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.

5 of 91 comments (clear)

  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 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.
  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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.