Wikipedia Sucks!

Andreas' still banging the drum, suitably updated.

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedi ... ndraising/

Lots of damaging stuff, but let this sink in for a little bit.....

The WMF set themselves a fund raising target for their rainy day fund of $100 million.

They're about to reach their goal, and in half the time they had planned, in five years rather than ten.

A quarter of that fund, a cool $25 million, has come from the WMF itself.

To me, that's just bizarre. Why the rush, and why use your own cash, when it was beyond clear the funding target could be reached with ease?

Is it a tax scam? A sign of corporate desperation? Or just plain incompetence?

In just the first nine months of its current financial year, it has raked in $142 million in donations according to an internal document—and already obliterated its previous annual record.

What a lovely scam. All based upon 20-year-old lies.

AND NOW THEY'RE BEGGING ON FACEBOOK (and it's working)
You should see the comments---truly disgusting....

Lol.

Donors give Wikipedia money because they're gormless. ESPECIALLY those who do so after they have figured out Wikipedia is filthy rich.

The alternative theory, that donors pony up the cash because they think Wikipedia is useful, only serves to remind people of just how many people who have used Wikipedia, have determied its correct market value as a service provider......

Zero dollars, and zero cents.

Eat it, Boing! et al, you I have properly wasted my life two time losers.

When are these people going to realise, Wikipedia, to most people, is just easier than Googling shit for yourself. There is no other value. You can't even say they help take the hassle out of going to the library or buying an online subscription, because nobody has a single reason to believe any information on Wikipedia that comes from an offline or paywalled source, is actually true.

Mostly because even its Administrator class are retards, and don't really keep at the front of their minds at all times, the primary flaw of the Wikipedia model. These are people who even when they actually block users they have found fabricating sources, they then do NOTHING in terms of going back and seeing what damage they have done.

Which probably again reminds people, just how dumb you have to be, to actually pony up hard cash, for this nominal service. In these times, it only surprises me that there aren't MORE people in the world who are just that fucking stupid.

It is comforting that the percentage is so minuscule, since nobody in their warped cult can really say for sure that people who use Wikipedia for free, aren't doing so just to laugh at how wrong Wikipedia was. Or were otherwise goofing off, doing something far removed from anything you might call learning.

There is no Reddit thread for Today I Learned [something from Wikipedia] that advanced my education. It is only garbage like, today I learned that frogs can suck their own dicks.

And now you're looking up on Wikipedia to see if frogs have dicks, aren't you? Pretty stupid way to spend your life (a presumably rather worthless life if you weren't educated enough to know the answer already), but even a dummy like you isn't likely to pay good money to know the answer, right?

Not when you can just as easily Google, "do frogs have dicks". And look past the Google served Wikipedia derived answer, obviously, because that shit is most definitely going to be high on the vandalism target list. And the retards manage to catch it only most of the time.

How many of these donors are kids, btw? People who don't know any better.

That would be interesting to know.

Jake Is A Sellout wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:10 pm

The alternative theory, that donors pony up the cash because they think Wikipedia is useful, only serves to remind people of just how many people who have used Wikipedia, have determined its correct market value as a service provider......

I personally know someone who used to do that. A woman married to a relative of mine.

Until I convinced her not to. Then on facebook she contacted me with a link to Wikipedia's donation drive and weather she should donate or not.

I had told her about my experiences on Wikipedia. But when she sent me the link of their donation drives, I sent her at least five or six links to articles explaining the corruption there.

I think it was sufficient enough to change her mind.

NadirAli wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:30 pm

I personally know someone who used to do that. A woman married to a relative of mine.
Until I convinced her not to. Then on facebook she contacted me with a link to Wikipedia's donation drive and weather she should donate or not.
I had told her about my experiences on Wikipedia. But when she sent me the link of their donation drives, I sent her at least five or six links to articles explaining the corruption there.
I think it was sufficient enough to change her mind.

Quite a few people have done that, and it usually works. Sad to say, there simply aren't enough people who know better to counter the Wikimedia "reality distortion field". And now that they have hundred of millions to spend on "outreach" they will be Too Big To Fail.

If the WMF were not cloaked in the happy shroud of nonprofits, they would be subject to American and European antitrust laws. The US has basically given up on antritrust enforcement but it might still happen in the EU. Perhaps the WMF simply aren't big and corrupt enough.....yet. Give it a few more years, and some more of that "Wikimedia Enterprise" operation blatantly sucking down profits from major web companies, and people will start asking more serious questions.

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:18 pm

If the WMF were not cloaked in the happy shroud of nonprofits, they would be subject to American and European antitrust laws. The US has basically given up on antritrust enforcement but it might still happen in the EU. Perhaps the WMF simply aren't big and corrupt enough.....yet. Give it a few more years, and some more of that "Wikimedia Enterprise" operation blatantly sucking down profits from major web companies, and people will start asking more serious questions.

And i'll bet those those web companies have neutral or positive entries on Wikipedia. At least until the "donations" keep flowing.

My friend also banned from Wiki sent me a BBC article alleging Jimbo Wales was accepting "donations" in exchange for edits.