Which sites are worth a few bucks?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I just visited Wikipedia, and they have a plea for donations up on the site, including a message from their founder (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Letter/en?utm_source=2008_jimmy_letter_r&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=fundraiser2008#appeal). I ended up chipping in a tiny bit because it's one of few sites I truly rely on. I am just as demanding as anyone else that things remain free, but there are sites worth supporting.

Since I know all of you use Wikipedia as much as everyone else, I figure some might be interested in donating over there. I was also wondering if there are other sites you've given to.

[Snowflake]

Um, Lot? :cool: Yes.

[Kevy Baby]

Thanks to your heads up CP, I donated today. Wikipedia and the LoT are the only two non-commerce sites that I can think of to donate to.

BTW readers: did YOU donate to the LoT fund (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?t=8846)?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm a member of KCRW, and I will be donating a few bucks to This American Life in support of their free podcasting which I take full advantage of. Supposedly my company will do 1:1 donation matching on that, so I need to look into that.

[scaeagles]

I've found wikipedia to be too unreliable and too easy for people to modify with faulty info, and therefore can't support it. I have read various articles on the subject and did a quick search to find this one for now -

The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles. Overall, Wikipedia's accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources. Furthermore, the research found at least five unattributed direct quotations and verbatim text from other sources with no citations.
(http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=B5971624ED12D3D4BFBF FC762150B834?contentType=Article&contentId=1674221)

I had a friend who attempted to demonstrate this once and went to a wikipedia article on the speed of light. He modified the speed of light from 186,000 miles per second to 186,000 miles per hour. He checked it regularly over the next few days and it stayed that way for well over a week.

[Kevy Baby]

I've found wikipedia to be too unreliable and too easy for people to modify with faulty info, and therefore can't support it.But if it is on the internet, it must be true!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I've found wikipedia to be too unreliable and too easy for people to modify with faulty info, and therefore can't support it. I have read various articles on the subject and did a quick search to find this one for now -

The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles. Overall, Wikipedia's accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources. Furthermore, the research found at least five unattributed direct quotations and verbatim text from other sources with no citations.
(http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=B5971624ED12D3D4BFBF FC762150B834?contentType=Article&contentId=1674221)

I had a friend who attempted to demonstrate this once and went to a wikipedia article on the speed of light. He modified the speed of light from 186,000 miles per second to 186,000 miles per hour. He checked it regularly over the next few days and it stayed that way for well over a week.
Yes, that is how Wikipedia works. No one should expect it to be perfectly accurate all of the time. A week sounds reasonable (though many studies claim mere hours, something as easy to miss as a one word change would get lost for a while, I'd bet.)

Wikipedia is a resource like any other. One of the first things they teach you in any research related class (and then repeatedly go over and over) is that all resources are varyingly reliable. I know where wikipedia stands on reliability. There are lots of tools there to dig further if you want to be sure of where the info comes from.

We can quote studies and articles forever on this (shall I provide a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia)?) but here's one of my favorites.

Library Journal's reviewers look at Wikipedia. (http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6317246.html) Great article. LJ is among the most respected librarian review periodicals.

While there are still reasons to proceed with caution when using a resource that takes pride in limited professional management, many encouraging signs suggest that (at least for now) Wikipedia may be granted the librarian’s seal of approval.

[Alex]

The fact that Wikipedia is home to vast amounts of plagiarism is not a good thing, but from a research point of view that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

One of the key ways I use Wikipedia is that unlike almost anything else on the internet it regularly provides citations to scholarly resources. No, I don't rely on it to exclusivity but it does frequently provide a high level overview and an entry point into deeper research and that is a good thing. After all, that is all the Encyclopeadia Brittanica is, as well (though admittedly more rigorously peer reviewed). And unlike the EB you don't have to rely on annual update volumes that nobody ever remembers to check to learn that the information in your edition has been completely superseded.

[€uroMeinke]

I don't know, the fact that you can view previous versions of pages and attached discussions make it more complete for me, at least it hi-lights what the areas of "controversy" are - or at least where someone is just making changes to be a jerk/prove a point.

[Morrigoon]

I like to visit wikipedia first, because the entries often give me the search terms I'll need for further research. Especially when I'm looking for a single piece of info or just a general definition.

[Alex]

I don't know, the fact that you can view previous versions of pages and attached discussions make it more complete for me, at least it hi-lights what the areas of "controversy" are - or at least where someone is just making changes to be a jerk/prove a point.

In theory I like that too, but must admit that I almost never actually look at the revision history on a page to get any sense of whether there is some element of the page frequently edited back and forth or other signs of controversy. I also almost never look at the discussions associated with a page.

[Alex]

And to answer the OP somewhat directly, other than the New York Times crossword puzzle, there is not a single Web site I have supported financially simply for content.

A year of donating to NPR was the closest instance and since that act of support resulted in approximately 4 billion calls requesting charitable donations I stopped it and live a life of mooching while getting my dose of Ira Glass and Science Friday.

[BarTopDancer]

One of the key ways I use Wikipedia is that unlike almost anything else on the internet it regularly provides citations to scholarly resources.

Wikipedia saved my butt when writing the ginormous paper I had to write. It had sources Google didn't come up with.

[Kevy Baby]

I just visited Wikipedia, and they have a plea for donations up on the site, including a message from their founder (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Letter/en?utm_source=2008_jimmy_letter_r&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=fundraiser2008#appeal).And there is now a thank you message from their founder (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/ThankYou/en?utm_source=2008_jimmy_thank_you_b&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=fundraiser2008#appeal).