rk T
Diminishing returns VS. #Donations
Was funny / coincidental....
Was looking at Wikipedia page:
#Law of #Diminishing Returns page and coincidentally it showed a donations advert...
Now it's #Wikipedia so it's fine but imagine a pay-gate next (like everything else, which is quite logical if people don't like paying through US banks or just don't pay at all being stingy / poor)
I thought this was worth saying as there are a number of valid factors destined to become poor,
And if you like paying through American banks do give)... even if I wouldn't because all the #Wealth seems to turn out for the worse in the end... (and via US Bank$ #US mis-managing it all behind your back - sorry but seem #USPol seems totally related to #donations and #banking after all)... Peace.
Diminishing returns VS. #Donations
@corruptian How so?
Diminishing returns VS. #Donations
Wikipedia is the go-to easy answer for search engines, which discourages other people from putting quality content online since they will simply get ignored. Wikipedia = the impetus behind link rot.
Diminishing returns VS. #Donations
@corruptian Seems your focus is on search engines and perhaps speaking for others.
Without defending Wikipedia too much, it just does very well and link rot can be blamed either way if doing well and we use it.
You mention Wikipedia dying which is like totally flipping the board the other way and seems even less useful than something like both this and that or mix of things. So I question that logic.
If you agree Wikipedia scores highly both on content AND NO Adverts, NO Google stuff (much of which is on personal sites), and quite clean / fast in and out info as a service (even if not 100% perfect)... then I think that should stand REGARDLESS if other people or search engines overly' us Wikipedia.
You can't take away from that high score that serves so many well (with reason they use that and not personal sites) every single second of every day, while other sites are hit and miss on a variety of fronts...
So the logic and reasoning seems to stand more than blaming.
Diminishing returns VS. #Donations
No, I don't think it scores high on content. Generally it's plagiarism from better sources.
Diminishing returns VS. #Donations
@corruptian So it seems a matter of option if logic is not used so far.
Words like Plagiarism are fine but might easily (and actually) be replaced logically (and also very evidently) by the list of references and numbered sources each page has as achor links in brackets, such as "[1]" or [11] at the end of sentence to SHOW where it gets the sentence from (i.e. not plagiarism)
And even at the end I'd allow for some slack consider all it's trying to is as encyclopedia and changing life, like a collection of short sentences.
In fact, I would say that Wikipedia has reduced the quality of content on the web by crowding out other sources.
It was given a de facto monopoly by Google and Bing as first in every search result.
This discourages actual content creators.
No, Wikipedia has been a disaster. It's also accepted as a definitive authority which encourages abuse.
Wikipedia = a good source of reference even if not perfect - What do you think?
@corruptian Another post with more opinion and not much as specific or backup to #reasoning.
But I respect your #opinion.
Maybe to finish here in something different to more of the same, try to balance your opinion with something a bit more concrete / #specific or personally clear, like ...
Point to some better examples / sites please?
Say why you care about #searchengines so much or if Wikipedia is top since that's how people find the homepages which sometimes don't do well to get top or want to play into #Google / etc #monopoly etc (they let Wikipedia etc do the work for them)
Say how it impacts your own life directly
How do you #measure #Wikipedia as an authority?
Yes some might treat it as a definitive source or #bible of #knowledge but it can be refuted or #discussed based on the #source of each #sentence (almost each is attributed to somewhere else).
But just opinions will mostly not be clear to as to what bits you mean and where it can be better etc... while accepting nothing should be considered that perfect but general guide if you're looking for things of #fact and #reference with #links to more elsewhere...
Wikipedia = a good source of reference even if not perfect - What do you think?
Wait, stop -- you're been infected
There's rationalist language in here: can, could, might
Realities: Wikipedia displaces better resources on specific topic areas.
The internet was better and more varied before Google/Wikipedia.
Wikipedia = a good source of reference even if not perfect - What do you think?
@corruptian Great.
We've invested enough here.
And more of the same is not going to further much else.
Just saying I'm close to blocking and being transparent in that to stop myself even wasting your time. No offense intended - have to protect my own level of interest beyond what we covered.
Diminishing returns VS. #Donations
@freeschool
When Wikipedia dies, the net starts to recover.