Does anybody else donate to Wikipedia or am I an idiot?

[SexyGreyFox]

I've just had my yearly email from Wikipedia asking if I'm willing to donate and pressed the button to send £2.
For me Wikipedia is awesome and I use it regularly, three times today but am I being ripped off?
Do they actually need my £2?

 

[uber soldat]

I use Google on a daily basis, but I sure as hell ain't sending them any money.

 

[DB_SamX]

I donated once after a spell of using it loads, and never again since.

 

[Brazo]

I don’t given its unreliability as a citation.

 

[Moley]

I have done occasionally, then I read about the wikimedia foundation and how much money they are sitting on - $180m in revenue last year - and realised despite the begging notices, they actually have more than enough in the bank to run the site for basically the rest of it's useful life. In which case, what are they doing with my money if I donate?

 

[Kenai]

Do they need your £2 specifically? Almost certainly not.

The Wikimedia Foundation raises more money than it needs to the tune of tens of millions per year, has significant assets ($250m or so) and a massive endowment fund (worth $140m or so I think) too.

Do they collectively need those £2 donations overall? Yes, they'd be up **** street (eventually) if too many people stopped donating.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I'll miss next year then

 

[C Kent]

am I being ripped off?

Yes

 

[Nutty667]

I donated once. I think it's a great resource and I read things on it often.

 

[Junglist]

I have donated the £2 once. It may not always be right but it's a great resource if you want to read about something new

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I have donated the £2 once. It may not always be right but it's a great resource if you want to read about something new

I reckon 99% of my WIKI use is music related, discographies are especially superb.

 

[mattyg]

Yes

How so, He got asked for £2, Paid £2

Its not like they quoted £2 then when halfway through the job it doubled and they found more issues that needed extra money for... Thats being ripped off. Agreeing to overpay isn't being ripped off

 

[Voltar]

More fool you I think OP.
At the very start yes your donation would have been worthy.

As has been pointed out they have a pile of cash and also the value of their content is dubious and varies. Not sure if it is actually trustworthy as a source of accurate information.

 

[Nutty667]

It's a myth that it's full of inaccuracies. Every time I've cross checked info from other sources it's turned out accurate. Never once found anything that was wrong.

 

[GGizmo]

I don't donate to Wikipedia. But if I'm using a service or program that I use a lot then I will donate.

If you believe Wikipedia is worthwhile and want to donate then go for it.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

More fool you I think OP.
At the very start yes your donation would have been worthy.

As has been pointed out they have a pile of cash and also the value of their content is dubious and varies. Not sure if it is actually trustworthy as a source of accurate information.

Don't worry I don't use it for University, I'm 66.
For me it's an invaluable source of music related stuff and the chances of it bothering me that they got the year of an album wrong is none.

 

[iron_monkey]

 

[Quartz]

I have donated on occasion. If you read the relevant Wiki page they have assets of $254M and expenses of $169M, so they could only keep going for a year and a half without any funding.

So yes, they do need our money.

 

[adidan]

Nope.

Occasionally I look at it but I never take anything on there as being completely factual.

 

[beachBOYken]

Nope, I rely on the idiot's to donate to keep it running