Will you donate to Wikipedia foundation?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Appeal/en?utm_source=2009_Jimmy_Appeal1&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=fundraiser2009&target=Appeal
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$8 Answers
The real strength in sites like Wikipedia is not 100% accuracy. It's user generated content, community contributions, and timeliness. These are all things that make Mahalo great as well.
Information on Wikipedia should never be viewed as completely accurate. However, they do have a pretty amazing level of volunteer work put in to keep pages as accurate and without bias as possible. At the gigantic scale of Wikipedia, I commend them for having so many great contributors and volunteers who edit when anything new happens in the world and monitor pages for them being trashed.
I would rather democratize information than keep everything locked down and staff-edited. The fact that Wikipedia is so open to the public has made it a bigger resource than almost any website on the internet. It's strength is the fact that its open, and its advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Sites like DigitalJournal.com and other citizen journalism websites use this same model - open it up to all and you build more content, faster. Not all will be perfect, but a good percentage of it will be useful to someone somewhere.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
I won't donate any of my cash to Wikipedia not because I don't like the service they provide but because of the adage "why buy the cow when you get the milk for free".
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Would I donate? To be honest, I haven't thought much about it. But I should, and I will.
It seems so many areas of entertainment and information resources are moving to ad-driven profit models. I wonder if, in the future, things will swing the other way again. The advertising will become so obnoxious we'll be willing to pay to make it go away.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
From the link in question
"The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization .... created in 2003 to operate, grow, nurture, and protect Wikipedia. For ten million US dollars a year and with a staff of fewer than 35 people, it runs the fifth most-read website in the entire world. I'm asking for your help so we can continue our work."
In other words, they are asking for donations to keep the staff and infrastructure of Wikipedia going full strength.
In that respect if we donated then the accuracy of site would improve yes? They might actually hire more staff to do the quality controls, the updates, the infrastructure everyone is complaining about ( well not everyone is complaining :)
So, I think it would be a reasonable thing to donate towards - its not perfect but what on the internet is?? It might make for a better Wiki in the years to come....
Will I donate? No, I don't have the money. But if I could donate to every worthy cause there was, this would be on the list.
Knowledge is a wonderful thing! Access to knowledge is a bonus for everyone and accuracy might get better if we did donate.
PS - mind you, surely there are plenty of rich business types that could revamp the thing to make a profit so they wouldn't need donations....
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$I avoid wiki like the plague as I don't feel it provides accurate information.
I think what the founder had in mind when setting it up was a beautiful thing. (I saw an interview about it once) He wanted to create an open flow of knowledge, a bank that everyone worldwide could assess for free.
However, he forgot that the world is full of idiots and when you allow idiots to edit knowledge you destroy the knowledge.
Wonderful idea, epic fail, my money has better uses.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
lol Hardly.
Mahalo for one is profit driven, it's a business not a charity. The information on pages in Mahalo are also monitored, quality controlled, fact checked, require citation (You will never see "citation needed" on a mahalo page.) and cannot be written or edited by anyone who stumbles upon them.
Would I say Mahalo is as trust worthy as good old text book, no, but saying it's a form of wiki is laughable. Any and all information can be false but when you have anyone you want changing information to say anything they want.. you have a problem. They are two entirely different beasts.
Preface it's not a comment about who is the best or that Mahalo is worst, it's the fact that some people lie and make up stuff about "wiki" in general without knowing much about them or what they are all about, I encourage you to follow the links and discover what you have been missing about wiki so that you can comeback and improve mahalo and be a bit more knowledgeable about what,s out there on the web.
@unwirklich
"Mahalo for one is profit driven"
Nope, it's social community driven, if it was profit driven I could place an add everywhere and the contributor and employee would be money maker's only.
"it's a business not a charity."
You think Wikipedia is a charity ? You think charity are inferior to business ? You think Mahalo is 100% pure business ?
Answer : No , No , no.
"The information on pages in Mahalo are also monitored"
There is more monitoring on Wikipedia vs Mahalo, because it as more visits and members for now and experts that knows about wikipedia.
"quality controlled"
It's not a product, you meant content control and reviews. it's pretty much the same and Mahalo enjoy the lack of knowledge by the clown who deface wikipedia for fun for now.
"fact checked"
Wikipedia as more content and fact checkers ...
"require citation"
Because it's not a requirement ...
"cannot be written or edited by anyone who stumbles upon them. "
You mean the managed pages ... But one can create new pages of content as it will.
"Would I say Mahalo is as trust worthy as good old text book, no,"
Wow, as someone who was poor ( me ) and had to work with old dictionnary, who where outdated and incomplete even do from trusted source. I can tell you old text books can be made by quacks and full of incomplete and wrong notions.
" but saying it's a form of wiki is laughable."
on 17 november 2009 :
http://onlinemediacultist.com/2009/11/17/jason-calacanis-mahalo-ceo-interview/
"What is the goal of Mahalo 3.0 ?
We’re trying to merge content, q&a and search on one page. It’s a really hard thing to do visually, and the truth is no one has ever done it.
Essentially we’re making Wikipedia-style pages with Yahoo Answers and Google search bolted on. The trick is to try and make it not feel bolted on"
Actually what is really laughable is your self taught false notion that wiki are inferiors.
http://fr.wikipedia.org
http://de.wikipedia.org
http://es.wikipedia.org
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.wowwiki.com/Portal:Main
http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Finnally , my take is you have no idea what your talking about, where as wiki is concerned, and since you think Mahalo is in competition with wikipedia and particpate on mahalo your obviously highly biased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wikis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_encyclopedias
Mahalo is a form of wiki ...
Nothing that I said was made up or a lie. If it is please show so through source. In fact you have backed up everything I said when trying to debase my comments.
Mahalo runs off google ad revenue. They pay their contributors. In my book that is profit driven. Mahalo was not created solely for the sake of knowledge as is claimed in the case of wiki. I consider it a charity because contributors are contributing for free. The site's purpose is not to make money, but to provide information. I never said that a business was better than a charity, I said that wiki failed to be what it was wished to be according to it's founder and why I felt it had failed.
The point is that it's irrelevant that wiki has fact checkers because if I can come along and say, hmm well I disagree and edit the page, and the person after me can say, oh, that's not right.. and change it again. Whether me, the person after me, or the person that wrote it are right is not confirmed. All the monitoring in the world is pointless if the people monitoring it don't have accurate information. They SHOULD require sources and citation and Mahalo does.
Also for the record, a Mahalo page cannot just be written by anyone. All pages are requested and then reviewed before publication.
"Wikipedia-style pages" does not mean that Mahalo is a form of wiki. That simply is not the truth. If you'd like, we could ask Jason himself. To top it, you really are sitting here arguing to me why wiki is better than Mahalo while trying to support they are the same thing... and that makes me laugh.
I do not really care if Mahalo is in competition with Wiki, I stated I trust Mahalo over wiki which is my personal opinion. If you disagree that's wonderful, disagreement often prompts erudition. However if you want to suggest I have no idea what I'm talking about you may want to get your own opinion straight and support some of what you are saying.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
To the above comment ..You do know your own article quotes..
""The (Nature) article is saying that Wikipedia has a third more errors" than Britannica, said Jorge Cauz, president of Encyclopedia Britannica. "
A third more errors is as accurate? Did wiki edit reality to not consider 33.33% a considerable difference? lmao
Also Gray, I should note you didn't actually answer the question here. It was not is wiki a valid source of information but would you donate and why or why not. :)
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.
The content is reviewed by more scholar and expert in more languages then any other encyclopedia.
"and anyone can make an entry. "
Yes to be reviewed or discarded if the content is false and erronous. Unlike Conservapedia who almsot no one can make an entry and most of teh content is lies and false and innacurate.
@unwirklich
"You do know your own article quotes"
No, I know the entire content.
"A third more errors is as accurate?"
It don't have a third more error. That's a made up statistic by the Encyclopedia people.
"Did wiki edit reality to not consider 33.33% a considerable difference?"
That would be your own point made up on someone else made up statistics.
Wikipedia as more content in more language then Britanica does and as more clown editing it or trying to falsify it to be more clear.
