Importance of Wikipedia

[BvBPL]

Wikipedia is a great resource for a wide, wide variety of subjects.

It is by no means perfect. The writing, in particular can be really horrible.

More problematic, someone can place errenous information on the site that is not immediately recognizable by the lay reader.

Equally problematic is the politicizing of the resource. There are all sorts of rules on Wikipedia that are immensely subjective. The notability standard, for example. Something can be very notable at a time contemporary to the event, but just a few years latter the notability may be seen as being different.

 

[Commodore]

The emphasized part perfectly describes Wikipedia for me. I use it constantly, and have absolutely no problem giving them money from time to time. If I was to calculate the time spent per cost, it wouldn't even be a cent an hour. It's really one of the most useful, and thus valuable, products/services I use every day, and also probably the cheapest.

And I don't see a problem with that viewpoint, I'm just saying that I am an extreme cheapskate when it comes to parting with my money for things I am not super-excited about. I like Wikipedia and I hope they raise the money they need, I'm just not super-excited about it so they won't be getting any of that money from me.

 

[downtown]

I've given them money before, and I think it's an amazing resource to get basic information about something quickly. It isn't perfect, but what is? If you use it smartly, it's a fabulous tool.

I make a living from website ad revenue, fwiw, so I'll never begrudge anybody for having an ad on their website as long as it doesn't disrupt my ability to actually read the content.

 

[Archbob]

I do also, I hate ad-blockers for anything except really annoying stuff pop-ups. My view is, you don't want to view the ads, you don't deserve the free content.

 

[kramerfan86]

Eh Ive used an adblocker for a couple of years now. Eventually far too many websites broke the unwritten code that ads should not interfere with actual site usage and Im too lazy to turn it off and on to see which websites are and arent still breaking that code.

 

[classical_hero]

Eh Ive used an adblocker for a couple of years now. Eventually far too many websites broke the unwritten code that ads should not interfere with actual site usage and Im too lazy to turn it off and on to see which websites are and arent still breaking that code.

For some websites i have whitelisted them so they get the revenue and considering I am using them as a product it is only fair they get some revenue.

 

[Goodfella]

Eh Ive used an adblocker for a couple of years now. Eventually far too many websites broke the unwritten code that ads should not interfere with actual site usage and Im too lazy to turn it off and on to see which websites are and arent still breaking that code.

Also a 30s ad for a 3 minute youtube video is unacceptable.

 

[Narz]

Wiki is probably in the top 10 of amazing things about the Internet.

 

[Hygro]

Wiki is probably in the top 10 of amazing things about the Internet.

Yes. Wikipedia is a treasure.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What's your opinion of it?

It's running a fundraiser now to keep it ad-free. I kind of like wiki, but I'd like to hear some other opinions..

Is it worth supporting?

That would depend on how much you use it and how reliable you find it. Personally, I prefer to donate to local charities, or at least to something that means more to me than an impersonal website. My last online charitable donation was to a veterinary hospital that treats animals even when they don't have owners who can afford veterinary care.

What if they implemented something that blocks ad-blocking users from using the site so people can't free-ride?

Wikipedia I find is just as good as any encyclopedia on most things.

I've found mistakes there that nobody seemed at all interested in correcting.

Wikipedia's a great resource at this time, but it,s showing some troubling issues at the internal "community" level that makes me suspect it may not remain so in the long term (clique mentality at the higher levels, hostility to newcomers, and a tendency to adhere to rules into absurdity, unless it suits them to do otherwise).

Add to that the fact that people with a lot of knowledge about a topic but little knowledge about communication often end up writing those (science articles BY science majors FOR science majors, and screw you if you're not), and they in turn use the above issues to keep away more literate newbies who might actually make the article approachable, and yeah, I have some strong reservations about the future of wiki.

Years ago I was a volunteer proofreader. I'd go in and fix typos, spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and punctuation errors. But somewhere along the line, they got the notion that my IP address is on a list of adspam IP addresses, so I can't log in to my account. Repeated emails to ask them to fix this have gone either ignored or they say stuff that has nothing to do with the actual problem.

So that, plus their new search engine that's meant that I haven't been able to find a damn thing I've been looking for lately, means I am taking my proofreading over to Project Gutenberg, and relying on other sites to find information.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Wiki is probably in the top 10 of amazing things about the Internet.

True. People made many optimistic predictions about the internet in the nineties, and Wikipedia is one of the few things that confirm that optimism.
I want it to stay free and accessible to everbody with an internet connection, and I would feel very uncomfortable if it became dependent on ads. It is definitelsy worth supporting.