Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is not an effective gambit. The reasons why this statement fails to have the intended impact include: Nobody believes you about your donations. There is nothing cheaper than to say that you were going to donate but won't, or that you have donated before but are now going to stop. It costs you nothing, so it's recognized as an easy boast.
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! Wikipedia is free of advertising. Please help us keep it that way. Donate today, and empower the world with the ability to share in the sum of all human ...
A person editing with an account is not treated as doing so on behalf of another body or person. (Exceptions are exceedingly rare and require approval.) Examples: Names promoting a business, group, activist stance, or organization; Offensive or disruptive: User names are used to simply identify users uniquely.
If you want to help feel free to donate in any way you can. Thank you. – The Wikimedia Foundation". This takes inspiration mainly from Banner 2 however is much more friendly and also says that monetary donations are not the only kind of donation that can help support the various projects.
Adding the name of a non-notable individual to a stand-alone list of alumni is bad for several reasons. It undermines Wikipedia's legitimacy as an encyclopedia. Facebook, LinkedIn and other social networking sites provide people a forum to discuss their lives. Wikipedia is meant to provide factual information about notable topics.
Wikipedia is a very different place now than it was in 2001. In the early days of Wikipedia, volunteers could pick almost any notable topic and start an article about it. There were some basic guidelines for article content, but they were not as well developed or as consistently enforced as they are now. Since then, we have amassed more than 6 ...
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.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that some things are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before content can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research .