Short of good news?
Only on the Reg. Don't get me wrong, I love the Vulture, but I have been a little surprised at the amount of WP bashing going on lately.
Wikipedia, the people's encylopedia, has trousered a $3m donation from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, to be paid in equal chunks over three years. Which is nice. Even nicer, the money hails from a charity, and not from philanthropic venture capitalists, who may or may not have commercial designs upon Wikipedia's ads-unsullied …
3 million over 3 years isn't 3 million at all, it's a bit less. But I guess it's good news. I'm a little miffed why wikipedia is in a financial rot, since so many people are constantly donating...
At any rate, I'd love my taxes to go for paying wikipedias bandwidth service and not some second grade kids education, which they can get from wiki for free anyway.
I'm not not serious, I'm just drunk.
...but what do they actually need all this money for again?
$3M buys a hell of a lot of server time.
They say that they need the money to raise money with? Does that strike anyone as a little recursive, not to mention obtuse?
I love WP as much as the next guy, but it exists because of free contributions, not because the people behind it managed to raise a bunch of money.
Surely that should read: "......<cough> withoutcommercialorotherbias <cough>.....".
It is a great resource, true. But an unqualified statement that it's without bias is, as we all know, a barefaced lie. The amount of bias is slight (given the vast amount of content on show) and limited to specific areas where certain people have a vested interest, but it's there.
"...and distributing free knowledge to people without Internet connectivity."
So...i'll be able to go down to my nearest bookshop and pickup (for free) the most recent hardback edition of Wikipedia? Or will they be posting me a weekly pamphlet? "This weeks article is....Miletographa drumila". What happens if the online version of that article is edited? Do they then re-post me the updated article?
Please, someone help me, wikipedia PR speak hurts.....
Paris, because if she could, she would be making herself freely available to people everywhere.....
with Wikipedia is that Jimbo and Co. have done Jack Shit to curtail vandalism. If they just raised the bar slightly so that you had to be logged in to edit articles, most vandals wouldn't bother. (And to register you'd have to provide a valid email address and click on the link that they'd send you. All very standard stuff.)
Jimbo is doing very nicely out of his minions, but treating them like chumps.
I use to think it was okay for computer stuff, but recently that has been wholly inaccurate on the pages I have visited. Wikipedia is really more of a problem for the web than a blessing. Personally I would prefer all the contributors to just create their own web pages, the various search engines are good enough to find them, and it would the make the articles a little bit more interesting.
Really the wikipedia has dumbed down the web, not enlightened it, people just post company links, or pay for articles to be written for them - often there will only be the slightest form of correlation, on the whole it is just a marketing exercise.
See, the wikipedia did not enable people to post knowledge, it just jumped in and made it easier for people to post rubbish, The web would be a better place without the wikipedia, but hey it is up to people if they wish to post there or just post on their own sites.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019