Supporting Wikipedia

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

I received a reminder today, from Jimmy Wales [or a machine acting on his behalf] requesting this year’s donation.

[quote]

The future of free knowledge is at stake. About a year ago, you were among the 2% of readers who chose to support our work. I can't thank you enough. In just 19 years, Wikipedia’s community has built an encyclopedia with more than 51 million articles in 250+ languages. However, we still have so much work to do to protect Wikipedia's future, and this is my last chance to get you involved in 2020.

< etc. >

[/quote]

Think about it … How much have you used Wikipedia during this strange year

Is it worth a few ££ to know that you’re helping keep it alive and Ad-free ?

MichaelG.

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

I use Wikipedia and contribute a few £, well worth it.

Andrew.

[FrankiethepillParticipant @frankiethepill]

Wikipedia is a fantastic resourse to have instant access to and well worth paying a few pounds for, and as an added bonus it's Ad free, which is so refreshing in this so commercial world.

Francis

[Jim Butler 1Participant @jimbutler1]

Despite being derided by some, Wikipedia is a useful resource.

I have just sent them a few pounds.

 

JimB

 

Edited By Jim Butler 1 on 21/11/2020 02:12:15

[SandgrounderParticipant @sandgrounder]

I give them a donation every year as I use their site many times a day.

John

[Bodger BrianParticipant @bodgerbrian]

Posted by Jim Butler 1 on 21/11/2020 02:11:49:

Despite being derided by some, Wikipedia is a useful resource.

It is a useful resource if one uses it as the basis for further research, as should information from any encyclopaedia.

One problem is that too many people take it as gospel. On another on-line forum, despite me quoting from a contemporary newspaper (late 19th century) about the date of a tram line being laid, someone insisted that I was wrong because Wikipedia gave another date

This is from Wikipedia itself…. “Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source as not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive or unbiased”.

[Bodger BrianParticipant @bodgerbrian]

 

Apologies – duplicate post. 
 

Edited By Bodger Brian on 21/11/2020 08:24:48

[Oven ManParticipant @ovenman]

I contribute a small amount each year. I use it frequently but like everything else in the world don't believe evrything you read.

Peter

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

I use Wikipedia and have no problem giving a donation every year, it’s so handy.

Dave W

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Used to be a lot better and more varied with a lot more information

Then an editorial war started and huge swathes of information got wiped out by self appointed editors

Still worth visiting but definitely not what it was and DEFINITELY not worth the effort of information contribution

A couple of quid a year does no harm though

[David ColwillParticipant @davidcolwill19261]

They periodically send an email to me (probably because I responded to a plea when on Wikipedia) and like others here I regularly give a couple of quid.

It is my first stop for basic information about any subject. If I need more specific details then Wikipedia is not the place (nor is it trying to be).

As for inaccuracies I haven't come across any that spring to mind.

All told I don't pay much and wouldn't be without it.

David.

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

It's pretty reliable as a source source of science and technology information and gives a large number of citations for further reading. I seldom use it for other things as Google can take you to many other useful sources, often original. Like anything on the Internet, and indeed other information sources, you need to exercise a modicum of critical thinking.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

I wonder how ‘donors amongst forum members’ compares with the stated 2% of users that donate anything.

We appear to be doing quite well

MichaelG.

[Henry BrownParticipant @henrybrown95529]

I don't support as I very rarely use it due to some misinformation a while back.

[JAParticipant @ja]

Posted by Bodger Brian on 21/11/2020 08:23:51:

Posted by Jim Butler 1 on 21/11/2020 02:11:49:

Despite being derided by some, Wikipedia is a useful resource.

It is a useful resource if one uses it as the basis for further research, as should information from any encyclopaedia.

One problem is that too many people take it as gospel. On another on-line forum, despite me quoting from a contemporary newspaper (late 19th century) about the date of a tram line being laid, someone insisted that I was wrong because Wikipedia gave another date

This is from Wikipedia itself…. “Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source as not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive or unbiased”.

I use with caution and never trust it for anything. It can point you to better resources such as Grace's Guide. Its concept was fine when the internet and social media were innocent and the worst out there was pornography.

I have seen many strange entries such as the B29 bommber was used against Germany in 1944.

JA

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

the B29 bommber was used against Germany in 1944.

Some interesting snippets about stuff like the strategic bomber project from wiki, the B29 program cost a lot more money than the manhattan project, a lot more

More than half of the 88mm guns made in Germany in WW2 stayed in Germany, pointing up at our bombers, so they never made it to the eastern front… and each bomber shot down consumed about 200x88mm shells

Edited By Ady1 on 21/11/2020 12:09:12

[Gary WoodingParticipant @garywooding25363]

I too make a small donation each year and consider it well spent.

[old martParticipant @oldmart]

I use them a lot and have twice made a donation as I think they are a worthy cause.

[Harry WilkesParticipant @harrywilkes58467]

Posted by Andrew Tinsley on 20/11/2020 22:47:48:

I use Wikipedia and contribute a few £, well worth it.

Andrew.

Me too

H

[Frances IoMParticipant @francesiom58905]

contemporary newspapers are generally reliable (until you reach WW1 + especially post 2000) but even they contain errors – what is always surprising is that the reading age of the text is far far above today’s papers.

Edited By Frances IoM on 21/11/2020 16:55:32

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Thanks for reminding me folks – I haven't donated before but I now use it often enough to justify doing so.

Oh, and one of the entries about Beta Hydri in the "Stars and Planetary Systems in Fiction" page is *mine"…

[Author]

Posts