SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 107
  1. #51
    SitePoint Enthusiast fvsch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Lyon, France
    Posts
    64
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I donated to Wikipedia in the past, and may donate again. I find the website useful, i appreciate the efforts of contributors, and i have no gripes against this project or the Wikimedia foundation.

    I won't feel bad if i don't end up donating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edman View Post
    What's the difference between a giant donate banner and a giant ad banner? The fact that some people feel better?
    You may qualify a donation banner or any call to action on a website as an advertisement. But then you are using a broad definition of advertisement, and it should be clear that this definition will cover very different cases.

    If you start describing the features of such messages, you could list a few questions:
    - does it come from the publisher or from a third party?
    - is it advertising a non-profit or a business?
    - does it sell a product, a service, or call for donations, or simply for attention (with no direct transformation goal)?
    - are you comfortable with the nature of what is being advertised?
    - are you comfortable with that advertisement in the context of the publication (which has its own purpose and audience)?
    (I may have missed a few important questions.)

    The difference between a giant donate banner and a giant add banner is that you are likely to have very different answers for those questions in each case. Of course one could not care about those questions and adopt an “anything goes” take on advertisement (or the opposite extreme view: “any form of advertisement or institutional communication is evil”).

  2. #52
    Word Painter silver trophy Shyflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Winona, MN USA
    Posts
    10,053
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Wikipedia is entertaining and a great FYI site, but as far as I'm concerned, that should be the extent of it and no... I don't donate to it.

    I like Raena's point. I don't believe Wikipedia is a charity, even if it is non-profit. However, if it wants to call itself a charity, then let it go out and find donors like charities do, not from its end users. Do you suppose that the Red Cross asks the injured and starving to donate when they hand out medical care and food? Of course not.

    I also agree with Tomovuk. Why should I donate to the competition? Wikipedia, first on nearly every search page, makes it more difficult to optimize my clients' content for the search engines and multiplies my difficulty in finding good, authoritative, from-the-horse's-mouth, information when I do a search.

    If you download their financial plan, you'll see they are projecting over a 50% increase in spending for the coming year. How many of you are considering an increase in spending like that over next year?

    I'm not saying that they shouldn't have a donate button for those who want to donate, but the huge banners on the top of each page are, in my opinion, a bit over the top and the recent "appeal" reads more like one of those "save the children" commercials, with the fat spokes person standing by the woeful looking child.

    Moreover, although Wikipedia can be a good place to start research, it is not the spot where you should end. When I do use Wikipedia, unless the information is well-referenced, so that I can fact-check it at the source, it's of no value to me. Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia of world knowledge, however I find it is often more an encyclopedia of opinion, rumor, and error.

    There are many other research sites that do advertise on their sites and offer subscriptions as well. There are also many college sites that freely offer volumes of information. Not to forget the many organizations, for instance the American Cancer Society, and government sites that have in depth coverage of a topic.

    In other words, information is freely available on the web. Wikipedia is not the be-all, end-all information source and certainly not the most authoritative source.
    Linda Jenkinson
    "Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean." ~Unknown

  3. #53
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wikipedia is my primary source of information for new subjects. I really like Wikipedia and I think, I go to Wikipedia once a day minimum. But the data available there cannot be trusted because anyone can change that. For important data, one should look for another source. For general information its great.

    Regarding donation, Yes I have donated them and will do so in future.
    marketing advice to Atlanta Marketing website!
    Atlanta GA Marketing
    Atlanta Marketing

  4. #54
    SitePoint Addict zipperz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    329
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I like Wikipedia I usually do all my research through books but sometimes when I need to look something up on the web it is nice to have Wikipedia.
    Most of the time when I look something up on the web there is Wikipedia then a handful of garbage adsense sites with spun content or copied content from the other handful of sites in horrible English the makes no sense. Or you get sites like about.com with 3 sentences and 5 blinking click ads.

    Usually Wikipedia has half knowledgeable people editing stuff and putting relevant links in there not just some 3rd world content spinners trying to stuff keywords and earn $7 a week off of the ads.

    I would donate some $ if I had more to spare or used it more but I don't. I don't believe all of the "helping the underdeveloped world" or on the "brink of closing down" sounds like your typical fund raiser slogans to me.

    But Wikipedia is a quality site in a sea of garbage it saves me some time looking through junk sites looking for some quick info.

  5. #55
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I've been reading this thread and found the opinions rather interesting actually. What I would say is while I don't have an opinion on Jimmy Wales I do think that Wikipedia has managed to niche it's way into a potentially viable business which means I don't feel that contributions from donations are the right way to go about it. One potential revenue stream they could follow through for example would be to allow people to select 100 articles and have them printed in book form, the amount they could make in relevant textbooks from the stuff housed on that website could be staggering. I certainly won't be donating to Wikipedia as there are other non-profit's who donate to charity which need the money far more than a business which could raise it's costs very quickly and easily without resorting to begging.

  6. #56
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    141
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Adding a web search box does not place any ads anywhere on the Wikipedia site. It's simply a way out when people are ready to leave wikipedia that would also provide significant income to the site.

    Firefox is largely funded by its search ad revenue, but that project has not taken any commercial turn for the worse, or implemented any features designed to make you use the search box more because of it.
    And then why not place text ads at the bottom of the page for certain items like, say, Nintendo Wiis? There's a good chance the person reading a wikipedia article on Wikipedia could be interested in buying one anyways so all you're doing is meeting a user's needs.

    It's a slippery slope argument obviously.
    www.ChineseImporting.com Guide to importing products from China.

  7. #57
    SitePoint Guru Webinsane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montenegro
    Posts
    898
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When someone takes Wikipedia dislike out of proportions:

    http://www.wikipedia-watch.org


    CUBE SCRIPTS MEDIA
    REAL ESTATE SCRIPT 2.0 | Software for Real Estate Agencies

  8. #58
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Uh maybe if I didnt constantly see wrong information on there I would consider donating. I would have done it already if I was a wealthier person.

  9. #59
    SitePoint Evangelist webfreebies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    434
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I will NEVER donate to Wikipedia-- in fact, I am waiting for this overrated meme and hack of a site to close so I can do a Mexican hat dance on its grave.
    Retro-Ads.net- vintage ads from the 20s-80s.
    NYC-Pics.com- free photos of NYC

  10. #60
    Floridiot joebert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Kenneth City, FL
    Posts
    823
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There's also the history of PageRank and Google to consider. PageRank is Citation Rank. The whole method was based off how academic papers are ranked in importance by how many other papers cite them. Wikipedia cites its sources just like an academic paper, but those sources don't benefit from how often they're cited since they're blocking the PR process.
    This sounds like a good argument to me.

  11. #61
    Headed Home! KM Richards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    I'm right Here!
    Posts
    707
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    If you want to donate to a web site then there are a huge number of sites that are far more worthy of receiving your donation than Wikipedia is.
    Such as...???

    If a business cannot figure out how to pay thier bills, they should go away.

  12. #62
    Non-Member DelvarWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Baloney
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DelvarWorld View Post
    No one is more deserving of my money than I am.
    bless you

  13. #63
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you Want to donate then I personly feels that there are sites in huge numbers other than wikipedia where you can donate

  14. #64
    Headed Home! KM Richards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    I'm right Here!
    Posts
    707
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DelvarWorld View Post
    No one is more deserving of my money than I am
    Selfish often?

    Not saying wikipedia is a valid place to donate,
    but you should donate to places that are helping
    others so you can give something back to help others.

    It's good for the soul. If you don't help others,
    it's bad for the soul contributing to your delinquency

  15. #65
    SitePoint Addict cecille20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Pearl of th orrient
    Posts
    267
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I donate if I got good information to them

  16. #66
    Sesame Street Iimitk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Are we discussing Wikipedia, or donating to Wikipedia? These are quite distinct matters. Although I did donate to Wikipedia, some of the arguments against that here are solid, and well worth consideration.

    What I see unreasonable and inconsiderable, is the negativity towards Wikipedia itself. The question regarding its content's accuracy has been answered since the famous Nature magazine article back in 2005. It is not perfect, nor it should be. And when compared to the current mainstream media dependency on gossip, recency, innuendo and all such inaccuracies to stay on topic, I think Wikipedia is way more perfect. I'd like to draw your attention to a recent case when dealing with the health care debate, that was investigated by the Journalism Review magazine:
    http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/h..._wikipedia.php
    Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Einstein

  17. #67
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    79
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For about 7 years now I've been discussing and researching an alternative health area. This particular area is mentioned on Wikipedia and has been actively suppressed by various people, supported by Wikipedia, to the point that not only is the alternative view not recommended (fair enough, perhaps) but it is not even allowed to be fairly described.

    To the point that certain facts are completely mis-stated - even lied about. I don't imply here that Wikipedia is deliberately complicit in lying - however, the model lends itself to suppressing a minority view from being expressed, even when that minority view might be scientifically at least worthy of serious consideration, and Wikipedia does nothing to allow that minority expression.

    So, Wikipedia does provide some real value, yes, but I will never support an organization that does not actively encourage the expression of minority views. Even if accompanied by a rider such as "Warning! The majority of people do not agree with this view!".

  18. #68
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    but I will never support an organization that does not actively encourage the expression of minority views.
    What did you think wikipedia was? It's an encyclopedia. Not a forum, not a democracy, not some Politically Correct theses.

    Everyone has their own Truth, but an encyclopedia is supposed to reflect what is verifiable and noteworthy. If Piltdown man is verifiable then it goes in the encyclopedia until further information shows it's verifiably false. Which has nothing to do with whether it truly IS false.

    Just because someone has an alternative belief doesn't mean it should be sitting in the encyclopedia.

  19. #69
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I donate my time to provide quality articles too.

  20. #70
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    if you want to donate,then their are many sites available rather then wikipedia

  21. #71
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I haven't donated anything in wikipedia but I sure do use their website in my research..

  22. #72
    SitePoint Evangelist webfreebies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    434
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    What did you think wikipedia was? It's an encyclopedia
    LOL... Really? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? What encyclopedia has company profiles on obscure porn merchants (Viv Thomas), bios of obscure B movie actors (Robert Z'Dar), or explanations of offensive slang terms (Dirty Sanchez)? Or maybe I'm wrong-- Encyclopedia Brittanica has lengthy explanations of what a Cleveland Steamer or Donkey Punch are.

    Oh, wait a second... I'm NOT wrong. You know why? Legitimate encyclopedias like Brittanica write entries on subject matter worth researching, not garbage like the stuff I mentioned. Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia by any stretch of the imagination; if it were, it would stick to important subjects worth researching, not plunder stuff from sites like The Urban Dictionary or "The Dirty Sanchez list" in the quest for new "entries" to spam the engines with, no matter how worthless or inappropriate the thing being plundered.
    Retro-Ads.net- vintage ads from the 20s-80s.
    NYC-Pics.com- free photos of NYC

  23. #73
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    that's sound pretty good

  24. #74
    Sesame Street Iimitk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by webfreebies View Post
    LOL... Really? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? What encyclopedia has company profiles on obscure porn merchants (Viv Thomas), bios of obscure B movie actors (Robert Z'Dar), or explanations of offensive slang terms (Dirty Sanchez)? Or maybe I'm wrong-- Encyclopedia Brittanica has lengthy explanations of what a Cleveland Steamer or Donkey Punch are.

    Oh, wait a second... I'm NOT wrong. You know why? Legitimate encyclopedias like Brittanica write entries on subject matter worth researching, not garbage like the stuff I mentioned. Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia by any stretch of the imagination; if it were, it would stick to important subjects worth researching, not plunder stuff from sites like The Urban Dictionary or "The Dirty Sanchez list" in the quest for new "entries" to spam the engines with, no matter how worthless or inappropriate the thing being plundered.
    Welcome to the dilemmatic world of deletionism vs. inclusionism.
    Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Einstein

  25. #75
    Non-Member DelvarWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Baloney
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by webfreebies View Post
    Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia by any stretch of the imagination; if it were, it would stick to important subjects worth researching, not plunder stuff from sites like The Urban Dictionary or "The Dirty Sanchez list" in the quest for new "entries" to spam the engines with, no matter how worthless or inappropriate the thing being plundered.
    http://www.google.com/search?client=...utf-8&oe=utf-8

    Lewd sex terms are still knowledge. Being G rated is irrelevant.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •