Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Donates $1 Million To Support Wikipedia (venturebeat.com)

Posted by msmash on from the How-about-that dept.

Technology giants rely heavily on Wikipedia's extensive database to source information for their platforms. So it's only fair that they show interest in the long-term sustainability of the online encyclopedia. This week, Facebook made its support official. From a report: The Wikimedia Foundation announced late Thursday that Facebook has contributed $1 million to Wikimedia Endowment, a fund to financially support the online encyclopedia and other Wikimedia projects. "We are grateful to Facebook for this support, and hope this marks the beginning of a long-term collaboration to support Wikipedia's future," Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said in a statement.

In an opinion piece published in June, Wikimedia Foundation executive director Katherine Maher urged companies to better support the service. "As companies draw on Wikipedia for knowledge -- and as a bulwark against bad information -- we believe they too have an opportunity to be generous," she wrote. "At Wikimedia, we already love and deeply appreciate the millions of people around the world who make generous charitable contributions because they believe in our values. But we also believe that we deserve lasting, commensurate support from the organisations that derive significant and sustained financial value from our work." Further reading: Wikimedia Endowment Gets New $1 Million Backing From Amazon.

91 comments

  1. So. Now Wiki is beholden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just what the world needs. An information source owned by a company known for misrepresenting reality.

    1. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by ctilsie242 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Citing Wikipedia is a no-no. However, Wikipedia does point to links, otherwise one will find the page reverted [1] with a [[Citation Needed]] as the reason. What you then do is visit the pages cited, and use those (if relevant), and use the citations from those pages. Wikipedia is a good place to find authoritative works on a topic.

      [1]: Assuming you don't find the page reverted anyway.

    2. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I thought Facebook just needed to write off some amount for tax credit. And what better then putting money into a NFP that will keep people glued to their devices, and a swipe, or browser tab away from their service to show adds.
      It isn't like they are funding a school, which asks the students to put their devices away during class.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2

      There is certainly something ironic about using an open-source encyclopedia as a source of truth in a world of fake news.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    4. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Back in the old days before Wikipedia we had a collection of 20-26 books called an Encyclopedia. Even back in 7th grade I was taught we couldn't use these Encyclopedias for citation. But as a source to give us general information to help guide us to sources, that we can cite, because they will give us more detailed information.

      For many of these Encyclopedias we only had a paragraph or two on most of the topics. While Wikipedia often has far more information it isn't classified as a source for research, but a way to get general knowledge on the topic, thus why a citation from Wikipedia will probably give a failing mark on your paper, because you didn't go to the source material, you just went to an abbreviated summary on the topic.

      Also, why should we automatically shy away or discredit an article that has some agenda. We should be smart enough to catch that, and realized that the writer may have a point that is being expressed, and if you disagree with it, then you need to confront the points do your research to show they are invalid or wrong. Not just go in a huff "This information goes against my Uninformed beliefs, so it is wrong!"

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Citing Wikipedia is a no-no.

      Citing any encyclopedia is a no-no. Citations should be to original sources, not to secondary compilations.

      So where do you find link to the original sources? At the bottom of the Wiki page, of course.

    6. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Also, why should we automatically shy away or discredit an article that has some agenda. We should be smart enough to catch that, and realized that the writer may have a point that is being expressed, and if you disagree with it, then you need to confront the points do your research to show they are invalid or wrong. Not just go in a huff "This information goes against my Uninformed beliefs, so it is wrong!"

      It's not that people have a problem with an article having an agenda, that's a symptom of the problem. The problem people have is that wikipedia presents itself as generalized source for a topic and adheres to NPOV. This is the opposite that happens, especially in the last ~8 years it's gone more for sources which are approved, but not factually correct or accurate. **Insert XKCD comic about citeogenisis here**

      The entire basis of fact checking on general knowledge material(even specialized areas) is left at the feet of whatever is being cited, by whoever is publishing it as long as wikipedia approves. That's the face of fact that wikipedia promotes. That's not even getting into the cases where editors, power editors, or admins go out of their way to taint topics with false information. Or even overt double standards on topics when it carries the editors PoV. This really isn't all that different then the quibbling you see with "fact check" sites.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've lost track of the number of times I've watched admins tilt articles by deletion - and then when challenged, instantly just declare someone a "sockpuppet" because that's the go-to lie. And as the policies have been tightened down more and more to protect admins it's become clear that nobody in the ever-shrinking, ever-more-incestuous circles of wikipedia power is interested in cleaning up the problem. After all, why bother? Those in power control the articles. Those outside, well... cross an admin once, ever, and welcome to "oh you're a sockpuppet so there" land with zero proof and no recourse.

    8. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed there was a bit of an agenda / bias with some of the articles. Clearly, Wikipedia shouldn't be one's only source.

    9. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by Moryath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Look up an editor named "Essjay" and realize most of the articles he fucked with are still tilted. And basically everyone he banned and lied about is still banned because despite everything they let his abuses stand.

    10. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the already existing in-groups of editors known for misrepresenting reality? Can't get much worse.

    11. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe during Wikipedia's early days. These days you make up facts in wiki articles, journalists cite those facts and you then add the journo's article as citation. Bam! Citogenesis complete.

      Wikipedia is a good place to find authoritative works on a topic.

      Only as long as said authoritative works suit the bias of whatever established group of editors controls that topic. From politics to hobbies, it's a clusterfuck of petty tyrants. It's like giving power-tripping forum moderators free reign over defining what's right and what's wrong.

    12. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just what the world needs. An information source owned by a company known for misrepresenting reality.

      As opposed to the Clinton Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Daily Kos, Jacob Rothschild, and Alwaleed bin Talal who currently run Wikipedia. It's really odd that nobody considers this newsworthy.

    13. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by taustin · · Score: 1

      You forgot their published and enforced policy that says that publish opinion on what the facts should be is more important than actual facts (which is why the prohibit primary sources).

    14. Re: So. Now Wiki is beholden by houghi · · Score: 1

      A donation is not a sponsorship. They also need the monies and where unable to get it from users, something they would have referred.

      So you and I (as a matter of speech) did not do enough. According to Wikipedia, 99% of the users gave nothing.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    15. Re: So. Now Wiki is beholden by teg · · Score: 1

      A donation is not a sponsorship. They also need the monies and where unable to get it from users, something they would have referred.

      So you and I (as a matter of speech) did not do enough. According to Wikipedia, 99% of the users gave nothing.

      So now I know what being a 1%-er feels like.

      .

    16. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Wikipedia became established, so that people started to think of it as the first port of call for general information, it was inevitable that other people would start trying to manipulate it. And when it published official rules for editing, it opened itself to being gamed in this way. That's the price of transparency.

      If it kept its rules and algorithms secret, like Facebook or Google, it would be significantly harder for bad actors to deliberately fuck with the content. One the other hand, it would also be much harder to spot when it had been so fucked.

    17. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the big problem with Wikipedia. It looks well cited and objective, but any article of any importance is carefully monitored by its cadre of self-appointed owners to argue against the quality of sources or use of language that detracts from their agenda. It's the ultimate exercise in Objectivism founded by an Objectivist: ostensible freedom and equality degenerating into powerful cliques of special interests because there is no regulatory mechanism.

      If you're reading an article about mathematics or some obscure research, this doesn't matter much: it's mostly just a mediocre summary of what Bob just read in his undergrad textbook, since knowing stuff doesn't make you a good educator, but at least it's usually not misleading. When I was studying for my undergrad maths degree maaany years ago, I used Wolfram's MathWorld from time to time, and it always gave me a more concise and complete explanation of anything I wanted to know.

      But if you're reading an article about politics or history, Wikipedia remains fucking toxic, not because it's full of lies so much as because it's full of secondary sources that tend to lean toward some bias. It's quite different from a traditional encyclopedia that employs subject matter experts with an academic reputation, i.e. knowledge of and experience writing peer-reviewed primary sources. Instead, talk pages constantly refer to policies unique to the Wikipedia project with pompous cultish jargon to keep people in line, and editing any important page is an exercise in gaming this system.

      To be clear, if any group with sufficient resources stands to benefit from any social media being written a certain way - and Wikipedia is just social media disguised as a traditional resource - they will already be one of the "owners" of any page relevant to their interests. And they will discredit edits to pages that they don't want kept by making sure they're the ones to make them, as shoddily and suspiciously as possible. For example, if you want Senator Doe to look bad, use a government IP to write a glowing paragraph or two on Joe, then wait for the useful idiots to revert it, shame Joe the talk page, and sit on the page with paranoia that every positive edit about Doe is written by a shill.

    18. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soooooo..... are you saying I should read the novel for my class instead of watching the movie on Netflix?

      Like, instead of reading "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" I can just watch "Blade Runner 2049". Easy Peezee

    19. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever actually checked those citations? Most of them are either dead links or links to pages that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

      Wikipedia is a joke and Facebook is beneath contempt.

    20. Re:So. Now Wiki is beholden by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      There is fake news on both sides. And has been for a very long time. Every campaign advert you see is really fake news, every story about a politician you see even on your local nightly news is bought and paid for and produced by professional propaganda artists.

      Only an idiot would even bother to think otherwise. Either that, or a wing nut.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  2. Zuckerberg is trying to save face. by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    (no pun intended) Will it be enough to even start to reverse the slime that has been emanating from facebook, inc of late?

  3. So... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Zuckerberg got tired of seeing that pop-up?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha that pop up is the most depressing thing. It always looks like they are going out of business any second

    2. Re:So... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Zuckerberg got tired of seeing that pop-up?

      He shouldn't, the pop-up says clearly it's "final", each time.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re: So... by taustin · · Score: 1

      Well, it is a web site devoted to wishful thinking.

  4. Oh, wow by necro81 · · Score: 1

    One million dollars! That's, like, 30 minutes' worth of Facebook's $16 billion net income from 2017. What an altruistic sacrifice!

    1. Re:Oh, wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could at least donate it to a cause that needs the money. Wikipedia has a crazy amount of money just sitting there in case they need it in the future.

    2. Re:Oh, wow by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why do all good deeds need to be an altruistic sacrifice?
      That is a very puritanical view on charity. Give until it hurts then give some more, suffering is the only pathway to God.
      This is like dropping our spare change in the salvation army bin, we are not going to suffer or go bankrupt from it. But it is still helping a cause.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Oh, wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One million dollars! That's, like, 30 minutes' worth of Facebook's $16 billion net income from 2017. What an altruistic sacrifice!

      Veritable Dr. Evil.

      One MILLION dollars!

    4. Re:Oh, wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could at least donate it to a cause that needs the money. Wikipedia has a crazy amount of money just sitting there in case they need it in the future.

      Why does Jeremy Welsh and Wikipedia need any money to operate Wikipedia? The "information" is contributed by volunteers so at most a couple of servers (VPS) should be sufficient to handle traffic. I contributed or attempted to contribute to an existing but severely lacking article only to have the edits reverted without any reason provided.

    5. Re:Oh, wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares if it's altruistic or not? It's a million dollars going to an immensely useful site.

    6. Re:Oh, wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does Jeremy Welsh and Wikipedia need any money to operate Wikipedia?

      You're a pal and a cosmonaut.

    7. Re:Oh, wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation Needed

  5. A Match made in Heaven.... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 1, Troll

    2 Companies, both literally MADE of BS! The PERFECT Couple! ;-D

  6. Excellent news by sosume · · Score: 1

    All the tech giants owe to Wikipedia, good for them. As long as Facebook doesn't get access to Wikipedia's private data.

    1. Re:Excellent news by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell yes. Wikipedia forever. That's the shining city on the hill project that truly shows the best elements of the Internet. Openness, collaboration, non-greediness, and a respect for truth and knowledge.

    2. Re:Excellent news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And somehow, all of this content that was provided for free by volunteers and is mostly curated for free by volunteers needs $1M to operate.

    3. Re:Excellent news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And somehow, all of this content that was provided for free by volunteers and is mostly curated for free by volunteers needs $1M to operate.

      So you think servers, a hosting location, power, HVAC, and bandwidth are free.

    4. Re:Excellent news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know they aren't $1M. If they're planning on investing this and using the dividends to fund the hardware in perpetuity, then that's cool. But my bet is someone on the wikimedia foundation board of directors just got a 8% raise.

    5. Re:Excellent news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Openness, collaboration, non-greediness, and a respect for truth and knowledge.

      Oh man, thank you. I needed a good laugh.

      You forgot "totally unbiased", though.

    6. Re:Excellent news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look who knows so much.

    7. Re:Excellent news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, they could, you know, properly distribute the information across a network of nodes instead of centralizing it on their own infrastructure (even if it is scalable). Open source software does that, especially Linux distros. Wikimedia does not but could and would save themselves a lot in expenditures. Lots of educational institutions and libraries and businesses around the world would volunteer to host chunks of the data.

      If you've ever run the software itself (e.g. for an internal Wiki), you discover pretty quickly that the software behind Wikipedia performs rather poorly, which means more powerful server hardware is required to do simple things like display a webpage. They should make their software perform better so fewer servers are required and therefore have a lower cost to operate.

      "Openness, collaboration, non-greediness, and a respect for truth and knowledge." LOL. None of those things describe Wikimedia or Wikipedia. On the surface, sure, it appears that way but if you have ever actually edited anything (even to correct something extremely minor like a blatant spelling mistake), you quickly discover a universe of closed-minded, self-centered, self-righteous, egotistical individuals not to mention countless, useless bots. It's definitely not an open community. In the beginning it was kind of/sort of that way, but definitely not that way today. Even when an expert in a specific subject matter comes along to help out, particularly with corrections, whoever edited the article first is effectively the owner of it no matter their qualifications. And the Wikimedia foundation gets more greedy every year and refuses to switch how they host their content to a sane model where everyone can have a piece of it live on their own hardware to cut the annual costs to the foundation. Nope, they run the business like a corporation and get free content (and money) from schmucks. They look exactly like Facebook, Google, et al. only under the guise of an encyclopedia.

  7. Suport the Internet Archive by martiniturbide · · Score: 1

    I think it is better to support the Internet Archive archive.org

    1. Re: Suport the Internet Archive by houghi · · Score: 1

      I hate them. Not possible to delete some of my old sites. I hate the idea that "everything must be remembererd" because most of it will be used to shame or bathmouth you.

      Just listen to any best-man speech.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  8. Insurance money and reference data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two birds with one stone:
    - Insurance money so that Wikipedia has an incentive to have more positive articles about Facebook and its staff
    - Reference data so Facebook can pull up reference data from Wikipedia when showing a user posts from friends

    #1 is the same reason why major corporations Coca-Cola have ex-politicians - Fmr Senator Sam Nunn on the board as well as academics from leading business schools. To give an incentive to not publish adverse articles in Harvard Business Review and to gain access to the Congress.

  9. Now employ some professional administrators. by xack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Instead of the current ones who revert everything as "not notable" if it's not made by the clique. I'm a former contributor who has donated in the past, but have seen my money wasted, now I vandalize Wikipedia to spite them.

    1. Re:Now employ some professional administrators. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of the current ones who revert everything as "not notable" if it's not made by the clique.

      I'm a former contributor who has donated in the past, but have seen my money wasted, now I vandalize Wikipedia to spite them.

      I too feel badly that I ever gave them money in the past, but only because I now know they don't actually need my money.

      I wouldn't vandalize it.

    2. Re:Now employ some professional administrators. by rockout · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sounds like somebody saw his article about himself erased.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    3. Re:Now employ some professional administrators. by PPH · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are a wikistine*.

      *A malamanteau of Wikipedia and philistine.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Now employ some professional administrators. by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not unlikely... if you look at a typical day's log of articles for deletion they're overwhelmingly bios and/or their creative works trying to make themselves "notable". But if you look at pages like deletionpedia you can find things like Main Belt asteroids with a subpage for each one that got mass wiped. For a wikipedia with room a page for every London tube station and a list of all the Pokemon characters, you may say these tiny little rocks aren't significant in any way. But they're factual, not self-promoting and somebody put a lot of effort into creating it. Then somebody said meh insignificant and *poof* it was gone. I have no problem in believing there's a lot of editors that legitimately got pissed and left.

      I've had corrections auto-reverted by bots even though they were properly documented and cited. Some, if not many pages are effectively owned by a small number of edit Nazis who will revert anything you do making the "anyone can edit" into hollow words. There are ways to complain but 99% will just give up and walk away rather than become wiki-lawyers just to correct a damn web page. To be fair, they also have a big problem with vandalism so I understand why some are very possessive, but the practical effect for anyone not into that war is that you buy into the slogans, do something good and they piss on it.

      Also you don't really get any positive feedback when you contribute, it's not obvious how many read anything you added and would like to give you a thumbs up. All you really get is the occasional frosty piss, it's for the most part very thankless work. Which may have its effect on who stay on and how they behave, this is their way to power trip and own their little snippet of Wikpedia... *insert Gollum meme here*. I did contribute a bit in the early days when there was a lot of obviously important stuff that wasn't on WP and it was more like "let's just expand and throw shit at the wall and see what sticks", once it became more like this I got out. I mean I understand the page on Hitler is controversial... but I don't want to be in wiki-court about main belt asteroids.

      P.S. No, that's wasn't mine if you think that...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Now employ some professional administrators. by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      Instead of the current ones who revert everything as "not notable" if it's not made by the clique. I'm a former contributor who has donated in the past, but have seen my money wasted, now I vandalize Wikipedia to spite them.

      Vandalizing pages only gives them more fuel to circle the wagons around their clique. "Clearly there are bad actors out there! We must defend ourselves!" You don't like the place? Fine. Leave it, and don't go farting in elevators as you exit them.

    6. Re:Now employ some professional administrators. by Moryath · · Score: 1

      "Some, if not many pages are effectively owned by a small number of edit Nazis who will revert anything you do making the "anyone can edit" into hollow words."

      Precisely this. And if you dare note that this is happening or try to report them - boom. "YOURE A SOCKPUPPET BLOCK REMOVE TALK PAGE FUCK OFF" from the admins.

    7. Re:Now employ some professional administrators. by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Nah. Fuck them. There are ~1200 administrators on that site and every one of them is a corrupt piece of shit on a power trip. Waste their time all you want.

  10. If you don't donate anonymously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it's not really a donation. You're buying something.

  11. Who gives a shit? by reiterate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I also donated an infinitesimally small portion of my revenue to Wikipedia, where's my article?

    1. Re:Who gives a shit? by rockout · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's Wikipedia, you can create your own article, you lazy bastard!

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    2. Re:Who gives a shit? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Just to back this up, Facebook had a net income of $19.5 billion for the last 4 quarters. A $1 million donation is 0.005% of their net income. It's equivalent to someone making $100,000 a year donating $5. Hardly newsworthy.

  12. Props where props are due by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey, props where props are due.

    Not everything that a bad entity does is bad. This is a good thing.

    1. Re:Props where props are due by froggyjojodaddy · · Score: 0

      IF they gave that money with no strings attached.

    2. Re:Props where props are due by Guybrush_T · · Score: 1

      Yeah and instead of bothering us to spend little money we don't have, Wikipedia should indeed be funded fully by large Companies. Google, Facebook, Apple ... for them it's a drop in the ocean.

  13. Or, translated... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...we hope $1 million will distract SOMEONE from all the shit we've done that's now starting to leak out.

    --
    -Styopa
  14. And how did they earn it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what did they do to their naive users to earn that $1M?

  15. Indebted to big donors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you rely on big donors, you have to kowtow to big donors. This is actually BAD for Wikipedia.

  16. I am sure there is a TAX deduction angle... by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

    in there somewhere, just another way to avoid paying taxes that help we the people.

    Is it really a donation if all of it comes out of what should have been taxes? In the end the people never win.

    1. Re:I am sure there is a TAX deduction angle... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Think of it this way: It's just like public funding for Wikipedia. Except that each user has a say in what it's value is to them. And the funds actually get to the intended organization instead of being diverted to defense contractors or needle exchanges.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re: I am sure there is a TAX deduction angle... by houghi · · Score: 1

      The tax deductions for this exist so companies would DO these kind of donations.

      So it is used as intended.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  17. Interesting comment by Wales by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    "and hope this marks the beginning of a long-term collaboration to support Wikipedia's future" - In other words, keep the gravy train running. Remember back in the day when you could give a one time donation to a charity and that was it? These days they all want you to sign up for these never ending annual contributions.

    Years ago I gave money to a charity, who shall remain nameless, and every single year they would call me looking for more. Then I started to get calls from other charities that I had never spoken with before and somehow they got my home phone number. Again and again I told them thank you but I'm not interested. They kept calling. I asked them to stop calling me. They kept calling. I asked them to put me on their do not call list. Turns out that charities are exempt from the DNC legislation. Eventually I just cut off my home phone.

    I'm not saying all charities are bad but I had a bad experience with them. These days I give anonymously or not at all.

    1. Re:Interesting comment by Wales by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"They kept calling. I asked them to put me on their do not call list. Turns out that charities are exempt from the DNC legislation. Eventually I just cut off my home phone."

      The main problem is that you actually gave them your phone number. That is a HUGE mistake. I, for one, very rarely give out my phone number to ANY businesses. Email- fine. There is almost zero reason the vast majority of businesses/ organizations need to interrupt my life in that high of a priority. If they insist on a number or I need them to have a number, I give them my work land-line, which is protected by an auto-attendant and extension number. Not surprisingly, I almost never get any calls from such places.

    2. Re:Interesting comment by Wales by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      The worst are the politicians. Because Congress NEVER has to obey the laws they themselves pass.

      This is one reason why I am not a member of either party.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    3. Re:Interesting comment by Wales by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Lesson learned.

    4. Re:Interesting comment by Wales by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Years ago I gave money to a charity ... and every single year they would call me looking for more.

      Why TF did you need to give the charity either your phone number or your address?

    5. Re:Interesting comment by Wales by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      I didn't give them my address or my phone number. They called me up one day out of the blue and asked for a donation. I have no idea where they got my number from. Probably some mailing list that charities share.

    6. Re:Interesting comment by Wales by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      They ring numbers at random or working through numerically. Same as "Windows" scammers. By your responding on the phone they were able to mark you as worth hassling in the future too.

      BTW, the people who work in this way for charity are usually professionals and are paid by the charity typically half of what they can raise. The British crook Jeffrey Acher made his first million that way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  18. I guess ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... Facebook finally got tired of that damned popup.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:I guess ... by Moryath · · Score: 2

      Real truth: that popup will NEVER go away. Jimmy and the board need their gravy train, and the incestuous squad of admins (more interested in attacking people and showing off power than in building an encyclopedia) have run off most of the regulars who would have donated in years past. Every year more and more people try to contribute only to have some aspergers toolboy admin scream "sockpuppet ban it off with its head" and thus learn why you should never donate to that squad of abusive pricks, ever.

  19. Apparently Not Up On Dr. Evil Flicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But then these are pretend geeks, now aren't they.

  20. Wikipedia is an Excellent Resource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't understand all the hate that's directed towards Wikipedia. I give a monetary contribution each year, have created and edited a few articles, and dumped some images to Wikimedia Commons. I use the site a lot, I'm thankful for it, and I don't understand all the hate. I guess that's because I just access the technical pages and stay away from the political ones.

    1. Re:Wikipedia is an Excellent Resource by Moryath · · Score: 2

      Look over how the vast majority of those who interact with wikipedia get treated by their fraud-squad of "administrators" and you'll learn. Look up their past scandals. Start with "Essjay" and don't forget to research the time Jimbo was caught editing his own girlfriend's bio and banning people who weren't making it a glowing pile of suck-up.

    2. Re:Wikipedia is an Excellent Resource by nukenerd · · Score: 2

      I don't understand all the hate that's directed towards Wikipedia. .... I guess that's because I just access the technical pages and stay away from the political ones.

      Same with my experience. For example if I want to find something about a town on the other side of the world for some reason it is a good place to start and often enough for what I need. I have also edited, or written most of, a few articles in technical and history areas and my stuff is still there unchanged years later, and where it has changed it is usually corrections like typos, or added references.

      No doubt if I got into edititing stuff about Trump, Brexit or Jimmy Wales' girlfriend, it would not remain unchanged for two minutes, but I don't try. Is that what people are complaining about?

  21. Ok so will the begathons continue? by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    Of course they will.

    Because excessive funding is still not enough!!!

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  22. Quote "No one likes a lying asshole" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/... & ain't it the truth.

  23. No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One left-wing organization supporting another.

  24. Do we forgive them now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. Absolutely not. You can't just throw cash at wikipedia and all is forgiven. This is just their attempt to clean up the fallout from their data slurping practises, and butter everyone up.

    If I was in charge of wikipedia, I'd simply give them their money back and tell them to get stuffed.

    This does not make what they are doing with platform right, and it does nothing to soften my views about facebook. This is just something they are doing so they can continue to get away with it.

  25. Blood money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, Facebook made its billions by lying to its users and sharing user data with practically anyone who wanted it without notifying users, much less getting their consent.

    Facebook is evil.

  26. Hey Jimmy I already gave by kencurry · · Score: 1

    Please stop with the damn nagware on every screen. Surely some cookie can track the givers and give us a break for our donations?

    --
    sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
  27. Re:Props where props are sue by fleabay · · Score: 1

    FTFY

    --
    PlanetVulkan.com
  28. Wikipedibull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I made 2 additions to articles that were of interest and wrote one article of interest. Both the comments I entered were deleted and the article was rejected, saying there was no proof it was true and existed, even though I pointed out that the article's subject was alluded to in another existing article. I consider Wikipedia to be first rate crap. Socialist have taken it over and remove anything of conservative nature and interest. Don't ever waste your time trying to contribute to this crap site. You are wasting your time.