Give shekels please
Do any of you ever support websites or projects that plead for donations? Wikipedia has to be the most egregious beggar with this massive banner at the top of their articles today, and I wonder if this only serves to annoy people rather than coax their support.
Also:
top kek.
Other urls found in this thread:
businessinsider.com
en.wikipedia.org
archive.is
archive.is
meta.wikimedia.org
twitter.com
remember this?
I bought a 4chan pass back in the day!
No.
Yes, I send donations. It's better to keep sites running by sending voluntary donations than to be fucked without consent by adtech.
You don't mean you've donated to wikipedia, have you?
I sometimes donate to good services that mention donations, but never to services that beg in an obnoxious manner, like Wikipedia. It's a great service. Too bad they put some dingdong in charge of fundraising.
I never donated to anything or anyone on the internet because I'm a third world NEET myself so I need that money more than San Francisco "innovative disruptors" do. If I did have money lying around, I would spare a few bucks to a few projects, but Wikipedia would never be one of them. The fucking thing is already an ad for Jimbo's Wikia and other shit, and he has the balls to ask people to finance his ad for him.
I never donated because I'm a third world NEET myself so I need that money more than San Francisco "innovative disruptors" do. If I had cash to go around, I'd donate to a few projects, but Wikipedo is not one of them. The fucking thing is pretty much an ad for Jimbo's Wikia and other shit, and he has the balls to ask peple to finance his own ad for him. Fucking objectivists, man.
A pox upon your bright red ass, Programbaboon!
Only site I've actually donated to is infogalactic. Its a Wikipedia alternative.
I've yet to see a website beg for donations and not be filled with marxist trashbags.
I've donated to several one-man/small open source projects, but never to anything any bigger.
The WMF (which runs Wikipedia and friends) has massive reserves (approaching £100 million) and tries to blow as much of it as possible hiring doorstops. I'd never donate to them. The ridiculous rise in expenses (not scaling at all with traffic) is the company wasting money in its silly national offices across the world and its fruitless diversity drives -- nearly every woman I've ever seen on the talk pages derail discussions and make everything either about them or about their pet issue. Indians (one of the other big drive areas) spend a lot of their time inserting extreme pro-Indian POV on India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/China articles. Wikipedia is much worse because of these diversity drives.
source for graph: businessinsider.com
...
And good luck getting an article changed or taken down if some leftists thinks you are literally Hitler for mildly opposing their progressive monoculture.
How big has the Wikipedia database grown over the past several years? The current text dump is about 13 GBs in size AFAIK. Keep in mind the image dump is well over a TB in size
Wikipedia's begging would be more tolerable if the shit didn't interrupt your reading. I am reading an article, I want to scroll down and all of the sudden this giant nag message slides down.
Anyone else miss Microsoft Encarta?
lmao, people really believe this shit?
I once donated but haven't since it was co opted by jews and marxists, too much editing power is held by a few who use it to rewrite history, science and politics at their whim. There is a reason it stopped being acceptable to reference wikipedia in academia.
They also hire faggots on reddit to take pictures of things
When Facebook or Google buys it, you're gonna regret the begging for donations.
Except the database is massively replicated for redundancy (hence near 100% uptime), and handling all those requests for both editing and viewing page has its cost.
Not to mention that the expenses DO scale with traffic, even if not HTTP traffic. The rise in DDOS attempts has increased by a huge factor these years, and protecting against DDOS or even mitigating them isn't exactly free.
Well definitely not Wikipedia after spending some time following the inner workings of that community. The inmates are literally running the asylum and Jimmy Wales is a piece of shit who refuses to do anything about it.
It was never acceptable and the reason has nothing to do with aggregate accuracy. Wikipedia may contain less errors than Britannica on average, but it's a bad idea to cite meta sources like encyclopedias in the first place. Wikipedia, however, has a much worse problem for making it a referenceable work. It's a meta source that can change at any given moment in time.
A wiki is a collection of anonymous and sometimes named claims and opinions made at various points in time in the past, present, and future by people of questionable credibility, along with links to collections of sources. The wiki itself is not a source. It is not even good for gauging public opinion or general consensus. Anyone can very easily edit an article immediately after it’s posted in order to make the one who cited it look like a total buffoon. Citing a wiki as a set of sources (which may or may not even support your argument), and then expecting the person you're trying to convince to sort through them themselves and pick out just which one you want to use which actually supports you--in other words, to construct your own argument for you--is extremely discourteous.
Any part of academia that has every seriously allowed people to reference Wikipedia for anything but scholarly work on Wikipedia itself has a serious credibility problem.
few days ago I was roaming wikipedia for some info on battery holders and all the types of batteries and connectors for batteries.
After finding a page of coin battery holders the fags made a "environmental impact of production" section.
These niggies sincerely think that is "neutral info".
Oh has that ever sunk. All of their articles on race are written by a team of cucks and an negress who runs an African-American studies department.
> Although most people continue to think of races as physically distinct populations, scientific advances in the 20th century demonstrated that human physical variations do not fit a “racial” model. Instead, human physical variations tend to overlap. There are no genes that can identify distinct groups that accord with the conventional race categories. In fact, DNA analyses have proved that all humans have much more in common, genetically, than they have differences. The genetic difference between any two humans is less than 1 percent. Moreover, geographically widely separated populations vary from one another in only about 6 to 8 percent of their genes. Because of the overlapping of traits that bear no relationship to one another (such as skin colour and hair texture) and the inability of scientists to cluster peoples into discrete racial packages, modern researchers have concluded that the concept of race has no biological validity.
Maybe in social "sciences" kikepedia was an acceptable reference, but in scientific fields you must reference papers, not encyclopedias with old and undetailed info and certainly not websites.
What's wrong with having that on the page? "Environmental impact" is factual, you're an ignorant retard if you think producing anything you use had no environmental impact.
en.wikipedia.org
Blocking people for expressing views off-wiki? Blocking people just because they are pedos? I will not give any support to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has huge funding sources and censors the encyclopedia to say what they want it to say. Remember Gamergate?
archive.is
>>>/gamergatehq/330635
archive.is
>>>/gamergatehq/330332
meta.wikimedia.org
Did they finally learn to stop putting photos of wikimedia foundation peoples in the banner?
no, there is no non-botnet way to use money over the internet, and wikipedia especially does not deserve money, as it would be trivial to build a decentralized alternative to it if it became defunded
it's better than 99% of the other bullshit on the web