Does wikipedia remind of you the beggards on this forum?

[bryant.coleman]

Personally I reckon it's time for a true anarchist/libertarian version of Wikipedia.

A lot of people are currently trying. I have heard that Metapedia has improved quite a lot these days. Have idea about any other alternate Wiki sites?

[hilariousandco]

Personally I reckon it's time for a true anarchist/libertarian version of Wikipedia.

A lot of people are currently trying. I have heard that Metapedia has improved quite a lot these days. Have idea about any other alternate Wiki sites?

What's to stop that not being taken over? When anything is open and free to use it's also free and easy to exploit it for your own gain.

[bryant.coleman]

What's to stop that not being taken over? When anything is open and free to use it's also free and easy to exploit it for your own gain.

Wikipedia had millions of volunteers, who had varying levels of knowledge in various subjects. It is not that easy to assemble that kind of editors for any other alternate Wiki site.

And it can't be taken over. The new Wikipedia admins are mostly selected by the owner and the existing admins, who are biased. People who don't agree with their policies can't become an admin. 

[ElectricMucus]

http://buttcoin.org/stop-donating-wikipedia

If you’ve browsed Wikipedia for any length of time, you’re certainly familiar by now with the site’s periodic donation drives. In order to cover hosting and bandwidth costs without slathering every page in advertisements, the Wikimedia Foundation asks that its users donate as little as $3 to help the site continue to bring to the world its extensive knowledge of the minutiae of anime plots and lightsaber combat. As the site manages massive amounts of traffic, these drives are fairly frequent now, leading to what very well could be the mating call of the bitcoiner:

“Wikipedia should accept donations in Bitcoin!”

Every time a donation drive starts up, bitcoiners, especially those on reddit, drive themselves into a frenzy, pestering the website’s beleaguered administrative team via email and other messages, hounding them to take Bitcoin instead of things like credit cards or PayPal. This is rebuffed every single time with what has become a form letter:

    Thanks for your email and for your interest in supporting free knowledge. Unfortunately we do not accept bitcoin, however, we are aware of bitcoin and we will continue to monitor it with interest. For a full list of other donation options, please visit http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give/en. Thank you again for your interest!

For anyone who’s worked with the public, especially a segment of the public that is convinced that terrible ideas are in fact good, this is a pretty standard brush-off, meant to fool the recipient into thinking someone cares about their stupid ideas and that they may even be implemented some time in the near future. The reality is that nobody will do anything remotely close to something like “accepting Bitcoin,” “adding the requested feature” to software, or letting your WoW character have every spell in the game. It’s a meaningless message, meant to placate and nothing more.

Regardless, bitcoiners see this as a promise as well as a challenge, and often their subreddit is inundated with posts about Wikipedia as a result. Since they’re so intent on having Wikipedia take their funny money, we looked a little further into the situation.

So far every drive has been successful, and recent donation amounts totaled over $15 million, and according to the Wikimedia Foundation, the average donation was approximately $22. So, if Wikipedia were to directly accept Bitcoin donations, how much more would they stand to earn? As it turns out, not much at all.

In a ridiculously informal and totally unscientific poll, I discovered that the same bitcoiners clamoring for Wikipedia to take their money don’t want to give them much money at all, if anything. Answers ranged from the equivalent of a couple of dollars, with at least two people regurgitating South Park’s “tree fiddy” meme, one stipulating that Wikipedia could have ten entire bitcoins if they “apologize for being wankers about the whole thing,” and many more insisted that Wikipedia no longer deserves their “money” for giving them the cold shoulder for so long. The combined amount from people willing to answer my question comes up to about $23.01.  It took six people’s “generosity” to equal that of one average Wikipedian donator. Most of them wouldn’t donate at all; it’s all just grandstanding to proselytize for their cult.

That doesn’t stop them from sounding like a broken record every few months though:

[hilariousandco]

http://buttcoin.org/stop-donating-wikipedia

In a ridiculously informal and totally unscientific poll, I discovered that the same bitcoiners clamoring for Wikipedia to take their money don’t want to give them much money at all, if anything. Answers ranged from the equivalent of a couple of dollars, with at least two people regurgitating South Park’s “tree fiddy” meme, one stipulating that Wikipedia could have ten entire bitcoins if they “apologize for being wankers about the whole thing,” and many more insisted that Wikipedia no longer deserves their “money” for giving them the cold shoulder for so long. .

Hahahahaha. Lold.

[DodoB]

why cant wikipedia simply put ads in their sites? they will make loads of money and will stop begging.

[hilariousandco]

why cant wikipedia simply put ads in their sites? they will make loads of money and will stop begging.

I've always wondered this, but maybe it's about remaining independent and blah blah blah etc. They could easily implement some unobtrusive google ads, or put links to buy albums or films via amazon on album/film pages etc and take commission. They can also still accept donations.

[bryant.coleman]

why cant wikipedia simply put ads in their sites? they will make loads of money and will stop begging.

No. It is against their policies. They claim that accepting ads will make them more vulnerable to cabal editing.

[hilariousandco]

why cant wikipedia simply put ads in their sites? they will make loads of money and will stop begging.

No. It is against their policies. They claim that accepting ads will make them more vulnerable to cabal editing.

Change their policies... profit?

[bryant.coleman]

Change their policies... profit?

May be. They have expelled a large number of the old admins and senior editors. Most of the current admins are close to Jimmy Wales. So soon we can expect a change in the policies...... and ads in the Wiki.

[TheFootMan]

Change their policies... profit?

May be. They have expelled a large number of the old admins and senior editors. Most of the current admins are close to Jimmy Wales. So soon we can expect a change in the policies...... and ads in the Wiki.

 I don't see the problem with running ads on wikipedia - they could always pre approve the ads they're serving if they want to have control over it.

But I think we should just leave Wikipedia alone in regards to accepting bitcoin. Perhaps in a few years time they will realize what they're missing out and start accepting it.

[guybrushthreepwood]

http://buttcoin.org/stop-donating-wikipedia

In a ridiculously informal and totally unscientific poll, I discovered that the same bitcoiners clamoring for Wikipedia to take their money don’t want to give them much money at all, if anything. Answers ranged from the equivalent of a couple of dollars, with at least two people regurgitating South Park’s “tree fiddy” meme, one stipulating that Wikipedia could have ten entire bitcoins if they “apologize for being wankers about the whole thing,” and many more insisted that Wikipedia no longer deserves their “money” for giving them the cold shoulder for so long. .

Hahahahaha. Lold.

I wonder how many people donate tree fiddy to wikipedia?

[bryant.coleman]

But I think we should just leave Wikipedia alone in regards to accepting bitcoin. Perhaps in a few years time they will realize what they're missing out and start accepting it.

Wikipedia is based in UK, right? With no banks supporting BTC there, it will be enormously difficult for them to convert those coins to cash. Also, there will be tax-related complexities as well.

[hilariousandco]

But I think we should just leave Wikipedia alone in regards to accepting bitcoin. Perhaps in a few years time they will realize what they're missing out and start accepting it.

Wikipedia is based in UK, right? With no banks supporting BTC there, it will be enormously difficult for them to convert those coins to cash. Also, there will be tax-related complexities as well.

I think it's based in Florida.

[DodoB]

But I think we should just leave Wikipedia alone in regards to accepting bitcoin. Perhaps in a few years time they will realize what they're missing out and start accepting it.

Wikipedia is based in UK, right? With no banks supporting BTC there, it will be enormously difficult for them to convert those coins to cash. Also, there will be tax-related complexities as well.

I think it's based in Florida.

Actually they are based in San Fracisco.

[bitmarket.io]

wikipedia deserves te donation. all the beggars here do not

[beetcoin]

Yes, I do refute all of the above, unless you can convince me otherwise. What evidence do you have that Sandy Hook was a 'fake' shooting, or Boston Bombing was a false flag attack carried out by Nato etc? And what was the reasons for them?

It's not rocket science. The only way this current bankrupt system may continue in north America, is by turning the average American citizen or resident into a 'terrorist.' This translates to billions of dollars spent on high tech security equipment (vendors who just happen to be part of Homeland Security itself), and the opportunity to levy all sorts of spurious fines, fees and extra charges, to keep the machine going for as long as possible before the final collapse.

The reason for all the false flags is that there is NO real terrorist threat, so the government has to fabricate it. It's called psychological warfare. Wikipedia is part of the same psychological warfare outfit.

If you're interested to know more and have a weekend to spare, check out cluesforum.info.

"American people don't believe anything until they see it on television.” Richard M. Nixon

I agree with you that there is little-to-no worry for terrorist threats, and that the general public are easily mislead by the media, but you need some evidence other than pure speculation and assumption. Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes people just like to shoot and kill and blow each other up.

this guy would get along well with actortomtruong. together they can listen to alex jones.

[stompix]

wikipedia deserves te donation. all the beggars here do not

This. I always said that wikipedia can't be considered a beggar.
They do provide some really useful information , they pay for their servers and bandwidth , they do actually spend time working on this project , (not leaving everything to the contributors).

So , you can't compare them to a beggar on btalk who makes an account and starts begging for free coins.

[bryant.coleman]

let me know when they take bitcoin, i will send them $13.37k usd worth.

If you are serious, then you can directly write an email to Jimbo Wales. 13K is quite a big amount of money, and the Wikipedia admins will do anything to get it. (Even if that means that they have to change or rewrite their policies). 

[bryant.coleman]

I'm more than serious, but I'm not about to beg them to take BTC.

13k is a "big amount of money" ? Like policy changing?? Doubt it...

Anyway PM me if they ever take it, ill send a hand full of coin their way.

Hmm... you don't have to beg. 

And regarding the policy change, I know people who paid $200 to get "harmful" sections removed from the Wikipedia article dealing with them or their companies. (It was done indirectly. The payment was not made to Wales. Rather it was made to some Wikipedia admins who removed the sections themselves).

Anyway, here is his email ID:  jwales@wikia.com