Every year they have a message on the top asking for money to help them with the site. They say things like: "98% of our readers don't give; they look the other way" or "we have provided you with knowledge, the least you could do is help us prosper further". You're not going to guilt me, Wikipedia! No way!
shareYeah, LOL
Those messages are fairly constant now
It's certainly annoying and I feel like a cheapskate for about 2 seconds every time
I donate $3 to $5 every year. I don’t quote it unless there’s an objective confirmation. I use the site quite frequently. It came in handy when I was watching Henry Vlll with his debauchery and love of beheadings.
shareIt has become too biased, betraying the main purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to offer objective quality information without taking sides. Many people have turned their back to them.
It's a pity, because there's a lot work done there. Sadly, right now, when it comes to any polarized topic, the wiki has lost their credibility.
If you type in "Wikipedia" on "Wikipedia", there's a criticisms section where it says exactly that.
shareCan you give some examples?
shareThis is the list of "reliable sources" according to wikipedia Editors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
The list of sources is heavily biased. Modern CNN, Haaretz or Southern Poverty Centre (which is basically a think tank from the most radical side in the Democrat Party) are considered completely "reliable", no kidding. Damn, Haaretz is the only included "reliable source" from Israel, which is a bad joke. Sources from the other side or even moderated are mostly not considered (Legal Insurrection), listed as "unreliable" (National Review) or directly banned (Daily Mail).
Since wiki's policy is to use biased source as reference, the articles related with modern politics or polemical issues are biased by default, as a logical consequence.
What I meant was can you give examples of biased articles. Wikis can be edited by about anyone, I've edited them myself to make corrections. So not only would it need to be biased but locked so it can't be edited. Can you give examples of actual bias versus your hypothetical bias.
Edit, obviously not.
It really depends on the articles you read, tbh.
The sciences and math stuff are fine.
Also, Wikipedia already has enough money to run thier servers for a very long time. They just keep asking because some people keep giving.
Inb4 "source?":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/?outputType=amp
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/
There's a bunch more, but I only posted two.
Random fact: Wikipedia spends approximately 6% of it's revenue on the actual wiki. They spend more on "travel and conferences" and rent for their offices (separately, I mean)
[deleted]