• Semi-Hemi-Demigod
      link
      fedilink
      381 year ago

      Wikipedia should run a fund raiser: “Give us a billion dollars or we’ll change the name.”

    • bunnyfc
      link
      fedilink
      351 year ago

      Wikipedia is not the Achilles heel of free access to information. The Achilles heel are the sources: libraries, websites.

      Consider donating to the internet archive instead or as well. If the sources are poisoned, Wikipedia just repeats bullshit. It’s secondary literature.

        • Star
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I believe they mean that if Wikipedia dies, we are still able to get proper information from the actual sources.

          Wikipedia just summarizes the primary sources.

          Since we can still get the info, we don’t succumb. If the primary sources get altered, then nothing in reality can be trusted.

          • ram
            link
            fedilink
            English
            271 year ago

            Wikipedia just summarizes the primary sources.

            Wikipedia actually much prefers secondary and even tertiary sources to primary sources. They have rules against original research, and follows the guideline that “secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic’s notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources”. It’s only with exception that primary sources are allowed, in which the primary sources “have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.”

            Not disagreeing with you, just a bit of nuance.

            • Star
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              You can: Ban books, burn papers, delete servers, hack articles, AI creations, talk louder than reality.

          • wagesj45
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            Wikipedia just summarizes the primary sources.

            Technically, I think they only allow primary sources to be referenced if supported by a secondary source. They have weird and complex rules around that,

            • @emberwit@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but I think that is not what user Star meant by primary. Just the sources that Wikipedia itself works with.

              • wagesj45
                link
                fedilink
                21 year ago

                You’re right, but what would the internet be without a little pedantry and ignoring the point of the post? :D

    • @UnknownQuantity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      A few years ago, I set up a monthly donation. Of all things I can use for free on the internet, Wikipedia deserves it the most.