| Pages in topic: [1 2] > |
Do you contribute to Wikipedia? Thread poster: Tom in London
|
|---|
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:46
Member (2008)
Italian to English
As a frequent user of Wikipedia I'm keen to see it continue without selling out to the advertising industry, so I have
(a) signed up to be an editor (although so far I've only made one edit)
(b) made a small financial contribution and may do so again.
You?
| | | |
Keith Jackson 
France
Local time: 12:46
Member (2017)
French to English
+ ...
Small yearly donation, gladly given.
| | | |
But I wish they'd then stop asking for more.
| | | |
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 12:46
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Let them advertise. As long as they don't gather personal data, let them advertise. As long as its clear what content is the website and what content is the advertisement, I see no problem here.
| | |
|
|
|
To make edits to Wikipedia, there is no need to sign up to anything. I just make some edits every now and then, when I see an error or can contribute something useful. Such anonymous edits are logged by Wikipedia under editor's IP address.
| | | |
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:46
Member (2008)
Italian to English
TOPIC STARTER
Samuel Murray wrote:
Let them advertise. As long as they don't gather personal data, let them advertise. As long as its clear what content is the website and what content is the advertisement, I see no problem here.
There are good reasons why Wikipedia does not accept advertising. If it became reliant on income from advertisers, the advertisers would be able to influence the information that Wikipedia offers. Or could prevent Wikipedia from publishing certain types of information. The same applies to any other website that relies on advertising.
Advertisers seek to influence the content of websites through various strategies and partnerships, e.g.:
An ad placed close to a particular Wikipedia entry, targeted at the demographic of people who would be interested in that entry.
Sponsored content could be designed to blend in with Wikipedia's content and is not clearly marked as sponsored.
Data-driven Targeting: advertisers could use data analytics and targeting technologies to deliver personalised ads based on what they see you looking at, or searching for, on Wikipedia and delivering Wikipedia pages that they control.
etc.
That's why for all its faults, I try to support Wikipedia.
[Edited at 2024-01-02 12:35 GMT]
(later) and I bet there are advertisers who would just LOVE to get their hands on Wikipedia - so well done Jimmy Wales, for defending internet freedom.
[Edited at 2024-01-02 12:39 GMT]
| | | |
Zea_Mays
Italy
Local time: 12:46
Member (2009)
English to German
+ ...
| contributed a little sum every year | Jan 2 |
in the past years.
| | | |
| Thanks for the reminder! | Jan 2 |
I have contributed, and it´s probably time to contribute again.
For all the reasons given above, I hope Wikipedia can stay free of advertising.
Great resource, for everything from family discussions to crossword solutions, as well as for work purposes.
| | |
|
|
|
Baran Keki
Türkiye
Local time: 13:46
Member
English to Turkish
I've often seen people get criticized on online forums for getting their facts from Wikipedia, as if it weren't a reliable source of information, so you think that's not the case?
| | | |
| The problem with Wiki is .... | Jan 2 |
Baran Keki wrote:
I've often seen people get criticized on online forums for getting their facts from Wikipedia, as if it weren't a reliable source of information, so you think that's not the case?
.... that anybody, expert or not in the given subject, can make an edit. That is why I take their information with a pinch of salt.
[Edited at 2024-01-02 13:20 GMT]
And no, I don't make a contribution.
[Edited at 2024-01-02 13:22 GMT]
| | | |
Kay Denney
France
Local time: 12:46
French to English
I'm with Tom all the way, Wikipedia embodies everything that's wonderful about Internet. I love that it's ad-free because I don't trust websites that are full of ads and it's horrible having to navigate pop-ups and wait for ads to finish before seeing the end of a video. It's very often the place I start when looking for information. I haven't ever donated but I shall do so (just need to get up to get my credit card!).
As for how reliable it is: it does seem pretty reliable. Whenev... See more I'm with Tom all the way, Wikipedia embodies everything that's wonderful about Internet. I love that it's ad-free because I don't trust websites that are full of ads and it's horrible having to navigate pop-ups and wait for ads to finish before seeing the end of a video. It's very often the place I start when looking for information. I haven't ever donated but I shall do so (just need to get up to get my credit card!).
As for how reliable it is: it does seem pretty reliable. Whenever I've looked at a page on a subject I have extensive knowledge of, it's all correct, so chances are other pages are of similar quality. And the best thing is that each page ends with a list of links to the sources. The links are usually to highly reputable sources, like the World Bank and the IMF for banking terms, WHO for healthcare terms and so on, so I'll invariably click through to see what they say. I might send a Wiki link to a client, and I'll tell them I found the right term by looking up the links. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Tony Keily
Local time: 12:46
Italian to English
+ ...
| They get my 5 per 1000 | Jan 2 |
Every year I donate 0.5% of my Italian income tax to Wikipedia.
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 12:46
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Tom in London wrote:
If [Wikipedia] became reliant on income from advertisers, the advertisers would be able to influence the information that Wikipedia offers. Or could prevent Wikipedia from publishing certain types of information.
Yes, but Wikipedia already does that quite successfully, even without advertisers. Various topics have been hijacked by cabals of editors who have a specific agenda, and it's impossible to make any contributions that do not mesh with that agenda. For example, the cabal in control of pseudo-science hold that American homeopathy is the only homeopathy in the world, so any edits relating to homeopathy elsewhere in the world (where we don't actually practice extreme dilution) gets deleted unless the practice of homeopathy in that other country is the same as in the US.
Sometimes, even a small cabal can have influence. Take the page about CafeTran, for example. A group of maybe 5 editors decided that CafeTran should not get a page (despite many other CAT tools having pages), and there is NOTHING anyone can do about that.
| | | |
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:46
Member (2008)
Italian to English
TOPIC STARTER
Samuel Murray wrote:
.....A group of maybe 5 editors decided that CafeTran should not get a page (despite many other CAT tools having pages), and there is NOTHING anyone can do about that.
There is an unfinished French version here but it needs work before Wikipedia will accept it.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafetran_Espresso
| | | |
Peter Motte
Belgium
Local time: 12:46
Member (2009)
English to Dutch
+ ...
Samuel Murray wrote:
Sometimes, even a small cabal can have influence. Take the page about CafeTran, for example. A group of maybe 5 editors decided that CafeTran should not get a page (despite many other CAT tools having pages), and there is NOTHING anyone can do about that.
That's a recurring problem with W: amateurs thinking they know best. Some editors and wikipedians are a real pain in the ass. I've seen pages on authors being deleted by only two (2!) wikipedians and none of them actually being versed in literature. One of them boosted contributions on scutcheons of Dutch municipalities, and he wasn't even a historian.
No, I have never donated, and won't do it either. W diminished the variety of sources. Lots of paper encyclopedia's disappeared because of W, and too often people rely solely on W.
I don't really see a reason to support it, but I have written some contributions for it. Nowadays I only correct mistakes, sometimes. But it's not a pleasant place anymore to do something. Imagine: you have to do everything for free, but it has demands. The only thing it did, was putting copywriters out of business.
| | | |
| Pages in topic: [1 2] > |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
