Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Imagine a Wikipedia where the willingness to donate was allowed to control content and discussions. This is a heavily-trafficked site with high Google ranking on almost any subject it covers. The amount it could make allowing companies to pay for control over their own articles is huge.
Similarly, not every instance of profanity is necessarily disruptive, nor is every long name confusing. Also, the following examples should not be taken as moralistic restrictions — Wikipedia is not censored. Using potentially offensive or ambiguous terms in your username should instead be avoided for the sake of community cooperation and ...
The editing and deletion discussions are manned by volunteers. Your donation would not have changed their income or the comfort of their work. The different treatment you desire would not be worth the donation. The editors you are talking to are not likely to want a Wikipedia stripped of proper editorial review or to be a more promotional site.
In all these cases, the answer is a clear "no". Wikipedia does not give any reward other than the presence of the great encyclopedia on the web. It is your choice to contribute a little, to contribute a lot, to not contribute, or to contribute short-lived vandalism. There will be no payment in any of these cases.
First off, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional device. It's wonderful to create an article on a favorite band of yours, but improving Wikipedia should be the main desire, not improving the band. Some edit having the band in mind first, and the addition to Wikipedia's knowledge is just a helpful side effect.
Wikipedia brings free knowledge to the world. Please consider making a donation to support our operations. Wikipedia is non-profit and free of advertising. Please consider making a donation. Wikipedia is free for you, but not free for us. Consider a donation to keep our mission strong. Make a donation to Wikipedia and give the gift of knowledge!
Thus vandalism would not decrease to the extent that it might seem. Not everybody thinks it is necessary to have to go through the rigmarole of signing in to correct typos etc. in passing. It would lead to "multiple pen-name contribution" (such as employed by Eleanor Hibbert) – people who wish to operate outside their normal spheres of ...
Power users sometimes also threaten to withhold their donations, but some are not donors anyway, and the majority of donors give less than US$100, so making a dent in the multimillion-dollar budget would require a concerted action by a large proportion of the community, rather than a snit by a few power users.