4 ms·

I've donated to Wikipedia and contributed content as well but now I've decided not to anymore for the time being. Any kind of controversial article is decided m

I've donated to Wikipedia and contributed content as well but now I've decided not to anymore for the time being. Any kind of controversial article is decided more by the amount of time which side has to push their agenda rather than any kind of objective Neutral Point of View. There is a lot of astroturfing as well.

jonahbenton 5y ago
With respect, think about what you are saying. You are not going to contribute with good intentions to a public service because there are people with bad intentions contributing to it...
- 5560675260 5y ago
  The problem is that there is nothing done about people with bad intentions on organisational level.
  - trompetenaccoun 5y ago
    Wikipedia folks are aware of the problem and there have been many changes over the years to better protect neutrality. I agree the situation is still far from perfect but Wikipedia is still one of the bastions of free information out there. They could have commercialized it but it became a non-profit relying on donations from users (as opposed to corporations) for a good reason. What will happen when Wikimedia is gone? There's a reason there's such a relentless smear campaign against it. Instead of turning our backs we have to think of ways we can support Wikipedia and protect it from shills with deep pockets. If you have any ideas on how this can be done more effectively try bringing them up! Anyone can sign up and participate. That's Wikipedia's strength and weakness.
    - busymom0 5y ago
      > Instead of turning our backs we have to think of ways we can support Wikipedia and protect it from shills with deep pockets. Have you actually looked at where most of the donations come from? They come from DEEP POCKETS. In 2019, Google made $2 million contribution to the Wikimedia Endowment and another $1.1 million to the Wikimedia Foundation: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-million-to-wikipedias-parent-org/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-milli... Amazon, Google.org, Musk Foundation, George Soros, Facebook all donating $2 million+ https://wikimediaendowment.org/#benefactors https://wikimediaendowment.org/#benefactors Look at who their benefactors were in 2019 apart from 7 "Major benefactors" who were anonymous: https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/benefactors/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/benefactors/ Wikipedia folks have done the exact opposite to "protect neutrality" and "bastions of free information". They openly block any edits of articles even when the said article is slandering someone as long as it fits the political narrative. And if one simply looked at their co-founder and other admin's twitter feed, one would realize that they don't care about "neutrality".
mavhc 5y ago
But the arguments and the edit history are public. Better than any other site where the pov is decided by who has the most money

jonahbenton 5y ago

With respect, think about what you are saying. You are not going to contribute with good intentions to a public service because there are people with bad intentions contributing to it...

5560675260 5y ago
The problem is that there is nothing done about people with bad intentions on organisational level.
- trompetenaccoun 5y ago
  Wikipedia folks are aware of the problem and there have been many changes over the years to better protect neutrality. I agree the situation is still far from perfect but Wikipedia is still one of the bastions of free information out there. They could have commercialized it but it became a non-profit relying on donations from users (as opposed to corporations) for a good reason. What will happen when Wikimedia is gone? There's a reason there's such a relentless smear campaign against it. Instead of turning our backs we have to think of ways we can support Wikipedia and protect it from shills with deep pockets. If you have any ideas on how this can be done more effectively try bringing them up! Anyone can sign up and participate. That's Wikipedia's strength and weakness.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    > Instead of turning our backs we have to think of ways we can support Wikipedia and protect it from shills with deep pockets. Have you actually looked at where most of the donations come from? They come from DEEP POCKETS. In 2019, Google made $2 million contribution to the Wikimedia Endowment and another $1.1 million to the Wikimedia Foundation: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-million-to-wikipedias-parent-org/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-milli... Amazon, Google.org, Musk Foundation, George Soros, Facebook all donating $2 million+ https://wikimediaendowment.org/#benefactors https://wikimediaendowment.org/#benefactors Look at who their benefactors were in 2019 apart from 7 "Major benefactors" who were anonymous: https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/benefactors/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/benefactors/ Wikipedia folks have done the exact opposite to "protect neutrality" and "bastions of free information". They openly block any edits of articles even when the said article is slandering someone as long as it fits the political narrative. And if one simply looked at their co-founder and other admin's twitter feed, one would realize that they don't care about "neutrality".

mavhc 5y ago

But the arguments and the edit history are public. Better than any other site where the pov is decided by who has the most money