/lit/ - Literature

>>12150625
Why do they need money?

>>12150678
I don't know. May be ti's kind of marketing plan?

>>12150678
this is a joke right?? servers arent free

>>12150713
Servers don't cost such money.

I gave them 6 dollars.

>>12150625
>Why people don't want to support them?
I am not very impressed with their quality.

>>12150713
They're free in the gigabit internet era, cheap PC components, and cooperation from individuals. Instead, they want to centralize it. I say, fuck em. Total size of wikipedia is less than 15GB. Don't give me this "muh servers cost too much" bullshit. Only a tech illiterate boomer would say that.

>make free website
>complain that most readers don't pay you money
retards

>>12150625
Why don't they just sell gold passes and create Wikipediannel to become better recepted to ad groups?

>>12150713
Is the cost equal to the entire readership of Wikipedia multiplied by $3?

>>12150749
that would discriminate against the lower class and probably widen the intellectual gap.

>>12150734
Doing the Lord's work, brother

>>12150734
Cuck

>>12150625

I'm approaching 2,000 editz and I have a few projects in mind. Like public radio, I have never given them dime one, and I never will. It's actually useful to fill in certain gaps there though, as an expedient toward personal learning.

>>12150736
They don't run adverts though, which almost every site relies on

>>12150736

This might be true of the text (I don't really have a sense of scale desu), but there's no way that this is true of the overall thing, simply adding in images for example.

To your point though, the sum total whole thing (all languages, pics, etc) is probably quite large but still tractable, that is on the order of tens or maaybe a few hundred terabytes. Not sure and can't be fussed to check.

I don't want to donate to Wikipedia for the same reason that I stopped editing--there are too many articles that were basically "squatted" on, where there would be a person (or group of people under one username) who would instantly revert any changes to an article, and they would literally be active over a 22 hour day.

>>12150888
I don't run advertisements on my site too.

>>12150900
it's not a people, i guess. It's a robots. Just scripts, that controls some "important" sentences at the important topics...

Tired of Wikipedia know-it-alls, hope they go under

>>12151555
that will be the end of freshman level research papers

>>12150888
Non-sequitur.

>>12150625
Propagandists and historical revisionists don't do it for free and need shekels too, you know.

>>12150625
golly, I wonder...

>>12150625
On any given subject (but especially ones of ascending importance) Wikipedia is more likely to regurgitate buzzfeed as objective truth than cite even a slim bibliography of academic papers.

>>12150625
they are at the point where they should lobby to just be funded by a government or some world organization. the information theyve compiled should be considered a human right to have access to or something to that effect.

>>12151747
>>12151555
>>12151763
Exactly right. The internet is perhaps the greatest tool God ever gave man to tear down hierarchical knowledge structures and authorities. "God made all men different, but Mr. Colt made them all equal"; before the web there were gatekeepers of knowledge, the press and the universities and the government, but now we are all empowered to drift in a sea of information, every man with his gun, as it were. Yet we would support the same monolithic institutions from which we just escaped? Yesterday we all had to accept the King and Church as authorities on facts, and today we will willingly bend the knee to Wikipedia? No, let all the pretenders at authority die. The information age killed authority, and we neither want nor need its return.

anyone old enough to remember how wikipedia started knows it's of no value for even casual reading (not sourcing)

>>12151944
looks like someone inherited the Jewish revolutionary spirit.

>>12151747
Are you implying that neonazis don't believe in white pride

>>12151981

>>12151981
The pic implies having white pride, right down to something vague as European culture, is unethical and """"""""problematic"""""""".

>>12152017
but it is. "whiteness" is only used in context of whites vs blacks in america and segregation.

German pride, irish pride (yikes), french pride etc. is all fine and not a white supremacist dog whistle

>>12152036
>he hears dog whistles
anon I have news for you

>>12150734
He gave em $6 dollars, can you believe it? He didn't notice Wikipedia was a Paleozoic era crustacean

>>12152017
Only Americans are uncultured and retarded enough to believe in "white pride"

>>12150912
What's your site?

>>12150726
They do when you have several hundred million people accessing them constantly all day long.

>>12152036
Black, asian, latino, etc pride are equally to blame. One can't distinguish itself from the other without the existence of the other. If whitness is to be exterminated, all of the others have to be exterminated as well.

>>12151694
Doesn't every University have access to plenty of databases loaded with articles and electronic books?

>>12150625
Convenience.
Whipping out your debit card is too inconvenient for most when the site is free to take advantage of anyhow.
>"Why should I donate? I come here in the first placs because its free!"

Wikipedia has unironically damaged society by lulling people into the illusion of believing they understand a subject after reading a Wikipedia article on it. In the past if you wanted to learn about something you would read a book on that, written by someone who ideally spent years researching the topic and synthesising their findings. The process of going through such a book forces you to absorb a tonne of context that simply isn't present in a smoothed-over summary. Poorly or dogmatically written articles on Wikipedia have permeated the public consciousness. It's shockingly easy to write a bad article that never gets taken down or critically reviewed for years. I've written several since 2012-2013, the content of which is largely unchanged. Some of the early ones were really bad.

>>12152093
yeah but the point is freshmen don't know about those

>>12152127
Wikipedia wasn't the first encyclopedia and the problem isn't new but you're spot on apart from that

>>12152131
Also they don't like having to read like 10 or more papers to compile the info they need

>>12151747
Tbf white is the dominant race in the world. Our white ancestors literally shaped the entire world to their likeness. They invented things that gave them an edge in warfare, economics, etc. Only Asians managed to keep up but in the end they lost their hegemony. They wiped out entire civilization of savages and created new races, the mestizos. So basically black or asian pride is probably a reaction to white supremacy while white pride seems arrogant. It's like that victor who keeps bashing the losers and boasts how great he is. There's no need to do that since everyone already knows it. If you are proud of being white then do something to keep white hegemony intact, don't just shave your head and wave the nazi flag

>>12152081
http://123abceng.com

>>12153154
Nice website friend

>>12152127
You must be a zoomer, the public never read books... before the internet it was more common for someone in your group of friends to just make up pure bullshit on the spot and insist they knew something about something without anyone critically looking into it any further.

On average wikipedia articles are quite good, of course if you're an expert on a particular subject they won't satisfy you. Just because people don't have access to any body of knowledge doesn't mean they aren't going to be making claims and judgements... if your big issue is it's bad because some articles on obscure subjects aren't thorough or even that some wrong information may lay dormant for a while then your books aren't a better alternative.

>>12150625
>Why people don't want to support them?
Wikipedia has a serious problem with its admin community. There is significant bias. It leans left, but it doesn't matter which way it leans. Bias is bias, and unacceptable in an encyclopedia. That is why I don't give. Also I hate tech sector SF s o y b o y s.

Just look at the fucking mess in the talk pages of any SJW topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender

>>12153597
The administrators don't seem to be aggressively promoting social justice, it seems to be the academic community produces research that for some reason predominantly ends up verifying left wing positions. The problem is most sources backing up conservative positions rely heavily on sketchy open access journals (or older data) and journalism from places like infowars, breitbart, lifesitenews. You can try looking at metapedia and conservapedia for a more right wing perspective.

>>12153719
You either didn't read or didn't understand my post. Read it again.

>>12153747
you're claiming bias but your issue is really citation standards and the fact "reliable" organizations aren't supporting your positions or framing on topics... without going into the sociology of knowledge the issue is bias can't be eliminated and wikipedias administration is but institutional power, compare these articles:
https://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

>>12153807
I understand perfectly well that bias can't be eliminated, but reputable encyclopedias do their best. Meanwhile, wikipedia admins whom I know personally are VERY vocal in private about their beliefs and those conform to their bias on what should be a professional project.

>>12153830
What's a reputable encyclopedia?

>>12153807
tldr: I don't want MORE bias, or a reference that pleases me, I want one that is respectable by all. Wikipedia is not it.

>>12153837
Britannica, Oxfords, F&W.