Do you donate money to Wikipedia?

js58426

js58426

js58426

Associate
Joined
3 May 2013
Posts
129
I just visited Wikipedia and saw this:


ClRxBAZ.jpg.png



I know they've made requests for donations in the past but I've never seen a request that filled my entire screen. I guess they must be tired of people ignoring the small request banner they were using before now.

Given how often I use the site I'm tempted to support them myself. But, to be honest, I don't think I'd mind if they just started displaying adverts in order to support the site.

So, do any of you donate money to Wikipedia? Would you care if they started displaying advertisements?
 
I'd rather they fund it through advertisements, it is just a ridiculously useful site for when you need a quick overview of a topic.

In fact as a global encyclopaedia, this kind of thing really needs a bit of funding from Governments. Even if China required a separate page just for it's own version of history.

I mean, what are we doing on a global level to share easily accessible information with each other? This is basically all we have up and running.
 
Getting people to part with their money is extremely difficult. I've tried running a site on donations and despite having well over 2k members, I was always footing the bill myself.

I had a donate button at the top of every page and the bottom, and would drop hints now and then. Occasionally (like once every 6 months) someone would donate a tenner but that's as far as it went.

You either have to charge people or use ads, donations don't work.
 
I have donated, albeit only a small amount.

A little bit of advertisement would be enough to fund the site but i don't think they want to put anyone off of using a site like this. I wouldn't be able to stand it if i had to look something up and had those annoying adverts with audio running in the background.

I am surprised there isn't a ton of sneaky rogue advertisements done via editing of wiki pages... or is there. Maybe the ad is too ninja.

Wiki gets a lot of bashing because anyone can edit it and misinformation does happen but there are few places that compile such a variety of information in detail that is digestable, detailed but without being too detailed or complex. I use to use it when I drew blanks trying to remember certain math/physic proofs/derivatives and functions. You can get misinformation or biased writing on a culture but i have never encountered a constant/formula that was wrong.
 
Last edited:
I have in the past, but I've read in recent times quite a few 'bad' noise about wikepedia. The fact that they are actually quite rich, and spend a lot of money not necessarily wisely.

Also, there's lots of reports of editor 'wars' and of a clique that prevents pretty legitimate causes from editing/adding etc -- the meta-moderators are happy being meta-dictators too.
 
I used to but after discovery what an absolute cess-pool it is under the surface I don't anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom