Wikipedia is rattling the tin cup again...

[justoffal]

I have made use of it over the years. I can remember how they basically destroyed the encyclopedia business 20 years ago.
I really don't use it that much however.
Past 5 years or so I've been very suspicious as much of their information takes the opportunity to be politically tainted. Ultimately I do not trust them as a premium source. Still thinking of contributing, haven't made up my mind yet.

Bottom line....they exist in a nether region between what people need to know and what people want to know. Not sure how many people will pay for that.

 

[Oddball]

They've become almost as bad as the PBS/NPR beg-a-thons.

Will never contribute to those charlatans.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Wikipedia tends to be an opinion based web site. I've corrected a subject based on City & Guilds literature. So if you did that construction discipline, that's what you would be taught. The person that did that subject deleted my edit.

So I wouldn't hold Wikipedia as gospel, it's as accurate as the American media.

And I certainly wouldn't be foolish enough to donate to them.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I have made use of it over the years. I can remember how they basically destroyed the encyclopedia business 20 years ago.
I really don't use it that much however.
Past 5 years or so I've been very suspicious as much of their information takes the opportunity to be politically tainted. Ultimately I do not trust them as a premium source. Still thinking of contributing, haven't made up my mind yet.

Bottom line....they exist in a nether region between what people need to know and what people want to know. Not sure how many people will pay for that.

Apparently, Wikipedia won't allow authors to quote/link The Daily Mail (UK rag). I find that ironic because they don't work to a better standard.

I use it as an initial source, but I like to Google for other relevant links. Tbh thought, if I'm replying to a Lefty and the Wikipedia page backs my argument, I just copy and paste the link, lol. They often don't have the brains to realise that.

 

[marvin martian]

I have made use of it over the years. I can remember how they basically destroyed the encyclopedia business 20 years ago.
I really don't use it that much however.
Past 5 years or so I've been very suspicious as much of their information takes the opportunity to be politically tainted. Ultimately I do not trust them as a premium source. Still thinking of contributing, haven't made up my mind yet.

Bottom line....they exist in a nether region between what people need to know and what people want to know. Not sure how many people will pay for that.

Wikipedia is a failed experiment.

 

[JanetTheGreat]

Wikipedia is just another captured media site that promotes the baseless propaganda the same way the other media sites do.