Lol! If only editing a bank's ledger file was as easy...
A personal plea for cash by Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, has melted enough hearts to keep the ubiquitous online encyclopedia running for another fiscal year – and then some. The Wikimedia Foundation announced today that it's raised more than $6.2m since launching a fund-raising campaign in early November. The website …
I'm glad that wikipedia is going to continue on, but at the same time, I would have rather seen them bought out and get some new management in there. Perhaps new management wouldn't censor so many things, and push their agenda out as "fact". There are way too many biased articles out there, where the opposite viewpoint is censored. See overstock.com for more details, and this is a small example.
They should start charging the news media for using their site, in the last few days I've spotted pictures on the BBC news website which are ripped directly from the wiki site. May encourage the hacks to do a little bit more research than immediately type wikipedia.org .
Does this mean that Jimmy Wales' name is going to be removed from every sodding page that wiki drags up, just checked... nope now he's thanking us all.
Paris cos all she needs to rise funds is a camcorder and the latest beau de jour.
I've got no issue with the factual, geographic, historic, etc...things on Wikipedia.
But I don't understand where the "celebrity" ones begin and end.
I've seen minor celebs from late-night sky/cable or local radio scrapped as not famous enough to be on there, but Big Brother contestants remain?
Frankly I've got a lot more respect for someone who spins a roulette wheel on a channel few people watch, or sells revolting jumpers on Bid-Up, than I have for some shouty obnoxious bint whose only claim-to-fame is drinking a fish gut smoothy or wanking with a wine bottle.
Paris, because she's probably famous enough to be on there
Winkypop: They can continue to artificially seed wikiwhacky results into the top of its search algorithm.
My thoughts entirely. These days Google always seem to put the relevant Wikipedia page at position 3, sometimes 2, in the search results, pretty much where your sight naturally falls on the page. The aim is surely that people just click on it and don't notice how irrelevant the other results are.
Was reminded of that Byrne scuffle last night when browsing Shii's site.
It seems that Shii was hounded away from the wiki due to clique related action.
I had to laugh when examining the logs detailing his poor treatment at the hands of Wikifiddlers, as I spotted the handle SlimVirgin amongst the other cliquey malfeasance practicioners...
In agreeing with you pretty much totally, one question that pops up is that given the relative costs of storage and what I understand to be the point of a Wikipedia type accoutrement, why is it not relevant for Wikipedia to have articles on anything and everything? As long as certain niceties (privacy, legal, moral and such) are observed.
It's useless, it's biased, it censors everything, rah, rah, rah...
I'm facinated and repulsed by how some people here manage to find something to hate about everything. Most people with whom I have ever talked about wikipedia find it deeply impressive that something of such quality and usefulness could come into existence so quickly in the absence of a profit motive.
Notwithstanding the whole Pat Byrne fiasco and other allegations of impropriety, wikipedia is a pretty inspiring story. Considering their decentralised structure I am surprised they have withstood the forces of corruption and special interests so well - I guess the panopticon can work in reverse aswell eh!
Really, 2 million dollars in voluntary donations in 8 days is testament to how much people really value Wikipedia i.e. a lot. I really can't fathom you people who do nothing but bitch about it, maybe I should consult the oracle... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard
I don't mind the wiki - it's useful for a quick reference. A lot of the tech / physics stuff is usually (in my experience) completely wrong, or so badly written that it's not helpful. It is worrying to think so many people will take it as being the gospel, helping to spread the misinformation.
But $6m dollars a year to run it? Really? Admittedly I didn't read their full break down (apparently I have to donate online in order to receive it or something) but does it really cost that much? How much of that is Jimbo's salary?
And frankly, I think most people have gotten so used to seeing adverts (and the likes of AdBlock Plus are so effective) that I wouldn't mind a few ads if it stops the "please help us!" messages that permanently plaster the site.
I have a copy of the Brittanica, on paper, on a shelf.
For at least almost and probably absolutely everything in it there is at least one better and more authoritative source available.
The same applies to WP, it is part of the rules applied there.
The point of an encyclopedia is to bring together information on most things. It is never a primary source.
The other and better references for individual atoms of knowledge are fine, but you need an index to find them. There is Google, of course, and there is the human evaluation, which even if it uses imperfect humans adds something to that indexing for most areas.
My question is, if Wikipedia hadn't of got the money they wanted would the US government given them tax money to stay afloat? I mean if the lefty newspapers in our country are going to be awarded tax dollars why not wikipedia. While wikipedia definitely has an agenda towards the left they are far more center then the commy failing print media we have.
"Notwithstanding the whole Pat Byrne fiasco and other allegations of impropriety, wikipedia is a pretty inspiring story"
That statement reminded me of:
Mr. Praline: I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
...that a fool and his money are soon parted.
Anyone who gave hard-earned cash for this putrid pile of maundering donkey flop should be ashamed of themselves.
I refuse to look at anything that cites only wikipedia and mark down anything submitted with wikipedia as a reference. Totally useless.
Since wikipedia use only public domain images [which is why there are almost no celebrity pics on wikipedia] that's unlikely to happen.
And, since a good proportion of wikipedians out there update the pages from what they've learned from online news sources (e.g. BBC news online) wikipedia is likely to be behind BBC news in content so I think you ought to give us a citation to back up your claim!
You can see the breakdown without donating here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Questions/en#How_is_the_revenue_spent.3F
Now, you might be surprised to know that the US alone is spending 500 BILLION dollars annually for their military. I think we better question that, and think what our world would be like if more money would be spent on projects that spread knowledge instead of fear, destruction and oppression.
How much do you think El Reg could raise from its readers in a similar appeal if it was in danger of going under?
I know it's traditional for a Perfect Organ like the Reg to criticise the imperfections in Wikipedia, but come on guys - get real - just which of you is more important to the world?
It's far from perfect. but for a quick idea on something, I find it extremely useful. but I wouldn't stake anything really important on it's knowledge, like my my personal safety, my family's or my job!
Too may people go there look up what they know about already, just to poke fun at it's imperfections. Well here's an idea, if it's not good enough, start your own one and all you know-alls can have your own perfect little online tome of knowledge free from any inaccuracies.
For the rest of us looking up roughly how a toilet flush system works, or how XYZ band got started and their current status, it's perfect!
From http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/41/FY_2008_09_Annual_Plan.PDF p13
'Establishment of new fundraising team $510,000'
So nearly 10% of the money raised is being spend to raise money... This is over 1/2 as much the entrie actual technology budget for last year (07-08). The only thing wikipedia really needs is the technology, its awash with volunteers for the other stuff, but unfortunately the 'professionals' seem to want in on the act.
Yes fallible humans with good intentions who have to arrive at judgements and who sometimes make mistakes, and whom I will never put on any pedestal. So what does anyone expect from an organisation that employs all of 23 people ? Get real folks, this is a human organisation. The most likely critics if someone provides something mostly good for free are going to be those who previously made money by supplying a competing product paid for by other means. I havn't donated to Wikipedia yet, but it's enough use to me that I would if they were strapped for cash. I help keep a more specialised online news organisation going through a voluntary subscription, because what they write is worth a lot more to me than the effort I would have to go through to research, digest and compile the same information by other means.
If you really think that I must conclude that you have no idea what is actually going on in the Land of Truth By Consensus.
The only articles that are relatively intact are the ones concerning science and boring stuff that the moronic super-editors are not interested in or do not have the knowledge to fudge almost imperceptibly. Anything else is good for target practice from the endless horde of special-interest groups, of which the super-editors themselves are part.
The definition of corrupt is when the people with authority use their authority based on personal bias rather than defined and accepted rules. If the super-editors actually followed their own rules, one could argue your point, but the fact is that they don't (well, a portion of them in any case).
Therefor WhackyLand is most definitely corrupt.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019