I’ve just sent a donation to Wikipedia - anyone else?

Completely agree Monica. My children’s generation seem to expect all info free of charge and even get irritated by adverts on YouTube. I always point out that someone, somewhere has gathered all this and someone somewhere has to pay. I donate to Wiki partly because I’m shocked how many don’t.

That's the problem for me. I would probably have my interfering hat on!

Marydoll Slighty off piste. Has anyone ever contributed to Wikipedia? Just curious

I modified an entry once when I saw a glaring error. Unfortunately I have no memory now of what the subject was

Love Wiki ands use it a lot for background details of subjects of interest to me (I accept that facts may not be 100% accurate, but responsible books may equally be wrong), so for last 5 years or so have happily made a token donation. Was in hospital when their annual request came through this year and for personal reasons don't feel able to contribute for now, but hopefully will go back to giving next year.

Slighty off piste. Has anyone ever contributed to Wikipedia? Just curious.

Yes I've donated twice ,only small amounts.RecentlyI also donated to Sight savers after being touched by tv ad. We are very lucky in this country.

Yup £10 a year - well worth it. If anyone uses it and is wondering - cough up - how much would you spend on a coffee out?

I dont want to detail either but the idea that the guardian is free from influence is laughable, and I say that as a former guardian reader.

Doodledog I subscribe to the Guardian too, but I’m not sure that its content is completely free from influence, viz the recent sacking of Suzanne Moore over her position on transgender issues.

That is not intended as a thread-derailer by the way. If anyone wants to discuss Suzanne Moore or transgender issues (personally I don’t) please start another thread

Doodlebug, I agree with your comments on referencing. Any essays I have ever written were strictly scrutinised and had to be referenced using the Harvard System. Quoting from Wikipedia would not be accepted.

I suppose it's a matter of horses for courses.

Sorry M0nica. There is a typo in your name in my last post, which I can’t correct.

I am very surprised to hear that your son accepts Wikipedia references in essays, M0nika. I have never known them to be accepted, and I don’t understand what difference the subject matter makes. In my experience they are looked on as a sign of immaturity in a students who does not understand how Wikipedia works. A decent article will be fully referenced anyway, and there is nothing to stop a student from following up the references and quoting the original sources, as they would be expected to do if they read a reported source of information in a book.

I agree about paying for things we use though. I know people who would never pay for a downloaded knitting pattern, for instance, or an app, and expect kindle books to be free. That attitude denies people the chance of making a living from their art, and I don’t know why these people think that others should work for nothing. It’s not the same as giving to charity, IMO - it is simply paying for a product, whether it is tangible or virtual.

As I said, I do use Wikipedia, but not often enough to feel that I should pay, whereas I do subscribe to the Guardian, as it is the UK’s only independent newspaper, and I think it is important to pay journalists to provide news that is not influenced by media owners.

Bluebelle, there was nothing wrong with your post. The comment annoyed me too, I didn't see the need for it . Please don't let it upset you. Sometimes people post, without thinking of the impact on others. I'm sure it wasn't intended to hurt.

I use it because it is the first thing that cones up when I search for something, not because I prefer it. So far I haven’t donated, but I may do sometime.

Wikipedia is very useful for basic information I use it a lot, and I give £10 a year, As for accuracy, maybe, but you can say that of most publications, bias is rife by political influence, at least Wiki is unbiased and can be challenged by anyone.

The truth or benefit of any issue can be argued many ways and is very often promoted by political agendas, in many cases the outcome is the wrong one.

Yes I donate.
Love wiki.

*stonking. Oops!

A very interesting discussion and points of view ladies - thank you very much for posting.

I’m with you MissA about being wary. I suppose it was giving my card details & security code on line to a source I’d not used before and also in my little world hadn’t ever heard of anyone donating to. I press ‘send’ with my fingers crossed!

Also I do realise how much ‘Wikipedia’ is my go-to site. I’m not an intellectual - my questions are often stuff like ‘is Joan Collins still alive?’ (sorry there, Joanie) or I’ll click on ‘Bob Monkhouse’ to see what age he was when he died (75y).

Remember the days of the stinking big encyclopaedia in the house - if you were lucky - we weren’t but my friend up the road had one and I used to scoot up to refer to theirs! They were only relevant though at the time of publication (obv) so if say you looked up ‘Bob Monkhouse’ and he was still living at the time the encyclopaedia was published, the entry for him would give his birth date followed by a dash (to indicate he was still alive). However if by the time you had perhaps looked him up a few years had passed since the book had been purchased you’d have no idea whether or not he was (a) alive or (b) the date he has died.

IYSWIM. That was a very convoluted paragraph there!

If I was trying to be succinct (hmm, not me at all, sadly) I’d say I think the internet is bluddy fantastic for up to date information and how lucky are we all that the World Wide Web is free to us in this way? I’m with you there MOnica it’s going to be my small part in saying ‘thank you very much’ going forward!

How unpleasant for calling me virtuous Monica because my opinion differs to yours and telling me I m virtue signalling what a nasty thing to say
That’s very hurtful

I feel that donating to Wikipedia isn’t the same as donating to charity. The charities I donate to are for a specific purpose, eg Crisis. I picture the money I send being used to help a real person (yes I know some of it goes on admin).

But with Wikipedia, and the Conversation which is another source if information I donate to, it’s more about contributing to a general public good.

I haven’t donated in the past, but will now after reading these posts. I use the site a lot, though I’m well aware that I’d need to check its information if I were using it for anything important.

I actually feel quite guilty now. It’s a useful service (nothing to do with charity), and those of us who use it should support it.

By the way, my post is not meant to show virtue signalling!!!

I did read that a research paper had been done, which revealed that about 80% of info was accurate. Another piece of research showed 90% accuracy.

As I wouldn't really consider using it, there is no need for me to donate. Any spare cash I have goes to Mary's Meals, which feeds and educates children in deprived countries.
£96.40 will provide a hot meal and educate six children for a year, only £2.40 of which goes in admin costs. At the moment, as well as the charity benefitting from gift aid, the UK Government is matching donations. Its a no brainer for me.

However, its up to individuals what they do with their cash, I have no problem with people using, or donating to Wikipedia.

There would be no sites like Wikipedia without donations.

It is the same old thing I saw throughout my working life. People seem to think that information is free. Even 'free' public libraries have always been paid for by Local Authorities through the rates. The 'free' NHS through taxation.

If you leave all sources of information to be paid for and run by the mega-rich, or those with the time and sponsors to make sure all information meets their view point do so, but the best way to get people out of poverty and to help mitigate disasters, is to give people access to good reliable information and many of these sources from Wikipedia to Project Gutemberg and other widely available free sites are available because ordinary people like you and me make contributions to keep them going.

It sounds very virtuous to say^ I don’t have much spare cash but what I do will go to poverty and disasters^ but I am sure that at various times you have given money to other causes: contributing to your DGC's school, by going to the Summer Fete, or buying £1 of raffle tickets. Have you never ever donated in a small way to provide some immediate local amenity. Virtue signalling.

Yes, I find it very useful. I know it can be edited by anyone but I think Wikipedia themselves have fact-checkers.