I’ve just sent a donation to Wikipedia - anyone else?

Completely agree Monica. My children’s generation seem to expect all info free of charge and even get irritated by adverts on YouTube. I always point out that someone, somewhere has gathered all this and someone somewhere has to pay. I donate to Wiki partly because I’m shocked how many don’t.

I send a little something most times but worry about its security.

Yes, I donate from time to time.

Marydoll

Slighty off piste. Has anyone ever contributed to Wikipedia? Just curious.

I totally misunderstood you there Marydoll
I got ‘contributed’ and ‘donated’ muddled up in my head!
My first thought was ‘hang on, it’s not off piste - it’s what my thread is about!’.

Now, where’s that dunce’s hat?
?

Funnily enough, I did exactly the same thing yesterday.
I’ve ignored them asking for donations for a while but I just thought, this time I would.
Only £2 through PayPal, so it’s safe and I will give the odd £2 from now on.

Buffybee just as I did a few weeks ago.

Galaxy

I dont want to detail either but the idea that the guardian is free from influence is laughable, and I say that as a former guardian reader.

It is free from the influence of media owners, inasmuch as it is independent of a political party and is financed by a trust.

To avoid thread derailment and keep on topic, here is a quote from Wikipedia

The Guardian is a British daily newspaper. ... The trust was created in 1936 to "secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian free from commercial or political interference".

I've donated twice, just small amounts.

I wouldn't invest or buy a house based on something I'd read on Wiki but it's a useful resource for general information.

Hmm. Doodledog
Derailing my own thread here but had to challenge you there about the Guardian newspaper. Anyone who reads it (me) can tell it’s a Lib Dem publication!

Here you go:
British Daily Newspapers

Newspaper Party endorsed Notes
Daily Star None
Daily TelegraphConservative Party
Financial TimesConservative PartyBacked Labour in 2005.
GuardianLiberal DemocratsBacked Labour in 2005. Backed Labour in 2015. Supports anti-Conservative tactical voting with view to pro-electoral reform coalition.

The Guardian a LibDem paper, Surely not! On the other hand it is dull, humourless and self righteous - perhaps it is.

By the way I am a LibDem member, although, these days, I often wonder why.

Blue Belle, I am sorry if I upset you, but I considered what you wrote in a previous post was just that.

As JaneAinsworth said: I feel that donating to Wikipedia isn’t the same as donating to charity. The charities I donate to are for a specific purpose, eg Crisis. I picture the money I send being used to help a real person (yes I know some of it goes on admin).

But with Wikipedia, and the Conversation which is another source if information I donate to, it’s more about contributing to a general public good.

It is not a question of disagreeing with you, it is simply that comparing donations to Wikipedia to charitable giving is comparing apples and pears. Most of us donate to charities, to a greater or lesser extent, and make lots of other spending decisions, I just thought making that comparison you did read as a claim of moral superiority.

Just because the Guardian is “liberal” does not mean that it he content is fair, balanced or even true. What is published is the opinion of the contributor and is often very biased towards whatever agenda is being promoted.
It is only free of party Party Political influence.

Yep. I donate a fiver a year - through Paypal.

I agree that its not the same as donating to a charity. For me its more that I use it, so I should pay something towards its upkeep.

I did hear/read somewhere that they do employ a few people to check the entries. I don't know how true that is.

I use Wikipedia all the time. I have contributed by adding to the occasional article, but not often. I think it's brilliant! I donate £2 a month by direct debit- value for money, I reckon.

I thought about donating but did a bit of research first and saw they receive millions of £s and $s in donations. They employ quite a few people and I can’t believe someone isn’t making money out of the donations.

Notyetagran46

I thought about donating but did a bit of research first and saw they receive millions of £s and $s in donations. They employ quite a few people and I can’t believe someone isn’t making money out of the donations.

What is wrong with someone making some money? It is a business and I wouldn’t run my business if I didn’t make some money. I do think that there is a misconception that every thing on the internet should be free

If you look at the Wikipedia site you will see that they do monitor articles andcan, both 'freeze' sites so that they cannot be edited and remove changes once on, and I think, remove some subjects if they get changed to often with malice aforethought.

Wikipaedia do censor information and they also launder it to remove personal information if the individual wishes.

The World Wide Web isn’t free somebody pays, some philanthropy but mostly sponsored in some way, even Gransnet and all the other forums someone hopes to make money out of them

Quite a number of very worthy charities receive millions of £s and $s in donations. They employ quite a few people.

M0nica

Quite a number of very worthy charities receive millions of £s and $s in donations. They employ quite a few people.

They do indeed, how much of those donation actually benefit the intended recipients is very variable, some as much as 90% gets spent on admin.

David inthe Uk the Charities Commission keeps a very close eye on the proportion of a charities money goin in administration and for most it rarely exceeds 20% and is often much lower.

The 90% you quote applies almost entirely applies to Charities being deliberately fraudulently run or very small charities that have outlived their purposes, and often their funds.

Oh the accounts the Charities Commission see are fine, as long as the accounts are done properly.
Take Oxfam, the accounts show they spent over 30% on direct admin, it that’s not the end of the story much of their funding goes to other aid groups that have their own overhead costs of all sorts. It’s likely that around 50% actually helps those intended, which is fairly good for overseas aid, many aid projects get misappropriated.

For Gods sake Monica now you say I made a claim to moral superiority I wish you hadn’t bothered to apologise as you are making me feel worse by the minute

i did not read your comment like that, BB.