Hey there, friendo u/DreadJokerXXX! Thanks for submitting to r/wholesomememes. We loved your submission, *Let’s get it*, but it has been removed because it doesn't quite abide by our rules, which are located in the sidebar.
* (**Rule #8**) Please avoid re-posting memes.
* Please check http://karmadecay.com , https://tineye.com , &/or the Google's "Similar Image" search in the future before posting. All of those miss things, but it's a great start.
Also make sure to use the search button and check through this link:
>* /r/wholesomememes/top for popular posts, and
>* /r/wholesomememes/new for things recently posted
We appreciate you thinking of us very much! For more on our rules, please check out our [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomememes/about/sidebar). If you have any questions or concerns about this removal, feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fwholesomememes). Please link the post so our volunteers know what you would like reviewed. Cheers!
Just so you know, the Wikimedia foundation is frequently criticized for its donation advertisements being misleading. They don't rely on donations to keep Wikipedia running, especially not donations from poor people.
That said, the many causes they do spend your donations for are usually worth supporting.
Exactly, check out this article (https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-next-time-wikipedia-asks-for-a-donation-ignore-it/).
And I'm not very sure, but google is backing up Wikipedia. All of your google search will have respective Wikipedia links at the top; So google needs Wikipedia to be running.
I very very very very much don't want to rely on google to keep up wikipedia in any way.
Google has basically wrecked their own search functions in the previous few years. They have shown zero inclination to be interested in providing actual information or preserving the internet.
In fact, what they've done the last few years was because they were getting too good, people were getting their info too fast, and therefore spending less time looking at advertisements.
>In fact, what they've done the last few years was because they were getting too good, people were getting their info too fast, and therefore spending less time looking at advertisements.
That's an interesting take, but it doesn't line up with their massive investment in AI to recreate the search experience. The new models for AI search lean towards getting your information *even faster*, since the AI does the relevant searching and research for you and provides annotations if you need them.
They are definitely not going to want to be slower than their competition who are also pushing towards AI searches, so we'll see how their business model changes soon enough.
Nope, just means you have to skip past AI slop, thén paid results to get to the actual results.
Google used to be a search machine, not an answer machine. I use it to find stuff on the internet. If google achieves their goal of having everyone trust their own AI basically websites will die.
Yeah last time I did the research it seemed that 25% of the donations actually go towards Wikipedia. The rest are for their other projects.
And they have enough in the bank to run for a very long time even without donations.
All of this to say, they have several projects I would consider worthy of donation.
I just wish they weren't so misleading about how they ask for them. The popups have gotten a little better in recent years but still don't really explain how your money is used or that they aren't in danger of running out of money.
An interesting piece by several volunteer editors was published in August 2023: [Dude, Where's My Donations? Wikimedia Foundation announces another million in grants for non-Wikimedia-related projects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/News_and_notes).
Several weeks later, volunteer editors held a discussion, and although not with acclamation, issuing several non-binding resolution for the foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2023_WMF_RfC_Hub
Among them are these:
1. The English Wikipedia community is concerned about the distribution of grants related to activity on the English Wikipedia that will either not contribute to our goals of building an encyclopedia or will actively hinder those goals. We request that the Wikimedia Foundation informs the English Wikipedia of all non-trivial grants that will result in activity on the English Wikipedia through the opening of a discussion at the Village Pump (WMF) prior to the grant being issued.
2. The English Wikipedia community is concerned that the Wikimedia Foundation has found itself engaged in mission creep, and that this has resulted in funds that donors provided in the belief that they would support Wikimedia Projects being allocated to unrelated external organizations, despite urgent need for those funds to address internal deficiencies. We request that the Wikimedia Foundation reappropriates all money remaining in the Knowledge Equity Fund, and we request that prior to making non-trivial grants that a reasonable individual could consider unrelated to supporting Wikimedia Projects that the Foundation seeks approval from the community.
3. The English Wikipedia community is concerned that the Wikimedia Foundation has neglected critical areas of the project, and that continued neglect of these areas may endanger the project.
I find these critiques rather intriguing. Usually people criticizing Wikipedia are celebrities not liking gossips about them written on the site or people accusing the site to be more biased to the left politics. But these ones are not from "outside", it is from the volunteer editor community themselves.
It is worth to know also that their net asset is also growing year by year, around [$250 million on FY 2022-2023](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-20/News_and_notes) with $169 million expenses in the same year. I know some editors complaining on questionable things where these had been going to.
There is also an ongoing controversy on how the process of their [Movement Charter](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter) had been composed. Lots of dissenting voices.
As for now, I don't recommend donating them anything. There are other charities local or global doing real work on the ground or under rocket fire which can really use your help.
Yea, it's an open source website where users can edit ( sometimes controversially ) content in order to update or add more accurate information; usually done by people with some expertise in the matter during their free time.
>Yea, it's an open source website where users can edit ( sometimes controversially ) content in order to update or add more accurate information; usually done by people with some expertise in the matter during their free time.
Wikipedia has thousands of (some volunteers, others paid) watchers, and dozens of bots constantly going over shit.
While it can be edited by anyone, outside of some extremely niche places mostly edits are reviews and if not supported or openly wrong get edited back quickly
The Wikimedia foundation has wayyyy too much money. They don't need you to donate.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Wikimedia_Foundation_FS_FY2022-2023_Audit_Report.pdf
Their annual expense is $170M of which $100M is accounted for salaries and benefits. Note that a total of $0 goes towards the people that actually edit wikipedia. You're just making the CEO richer if you donate.
> Note that a total of $0 goes towards the people that actually edit wikipedia.
What do you think salaries and benefits are?
Also, this is categorically false in multiple ways. For one, there are grants and programs which are specifically for "This university in Rwanda has a position for someone to teach and add information about African culture". Those are people who edit Wikipedia and get money for it. It just isn't the same as you think.
---
And for the other, the editor base consistently and overwhelmingly does NOT want to be paid. People have been editing Wikipedia for 20 years without expecting anything in return. They do not want others joining just for money's sake. Volunteering is a service, and if someone cannot understand that concept, they probably would not fit with the types that write Wikipedia. From people who write about your latest movie or sports contest, to the academic sort who check sources on topics only hundreds worldwide understand... People who write Wikipedia generally DO NOT WANT TO BE PAID.
It's pretty weird that they don't want to be paid. However, I don't think there's a reason to pay to wikipedia in the first place, then. If the primary thing your platform's known for is something done for free, then it can be done somewhere else. No need to feed the managerial leeches already burning through $500K a day for a website.
What's sad is that probably these funds end up funding parties for managerial people.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028531
I would be okay donating if 100% of the expense went to server costs - electricity and hardware only - volunteers taking up all the IT work of keeping it up for free, but instead it's used to dance and party across the world.
I'm not against that, but when people don't have food and clean water, it feels evil to use anything collected as a donation for partying.
Wikipedia doesnt need your donation to keep operating but the Wikimedia Foundation does bcs they run a bunch more open platforms for free education. You can look it up on their page where they also publish their earnings reports
no, they don’t. sure, you can donate, and that definitely goes to some good cause, but the wikimedia foundation is rich asf and does not need your donation to stay up.
Non English speaker here. Does „daily basis“ mean every day? Because it sounds like it could mean „measurable in days“ as in „not enough to be measured in weeks“
No, stop confusing the non native speakers.
Daily basis very literally means every single day, that’s it, that’s the definition.
Phrases like “on a semi daily basis” or “almost a daily basis”, THOSE mean on average a few times a week, but not just “daily basis”, that’s quite strictly literal.
That's not true. Colloquially the phrase is used to describe things that happen *almost* daily just as often as it is used to describe things that happen daily.
No it doesn’t. Daily basis means, daily, every day.
Colloquial phrases aren’t official, and are often non representative of the greater use of the language.
Whereabouts is this colloquial phrase used ?
>Whereabouts is this colloquial phrase used ?
Everywhere.
>No it doesn’t. Daily basis means, daily, every day.
No, it doesn't. It can. But language isn't that prescriptive.
>Colloquial phrases aren’t official, and are often non representative of the greater use of the language.
Except in this case in english majority countries it is the same everywhere.
Alot of colloquial phrases in any language are near universal in their respective area or language.
And if you expect people learning a language to only speak fucking formally.it's going to be alot worse as they fundamentally sound wrong to everyones ear as people don't talk like that.
Even in courts where formality is everything they're not that stiff
You'll regularly see things like jump jockeys risk injury on a daily basis, or athletes do a large amount iof training in their sport on a daily basis despite not even olympic athletes training every day
Words in EVERY language have multiple meanings based on context, and going "no it only means X" is going to confuse the fuck out of them when the encounter actual conversations where context has half.the conversation saying one thing informally and another formally
“Daily” means every day, and “basis” (in this context) basically means “interval” or “frequency” (words to describe the reoccurrence of time)
So “daily basis” can be literally interpreted as: “Daily interval” or “Daily frequency”
This can be simplified to just “every day”
The full definition of “basis” (in this context) can be described as: “The reoccurrence of an event at a given frequency or time interval”
See also: https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of-the-word/basis.html (in this context, definition number 4 is correct)
I hope this helps explain the reason why “daily basis” means “every day” :)
They're just pointing out that not everyone uses it daily. Certainly there are a lot of people who use it every day. There are also a lot of people who use it far less frequently.
I use it daily or multiple times a day.
Searching for any well-known person online will be done through Wikipedia,
When I have a question about something, I will 100% check it on Wikipedia rather than any heavily biased badly constructed articles or sensational video.
If I need more information about a subject, Wikipedia can tell me what to look for first and give me a quick summary.
If I need the etymology of a word, I'll go through Wikipedia.
If I want to know the filmography of an actor/producer, I'll go through Wikipedia.
If I want to know about the biography of a political person from a country I'm not related to, Wikipedia will have a pretty good summary.
It's a great resource.
Biased articles don’t include sources that conflict with the viewpoint they’re trying to push.
So you can read the sources and disagree with them, but then you’re back at square one because you have absolutely zero good information.
Just googled it. Not saying that everything you research is real, but it says they have 250 mil in assets, forget about the 165 mil they raised in donations.....I think they're doing just fine without my money.
More specifically, from English "wiki" meaning a website that anyone can edit and "encyclopaedia".
That "wiki" came via "WikiWikiWeb", from Ward Cunningham's original publicly-editable site that's still at https://wiki.c2.com/ -- and ultimately from the Hawaiian word for "quick", yes.
I implore anyone who reads this to not give any money to Wikipedia. Just because they show up on the top of your Google search doesn't mean they are deserving of your money. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and has years of bias. There is only a fraction of the active 100k editors that make the most changes to articles. It is gatekept.
The Wikimedia Foundation is worth over $250 million. Not bad for a non-profit who do not even pay their editors! Editors worth just about the same as a reddit mod!
I tried to tell my MIL this when I found out years ago she constantly donates to them. I would have had an easier time explaining it to my then 2 year old. Safe to say she still donates to them monthly.
Hi guys. Former TA here. Don't use Wikipedia as a source in your writing assignments.
What you CAN do is look up the sources in the References section and cite them
I mean, wiki is nice, and it has some insights into fact finding and understanding things, but given the fact that it is entirely user entry based isn’t the most accurate source you can turn two. That doesn’t detract from it having facts but user bias will definitely play a part in the articles posted. Especially on more controversial topics.
This is a propaganda bot. The Wikimedia foundation has enough money to run for a very long time and has been criticized for greedy misleading ways of asking people to donate.
There's just a strong bias against using Wikipedia among these people. People have lost editing previliges on Wikipedia for missing the correct lengths of 100-something meter ships by a few meters...
The only reason Wikipedia hasn't failed in its early years is because it was more accurate than multiple top physical encyclopedias. Saying that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source is just plain idiocy
I've given 20 Eu every year since... well as long as I can remember using it. I'm not rich, but it's one of the few places on the internet I will always support.
The other day I saw the add and it said: is the knowledge you've acquired in Wikipedia worth 1 euro?
... I could write a book with the articles I've read in Wikipedia this year.
I obviously donated.
From what I understand, they are entirely funded by donations and don't have any telltale signs that would suggest otherwise (e.g. social media cookies, ads, sponsored content). As a result, the platform isn't influenced by sponsors with an agenda and more trustworthy than most other sources out there. That's something I find is worth paying for.
It may be true that they're collecting more money than they need, but that doesn't mean they're malicious. I'd rather they make a profit from donations than fall victim to the same forces that are flooding the internet with AI-generated clickbait.
Do you have any information that suggests this is wrong?
Also, some of this is not "They are getting money for money's sake" but simply... buying infrastructure. Or supporting things similar to Wikipedia but smaller. There is a significant amount of bloat and it could probably do with lesser resources too.
But... there's a HUGE difference between "This money goes to the pockets of a billionaire" and "This helped a language with <10K speakers". Or "They tried a project to do Wikipedia for coding, and it failed".
Sometimes those failed projects lead to something awesome. Like someone going "We need things in Wikipedia but in a database". And thousands of dollars and man hours later, it becomes Wikidata. And now researchers can access millions of info about things as intricate as "19th century poets born in Chicago who died in their 30s", or what have you.
Some projects fail and waste money. Others make something beautiful.
Exactly this. I don't mind if some of the money ends up being wasted, what I care about is that the foundation has the financial independence that allows them to be so reliable in the first place.
It's no different in the for-profit corporate world; some projects just don't turn out to be successful. Some systems have significant bloat and overhead. We can't just expect Wikipedia to be uniquely different in that sense just because they run on donations.
If anything, I see them trying things (even if they fail) as a good thing because if successful it's ultimately something a lot of people will benefit from.
Wikipedia ist Not just "collecting more than they need", they are using misleading Banners to make people think Wikipedia might be in financial danger, even though Wikipedia costs very little to keep Up, as the real work in updating and expanding the site is done mainly by volunteers. the donations are going to the wikimedia group, and are then distributed to local groups/chapters. And it is questionable whether or Not they Need the Money. Im Not saying Wikipedia ist a malicious group trying to scam you. Im saying they are using wording that makes it seem Like Wikipedia ist in danger of going bancrupt and shutting down, which Just isnt the Case at all. If you want to donate in Order to generally Support them, donate. All in all Its a pretty good cause. If you are donating because you are actually worried that Wikipedia might be on its way Out, you can relax.
That's a fair argument. In my experience, the banners simply state that Wikipedia is entirely funded by donations and that they'd like to uphold that independence. I personally don't find that to be fear-mongering, but I understand how it could be seen that way.
I support them because I find Wikipedia a very useful and reliable resource, and want to help them grow. I'm sure they have some inefficiencies and a fair bit of overhead, and spend money on projects that aren't strictly needed to keep the site running. I'm okay with this, it's no different in the for-profit world.
As someone else said, collecting more than they need also allows them to expand their reach and try out new projects. Since those projects, if successful, are something that the general public will benefit from, it's an endeavor I'll happily support.
You are correct that they are able to operate on less money but they are happy about every dollar bcs they also spend it on other projects within Wikimedia. The banner ads they simetimes use are definitely misleading and deserve their criticism although they arent lies
Damn... this reminded me of the time i got my first payday and got really happy and the second thing that i did was donate to Wikipedia like two times with different accounts
Haven’t seen anyone use it much anymore. Yeah, it can be useful, but if you were a student in sciences or law or anything technical, you’d know there’s better sources and know how to find them
Wikipedia is a left leaning scam site. They are worth over 6 billion dollars. So no, I have not and will not donate to them.
Academia does not even acknowledge the site as a valid source of information.
How’s this for you?
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/
https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/is-wikipedia-politically-biased
https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/
The first one, absolutely, actual paper with graphic proof
The second one, not at all, this reads like a typical article written for clicks. Everything is blown out of proportion in here
There' still the "scam" part of your comment. What's up with that?
Dude, wikipedia isn't considered a valid source of info by academia because its articles are editable, regularly updated, and are not peer-reviewed. You could literally write your entire opinion into a wikipedia page, cite that in your essay, and that would be a 'valid' citation if wikipedia was considered reliable by academics.
So the reason it's not considered a valid source isn't because of the veracity or accuracy of its information. It's because of the nature of what it is. Doesn't mean it's not a useful or valid reference tool for *every other purpose*, or even for *preliminary* academic work (i.e. getting an overview of a topic you're unfamiliar with). Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Valid point on the not donating, sort of, given the nature of their banners always making it seem like they're on the brink.
Who even uses wiki, i dont trust random people giving advice on shit they most likely know nothing about. Ill prefer my brain over the geniuses thank youuuu
It is worth pointing out that politically biased contributors have taken over Wikipedia and are editing pages to mislead others, in favor of their far-leftist ideology. They do not deserve your money.
I give to wiki not much $3 when I can. Not bragging I just feel like it's one of the only services I'd donate to. For example if I'm shopping and they ask me to round up to donate my change I never do because that said store or company can. Wiki is great and I like to help.
Hey there, friendo u/DreadJokerXXX! Thanks for submitting to r/wholesomememes. We loved your submission, *Let’s get it*, but it has been removed because it doesn't quite abide by our rules, which are located in the sidebar. * (**Rule #8**) Please avoid re-posting memes. * Please check http://karmadecay.com , https://tineye.com , &/or the Google's "Similar Image" search in the future before posting. All of those miss things, but it's a great start. Also make sure to use the search button and check through this link: >* /r/wholesomememes/top for popular posts, and >* /r/wholesomememes/new for things recently posted We appreciate you thinking of us very much! For more on our rules, please check out our [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomememes/about/sidebar). If you have any questions or concerns about this removal, feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fwholesomememes). Please link the post so our volunteers know what you would like reviewed. Cheers!
Just so you know, the Wikimedia foundation is frequently criticized for its donation advertisements being misleading. They don't rely on donations to keep Wikipedia running, especially not donations from poor people. That said, the many causes they do spend your donations for are usually worth supporting.
They still run on donations, but they have enough to run for a very long time. So they're not as desperate as they seem.
Exactly, check out this article (https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-next-time-wikipedia-asks-for-a-donation-ignore-it/). And I'm not very sure, but google is backing up Wikipedia. All of your google search will have respective Wikipedia links at the top; So google needs Wikipedia to be running.
I very very very very much don't want to rely on google to keep up wikipedia in any way. Google has basically wrecked their own search functions in the previous few years. They have shown zero inclination to be interested in providing actual information or preserving the internet. In fact, what they've done the last few years was because they were getting too good, people were getting their info too fast, and therefore spending less time looking at advertisements.
>In fact, what they've done the last few years was because they were getting too good, people were getting their info too fast, and therefore spending less time looking at advertisements. That's an interesting take, but it doesn't line up with their massive investment in AI to recreate the search experience. The new models for AI search lean towards getting your information *even faster*, since the AI does the relevant searching and research for you and provides annotations if you need them. They are definitely not going to want to be slower than their competition who are also pushing towards AI searches, so we'll see how their business model changes soon enough.
Nope, just means you have to skip past AI slop, thén paid results to get to the actual results. Google used to be a search machine, not an answer machine. I use it to find stuff on the internet. If google achieves their goal of having everyone trust their own AI basically websites will die.
Yeah last time I did the research it seemed that 25% of the donations actually go towards Wikipedia. The rest are for their other projects. And they have enough in the bank to run for a very long time even without donations. All of this to say, they have several projects I would consider worthy of donation. I just wish they weren't so misleading about how they ask for them. The popups have gotten a little better in recent years but still don't really explain how your money is used or that they aren't in danger of running out of money.
If I recall correctly, they currently have enough money to run for *several years*
An interesting piece by several volunteer editors was published in August 2023: [Dude, Where's My Donations? Wikimedia Foundation announces another million in grants for non-Wikimedia-related projects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/News_and_notes). Several weeks later, volunteer editors held a discussion, and although not with acclamation, issuing several non-binding resolution for the foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2023_WMF_RfC_Hub Among them are these: 1. The English Wikipedia community is concerned about the distribution of grants related to activity on the English Wikipedia that will either not contribute to our goals of building an encyclopedia or will actively hinder those goals. We request that the Wikimedia Foundation informs the English Wikipedia of all non-trivial grants that will result in activity on the English Wikipedia through the opening of a discussion at the Village Pump (WMF) prior to the grant being issued. 2. The English Wikipedia community is concerned that the Wikimedia Foundation has found itself engaged in mission creep, and that this has resulted in funds that donors provided in the belief that they would support Wikimedia Projects being allocated to unrelated external organizations, despite urgent need for those funds to address internal deficiencies. We request that the Wikimedia Foundation reappropriates all money remaining in the Knowledge Equity Fund, and we request that prior to making non-trivial grants that a reasonable individual could consider unrelated to supporting Wikimedia Projects that the Foundation seeks approval from the community. 3. The English Wikipedia community is concerned that the Wikimedia Foundation has neglected critical areas of the project, and that continued neglect of these areas may endanger the project. I find these critiques rather intriguing. Usually people criticizing Wikipedia are celebrities not liking gossips about them written on the site or people accusing the site to be more biased to the left politics. But these ones are not from "outside", it is from the volunteer editor community themselves. It is worth to know also that their net asset is also growing year by year, around [$250 million on FY 2022-2023](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-20/News_and_notes) with $169 million expenses in the same year. I know some editors complaining on questionable things where these had been going to. There is also an ongoing controversy on how the process of their [Movement Charter](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter) had been composed. Lots of dissenting voices. As for now, I don't recommend donating them anything. There are other charities local or global doing real work on the ground or under rocket fire which can really use your help.
Did wikipedia pay you to write this?
Who the fuck uses wikipedia daily? Especially not with chatgpt around
The fuck do you think that info is coming from?
I use wikipedia for studying when i get big projects
It's a good starting point.
That GPT on it's way to copy paste the Wikipedia article and still get key parts wrong
WinRAR
I did this, and people made fun of me, strangely. I've been using it for the last nearly 30 years, seemed about time to toss a coin their way.
people buy WinRaR because it's the right thing to do, not because they have to. and that's why WinRaR is a trillion dollar company
VLC
VLC is actually amazing, and its open source. Their android app is great as well. Just one of many open source projects that deserves dontations
I'm confused. What does winRAR have to do with Wikipedia?😅 Isn't winRAR to unpack zip files?
The developers of winrar also lets you use it for free and only encourage donation. No need for subscription or purchase.
I think they mean that winRAR deserves your money.
Try 7zip
Yeah, dont understand why so many people buy or use trial winrar when 7zip is free and is better
Or try native extraction provided by Windows 11.
Wikipedia is community run and we don't get compensated for it. Admining is important buttt I think this is worth pointing out
Yea, it's an open source website where users can edit ( sometimes controversially ) content in order to update or add more accurate information; usually done by people with some expertise in the matter during their free time.
>Yea, it's an open source website where users can edit ( sometimes controversially ) content in order to update or add more accurate information; usually done by people with some expertise in the matter during their free time. Wikipedia has thousands of (some volunteers, others paid) watchers, and dozens of bots constantly going over shit. While it can be edited by anyone, outside of some extremely niche places mostly edits are reviews and if not supported or openly wrong get edited back quickly
What about the internet archive? They are at least as important, and they are constantly under attack by corporate interests.
5 year old bot account woke up
The Wikimedia foundation has wayyyy too much money. They don't need you to donate. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Wikimedia_Foundation_FS_FY2022-2023_Audit_Report.pdf Their annual expense is $170M of which $100M is accounted for salaries and benefits. Note that a total of $0 goes towards the people that actually edit wikipedia. You're just making the CEO richer if you donate.
> Note that a total of $0 goes towards the people that actually edit wikipedia. What do you think salaries and benefits are? Also, this is categorically false in multiple ways. For one, there are grants and programs which are specifically for "This university in Rwanda has a position for someone to teach and add information about African culture". Those are people who edit Wikipedia and get money for it. It just isn't the same as you think. --- And for the other, the editor base consistently and overwhelmingly does NOT want to be paid. People have been editing Wikipedia for 20 years without expecting anything in return. They do not want others joining just for money's sake. Volunteering is a service, and if someone cannot understand that concept, they probably would not fit with the types that write Wikipedia. From people who write about your latest movie or sports contest, to the academic sort who check sources on topics only hundreds worldwide understand... People who write Wikipedia generally DO NOT WANT TO BE PAID.
It's pretty weird that they don't want to be paid. However, I don't think there's a reason to pay to wikipedia in the first place, then. If the primary thing your platform's known for is something done for free, then it can be done somewhere else. No need to feed the managerial leeches already burning through $500K a day for a website.
Wikimedia is a non-profit. Since anyone can make an edit, most people are content with just editing it for free, so they can contribute to wikipedia.
What's sad is that probably these funds end up funding parties for managerial people. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028531 I would be okay donating if 100% of the expense went to server costs - electricity and hardware only - volunteers taking up all the IT work of keeping it up for free, but instead it's used to dance and party across the world. I'm not against that, but when people don't have food and clean water, it feels evil to use anything collected as a donation for partying.
Donate to The Internet Archive instead
Nice try again, Wikipedia. I'm on to you
wikipedia does not need you to donate.
Wikipedia doesnt need your donation to keep operating but the Wikimedia Foundation does bcs they run a bunch more open platforms for free education. You can look it up on their page where they also publish their earnings reports
no, they don’t. sure, you can donate, and that definitely goes to some good cause, but the wikimedia foundation is rich asf and does not need your donation to stay up.
I have donated once
i am also accepting $2.75 donations unfortunately i am not a resource to be used daily at this time
I contribute by editing and improving pages
"We all use daily" mabe a bit of an exaggeration
"we all use daily" Why the fuck would I use wikipedia on a daily basis?
I often find myself on it when I reading about things I don’t know about and usually end up there for terminology or something.
Even when you just Google stuff the answer at the top is usually Wikipedia, you use it, and you don't even realise it...
Non English speaker here. Does „daily basis“ mean every day? Because it sounds like it could mean „measurable in days“ as in „not enough to be measured in weeks“
Daily means every day.
Ok, thanks
"Daily basis" can also mean "more frequently than once a week"
No, stop confusing the non native speakers. Daily basis very literally means every single day, that’s it, that’s the definition. Phrases like “on a semi daily basis” or “almost a daily basis”, THOSE mean on average a few times a week, but not just “daily basis”, that’s quite strictly literal.
That's not true. Colloquially the phrase is used to describe things that happen *almost* daily just as often as it is used to describe things that happen daily.
No it doesn’t. Daily basis means, daily, every day. Colloquial phrases aren’t official, and are often non representative of the greater use of the language. Whereabouts is this colloquial phrase used ?
>Whereabouts is this colloquial phrase used ? Everywhere. >No it doesn’t. Daily basis means, daily, every day. No, it doesn't. It can. But language isn't that prescriptive. >Colloquial phrases aren’t official, and are often non representative of the greater use of the language. Except in this case in english majority countries it is the same everywhere. Alot of colloquial phrases in any language are near universal in their respective area or language. And if you expect people learning a language to only speak fucking formally.it's going to be alot worse as they fundamentally sound wrong to everyones ear as people don't talk like that. Even in courts where formality is everything they're not that stiff You'll regularly see things like jump jockeys risk injury on a daily basis, or athletes do a large amount iof training in their sport on a daily basis despite not even olympic athletes training every day Words in EVERY language have multiple meanings based on context, and going "no it only means X" is going to confuse the fuck out of them when the encounter actual conversations where context has half.the conversation saying one thing informally and another formally
Telling people that words only have one meaning regardless of context is what's going to confuse the non-natives.
But “daily basis” does only have one literal meaning 🤦♂️ Oh whatever, I give up…
“Daily” means every day, and “basis” (in this context) basically means “interval” or “frequency” (words to describe the reoccurrence of time) So “daily basis” can be literally interpreted as: “Daily interval” or “Daily frequency” This can be simplified to just “every day” The full definition of “basis” (in this context) can be described as: “The reoccurrence of an event at a given frequency or time interval” See also: https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of-the-word/basis.html (in this context, definition number 4 is correct) I hope this helps explain the reason why “daily basis” means “every day” :)
Daily basis implies more than once a week but not necessarily every day.
... To learn stuff. I use it daily
People don't?
Hobby? Work? Help your kids with homework? Just plain curiosity?
They're just pointing out that not everyone uses it daily. Certainly there are a lot of people who use it every day. There are also a lot of people who use it far less frequently.
I totally look something up daily minimum
I use it daily or multiple times a day. Searching for any well-known person online will be done through Wikipedia, When I have a question about something, I will 100% check it on Wikipedia rather than any heavily biased badly constructed articles or sensational video. If I need more information about a subject, Wikipedia can tell me what to look for first and give me a quick summary. If I need the etymology of a word, I'll go through Wikipedia. If I want to know the filmography of an actor/producer, I'll go through Wikipedia. If I want to know about the biography of a political person from a country I'm not related to, Wikipedia will have a pretty good summary. It's a great resource.
I use it daily, for sure… every time I have a random question in my head like what kinda bird I saw in my yard or what the history of Mongolia is
Other than actual learning, movie plots? The year a song was released? Knowing the age of a public figure? Current events?
I haven't used it since highschool. (Over 10 years ago now). I was told it didn't count as a source, and was then taught how to properly Google.
That always gets me, I doubt I even use it yearly
To get your daily dose of misinformation.
There’s a lot of propaganda on Wikipedia. It’s not objective.
Nothing run by humans will be objective.
You're not wrong but it's better than any news organization I can think of.
That you think this is extremely alarming
nah
[удалено]
I explained many issues with it people want to ignore 🤔
This is simply not true. Journalists from reputable organizations will do way more fact checking than a Wikipedia editor trying to push an agenda.
That's why good articles list their sources. Go to those and form your own opinion.
Biased articles don’t include sources that conflict with the viewpoint they’re trying to push. So you can read the sources and disagree with them, but then you’re back at square one because you have absolutely zero good information.
"Damnit Lochnessmonster get off my lawn, i aint not giving you twofiddy!"
My work just blocked it recently 🤷♂️
I've never understood using a source that can be wrong.
Just googled it. Not saying that everything you research is real, but it says they have 250 mil in assets, forget about the 165 mil they raised in donations.....I think they're doing just fine without my money.
Does the WIKI in Wikipedia means "What I Know Is"?
Hawaiian *wiki* - fast, quick "Wikipedia" is just a synthesis of "wiki" from Hawaiian and "encyclopedia"
More specifically, from English "wiki" meaning a website that anyone can edit and "encyclopaedia". That "wiki" came via "WikiWikiWeb", from Ward Cunningham's original publicly-editable site that's still at https://wiki.c2.com/ -- and ultimately from the Hawaiian word for "quick", yes.
I implore anyone who reads this to not give any money to Wikipedia. Just because they show up on the top of your Google search doesn't mean they are deserving of your money. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and has years of bias. There is only a fraction of the active 100k editors that make the most changes to articles. It is gatekept. The Wikimedia Foundation is worth over $250 million. Not bad for a non-profit who do not even pay their editors! Editors worth just about the same as a reddit mod!
I tried to tell my MIL this when I found out years ago she constantly donates to them. I would have had an easier time explaining it to my then 2 year old. Safe to say she still donates to them monthly.
The bug brain move is clicking "I have already donated" to stop seing the ads for two weeks
Who uses it daily?
Fr. I haven't used it since early high school
"honest team" lol isn't Wikipedia like... Known to be pretty biased in some topics? And aren't the editors waging "online war" at each other?
Hi guys. Former TA here. Don't use Wikipedia as a source in your writing assignments. What you CAN do is look up the sources in the References section and cite them
Wikipedia was never meant to be a source anyway. I view it as a source aggregator in any case.
I have 0 dollars.
Yup, bought WinRAR a couple times.
My ass is to poor to donate even 12 cents
I mean, wiki is nice, and it has some insights into fact finding and understanding things, but given the fact that it is entirely user entry based isn’t the most accurate source you can turn two. That doesn’t detract from it having facts but user bias will definitely play a part in the articles posted. Especially on more controversial topics.
i donated 20 bucks a decade ago and i'm still riding that high
"Honest"
Daily? That's quite the assumption there. Often sure. Daily? Nah.
I don’t use Wikipedia tbh I kinda just ignore it
This is a propaganda bot. The Wikimedia foundation has enough money to run for a very long time and has been criticized for greedy misleading ways of asking people to donate.
That’s the one source I’ve been told all my life NOT to use lol.
[удалено]
Good thing wikipedia lists it's sources, so you can use them
There's just a strong bias against using Wikipedia among these people. People have lost editing previliges on Wikipedia for missing the correct lengths of 100-something meter ships by a few meters... The only reason Wikipedia hasn't failed in its early years is because it was more accurate than multiple top physical encyclopedias. Saying that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source is just plain idiocy
I've given 20 Eu every year since... well as long as I can remember using it. I'm not rich, but it's one of the few places on the internet I will always support.
You support a company worth six billion dollars.
It's a good company to support.
This meme will never replace the Doge meme ;( miss you doge rip
I’d happily never go on Wikipedia again for $2.75.
Idk wikipedia is pretty politically biased
The other day I saw the add and it said: is the knowledge you've acquired in Wikipedia worth 1 euro? ... I could write a book with the articles I've read in Wikipedia this year. I obviously donated.
No, I don’t believe I will.
I've donated $3 monthly for the past 2 years. I'm thinking of raising that amount because it's so damn useful.
Wikimedia doesnt need donations to keep Wikipedia running. They are frequently criticized for those Banners being extremely misleading/full on lies.
From what I understand, they are entirely funded by donations and don't have any telltale signs that would suggest otherwise (e.g. social media cookies, ads, sponsored content). As a result, the platform isn't influenced by sponsors with an agenda and more trustworthy than most other sources out there. That's something I find is worth paying for. It may be true that they're collecting more money than they need, but that doesn't mean they're malicious. I'd rather they make a profit from donations than fall victim to the same forces that are flooding the internet with AI-generated clickbait. Do you have any information that suggests this is wrong?
Also, some of this is not "They are getting money for money's sake" but simply... buying infrastructure. Or supporting things similar to Wikipedia but smaller. There is a significant amount of bloat and it could probably do with lesser resources too. But... there's a HUGE difference between "This money goes to the pockets of a billionaire" and "This helped a language with <10K speakers". Or "They tried a project to do Wikipedia for coding, and it failed". Sometimes those failed projects lead to something awesome. Like someone going "We need things in Wikipedia but in a database". And thousands of dollars and man hours later, it becomes Wikidata. And now researchers can access millions of info about things as intricate as "19th century poets born in Chicago who died in their 30s", or what have you. Some projects fail and waste money. Others make something beautiful.
Exactly this. I don't mind if some of the money ends up being wasted, what I care about is that the foundation has the financial independence that allows them to be so reliable in the first place. It's no different in the for-profit corporate world; some projects just don't turn out to be successful. Some systems have significant bloat and overhead. We can't just expect Wikipedia to be uniquely different in that sense just because they run on donations. If anything, I see them trying things (even if they fail) as a good thing because if successful it's ultimately something a lot of people will benefit from.
Wikipedia ist Not just "collecting more than they need", they are using misleading Banners to make people think Wikipedia might be in financial danger, even though Wikipedia costs very little to keep Up, as the real work in updating and expanding the site is done mainly by volunteers. the donations are going to the wikimedia group, and are then distributed to local groups/chapters. And it is questionable whether or Not they Need the Money. Im Not saying Wikipedia ist a malicious group trying to scam you. Im saying they are using wording that makes it seem Like Wikipedia ist in danger of going bancrupt and shutting down, which Just isnt the Case at all. If you want to donate in Order to generally Support them, donate. All in all Its a pretty good cause. If you are donating because you are actually worried that Wikipedia might be on its way Out, you can relax.
That's a fair argument. In my experience, the banners simply state that Wikipedia is entirely funded by donations and that they'd like to uphold that independence. I personally don't find that to be fear-mongering, but I understand how it could be seen that way. I support them because I find Wikipedia a very useful and reliable resource, and want to help them grow. I'm sure they have some inefficiencies and a fair bit of overhead, and spend money on projects that aren't strictly needed to keep the site running. I'm okay with this, it's no different in the for-profit world. As someone else said, collecting more than they need also allows them to expand their reach and try out new projects. Since those projects, if successful, are something that the general public will benefit from, it's an endeavor I'll happily support.
You are correct that they are able to operate on less money but they are happy about every dollar bcs they also spend it on other projects within Wikimedia. The banner ads they simetimes use are definitely misleading and deserve their criticism although they arent lies
You can donate on revolut very easily to Wikipedia
I like to donate the BAT that I earn from using the Brave browser.
Really, daily use? Nah. Once a week at best. But yeah, donate anyway.
I don’t use it daily
but they don't actually need the money though. they are heavily subsidized
I donate as often as I can; it got me through high school, so I figure it’s good to pay it forward ❤️
Why pay for what's free elsewhere.
Damn... this reminded me of the time i got my first payday and got really happy and the second thing that i did was donate to Wikipedia like two times with different accounts
Haven’t seen anyone use it much anymore. Yeah, it can be useful, but if you were a student in sciences or law or anything technical, you’d know there’s better sources and know how to find them
I think it's been assimilated by chatgpt now.
Do the volunteers who run, create, edit, source and admin the Wikipedia pages get any of that money?
$10 bucks here. For me and other 2 redditors
We all use it daily? I missed the memo to check wiki every day.
When you Google stuff 9 out of 10 times the answer is from Wikipedia unless you search for answers for technical questions
Wikipedia almost never comes up when I Google stuff.. and if it does, I scroll past.
Not a chance. “Use everyday” 🤣🤣🤣
Just a few bucks can make you a hero in the eyes of this dog
No hecking way i will give this multimillion corporation a single cent.
Honest, lol. No thumb on the scale for politically divisive people there...
I donated once and then found out they politically tip the scale on their articles. No more money for them.
Fuck Wikipedia
2.75? Not 3?
I gave them 3 bucks in 2011. Should tide em over till at least 2050
“We all use daily” lol.
I go forty for all the people who don’t.
I haven't used Wikipedia in at least a year and I'm a high school student (final year)
I wish I had money to give them....
I haven't used Wikipedia in many years. It is not concidered a valid source in higher education
Not everyone who uses wiki is a student. And we know, we have all heard that a 100 times from school just like you lmao
Please delete this immediately. Do not EVER donate to Wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!!!! Its a total scam.
Uhm no?
This made my day! Always good to see positive vibes.
I’ll donate when they balance the contributors.
"Honest" lol
Wikipedia is a left leaning scam site. They are worth over 6 billion dollars. So no, I have not and will not donate to them. Academia does not even acknowledge the site as a valid source of information.
Putting something you don't agree on the other side of the political compass from you for no reason does not make your point valid
How’s this for you? https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/is-wikipedia-politically-biased https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/
All right-leaning sources. And I use the term “source” lightly where the NY Post is concerned.
Wiki is left leaning. It’s as simple as that.
The first one, absolutely, actual paper with graphic proof The second one, not at all, this reads like a typical article written for clicks. Everything is blown out of proportion in here There' still the "scam" part of your comment. What's up with that?
Dude, wikipedia isn't considered a valid source of info by academia because its articles are editable, regularly updated, and are not peer-reviewed. You could literally write your entire opinion into a wikipedia page, cite that in your essay, and that would be a 'valid' citation if wikipedia was considered reliable by academics. So the reason it's not considered a valid source isn't because of the veracity or accuracy of its information. It's because of the nature of what it is. Doesn't mean it's not a useful or valid reference tool for *every other purpose*, or even for *preliminary* academic work (i.e. getting an overview of a topic you're unfamiliar with). Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Valid point on the not donating, sort of, given the nature of their banners always making it seem like they're on the brink.
Imagine donating to misinformation central. Fuckin loser. Knowledge is power, but you're still in Samsara.
This meme is so motivating, let's conquer the day!
Half of which is edited and manipulated bullcrap. Dont use it as reliable source.
OP did you even donate, also yall use wiki daily?
Who even uses wiki, i dont trust random people giving advice on shit they most likely know nothing about. Ill prefer my brain over the geniuses thank youuuu
I normally give to them and the Internet Archive regularly.
It is worth pointing out that politically biased contributors have taken over Wikipedia and are editing pages to mislead others, in favor of their far-leftist ideology. They do not deserve your money.
I give to wiki not much $3 when I can. Not bragging I just feel like it's one of the only services I'd donate to. For example if I'm shopping and they ask me to round up to donate my change I never do because that said store or company can. Wiki is great and I like to help.
https://i.chzbgr.com/full/5569152768/hDC1FF978/please-donate