent. If every pound counts for me, then wikipedia should hold the same respect for my and others' donations.
This topic is closed for new posts.
