Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A note on the separate status of the Wikimedia Endowment. The Wikimedia Endowment, held from 2016 to 2023 by the Tides Foundation and now a standalone 501(c)(3) nonprofit, is not and has never been included in Wikimedia Foundation assets, even though Wikimedia Foundation fundraising staff solicit donations to the Endowment and the Wikimedia Foundation itself made donations to the Endowment.
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 ...
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.
A huge number of people - far more than ever donate (and that's totally ok!) can actually afford 20 bucks or 20 euros or 20 pounds. I don't think we want to hint that not being able to afford to give is the only acceptable reason not to give - it's just, you know, if you want to give, and you can afford to give, then please do.--
This page details arguments that are commonly seen in deletion discussions that have been identified as generally unsound and unconvincing. These are arguments that should generally be avoided – or at the least supplemented with a better-grounded rationale for the position taken, whether that be "keep", "delete" or some other objective.
Of course, the upside of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia ANYONE can edit. But the downside is that it is an encyclopedia ANYONE can edit. So, if someone wanted to, they could edit Abraham Lincoln's page to say he was a professional wrestler. For this reason, Wikipedia should be treated with caution as a research source.
The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia.
People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title, then it should be moved. In many cases, this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy. It's a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one.