Would you be willing to pay to use Wikipedia?
By burrito88
@burrito88 (2774)
United States
December 17, 2011 9:09am CST
The Internet has essentially rendered hard copy encyclopedias obsolete and Wikipedia probably the primary site to find information on the Internet. It's great because it seems to get frequent updates although you need to be cautious because the information may not always be carefully policed and it's possible that a inaccurate information can at times be posted.
Wikipedia has been free to use up until now but like anything free that's free, that may be coming to an end. Lately Wikipedia has been running ads on their pages looking for donations. I don't know how they've kept it free until now, but the fact that they are now soliciting donations makes me feel that things will change. This makes me ask, are you willing to donate money to keep Wikipedia free? Would you be willing to pay to access the site? If you don't want to pay or can't afford to pay, where would you go for the same kind of content?
13 responses
@mi6jamesbond007 (195)
• India
17 Dec 11
Of course with the support of the people who think like me. There are lots of free hosting companies so if people start contributing i think we can start building up a free wikipedia .
1 person likes this
@icciev (81)
• Kuwait
17 Dec 11
You are totally right, this is what make Wiki important in the first place is that it's a free source of information, second thing they can't just starting billing us for information they got for free by other people, I think it would be illegal to do that any way if they do that I will be the first one to contribute with you, what do you think?
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
17 Dec 11
I think that once people publish something on Wikipedia, they are giving up the ownership of the material. There are free hosting companies but think of how much space Wikipedia takes up and how many pages that is. It's costing somebody money just to maintain the servers that data resides on. Next you need to have the right amount of bandwidth to allow the millions of people who use Wikipedia to have access. That means paying an ISP to provide the bandwidth which probably isn't cheap.
@garson (884)
• United States
4 Feb 12
There is a comment here about library, which you can always use for free. Sometimes, you might have to pay a fee for certain services or late fees. If you can read any books and access any info in the library for free, I would like the same way with Wikipedia and many websites. Wikipedia is helpful when you are doing a research paper, school project, or for your own knowledge. If I have to pay a fee, I would just look for any info somewhere.
Wikipedia soliciting donations does not mean that there will be major changes. They may offer an upgrade service for a fee, but Wikipedia knows that most people would like to have free access to everything. Note the word DONATIONS. You don't have to. Donations would just help them with their internet service, or whichever would help fund Wikipedia in general.
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
5 Feb 12
I think I said this above. Books in a library are static. Once they are printed they can't be updated without a new edition being printed. Wikipedia is dynamic. I can be updated when changes occur or are needed so it's information can be more current.
My suggestion about paying to use Wiki is based on the thought or belief that someday they may have to charge for usage if the site gets too big or the donations get too small.
@garson (884)
• United States
27 Feb 12
No matter how big or how lessen the site could be, I don't think most people would like the idea of paying to use it. Wikipedia is constantly growing, but that does not mean that it will have to charge a fee for every user. What I'm aware that the site has large numbers of volunteers.
@zukichucha (991)
• United States
17 Dec 11
I would not pay for something that can possibly be giving me false information. I always research things for myself. At least this way I know I am getting the right info. Using different sources is the best way to attain knowledge.
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
17 Dec 11
This is true but what other sources are there and how easy is it to find them?
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
5 Feb 12
Yes but many media sources can be biased. Take the way Fox News and MSNBC might cover the same politic story. Their 'news' story would be slanted based on each networks political views.
@jadoixa (1166)
• Philippines
17 Dec 11
when i search something i always go for wikipedia..i like how most information about anything is presented..but i wouldn't want to pay if i should access wikipedia..if not then i will just go to other pages and websites where i can read free information about anyone and anything...
@LifeOngoing (129)
• United States
19 Dec 11
If wikipedia had checks in place to prevent bad information then I could see it. Right now there are some incomplete and frankly wrong articles there. It's a very nice reference to consult, but I don't see it as a reputable reference yet. I love the idea of it though.
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
27 Dec 11
It would also be nice if they gave you good and accurate references to cited material so you could check the primary source. They'd also need to make sure the links to the references stay accurate.
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
27 Dec 11
If you were the site administrator for a site like that, how long would you be willing to provide access for free?
@CTHanum (8234)
• Malaysia
18 Dec 11
I will not pay any cents to it.(^^) Real cruel huh?? I will do it if I got more money but I just think that I am not able to do it now.(^^)Since there are other source and sites so there will be no problem to get info. It's all in your fingertips. If we need to pay wikipedia then the user will move on to other sites who provides free material. If we can't get it then I think it is fine to find the info from other sources/media.We should learn not to depend too much on wikipedia or the internet so to speak.(^^)
@CTHanum (8234)
• Malaysia
19 Dec 11
Mylotpedia is a good idea but there will be recycled topics again and again and we can see it everywhere. Yes, there are many holes and mistakes info written in wiki but still we can use the basic facts in there. It is still on the top of the list since we the user really love to just now the fundamental without even want to know the details. If we like to find the details of something only then we can search and find it in more specific websites.(^^)
@AgentGulaman (3546)
• Philippines
18 Dec 11
Hmmm...Kind of tricky one. Wikipedia is a very convenient site to get about anything you want to know. But still, I don't trust the contents fully that goes with. I just use it as first line basis and a feel through information about a certain topic. So to answer your question, it is a no. I will not pay for information that is just feel through or first line for me. I'd rather pay for the concrete, heavy and detailed information at that. And I think that there are a lot of other open sites out there that can give you the resources that Wikipedia has to offer. You just have to look deeper in the internet domain.
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
27 Dec 11
There are encyclopedias online but they may only offer limited free access because they want you to pay for access. Those encyclopedias most likely review their content to make sure it is valid.
@pennywise25 (321)
• Mexico
18 Dec 11
I would, but wikipedia would have to change in that case. Currently, wikipedia is a site everyone can create contents in, and that's ok, because a reduced number of people wouldn't be able to cover such a broad number of topics a multitude of users can. What is not good is that many of those topics are not checked for accuracy, and that makes everything be unreliable and obscure. In my college doing a homework based on wikipedia is very close to a sin, a major one. So, if wikipedia was a constantly checked and high quality site, it really would be worth it.
@WakeUpKitty (8694)
• Netherlands
18 Dec 11
No I would not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia made by all people and it's always a question if the info is right and still up to date. This all beside of the fact their is plenty of similair info you can find on the internet for free as well. But also also this is not all complete or true or just true in the eyes of the writer.
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
27 Dec 11
We should always consider the source of our information. This can be especially true of newspapers and TV and radio. And it can be very untrustworthy in political campaigns.
@majali10 (21)
•
17 Dec 11
No, because there is a lot of websites the have all kinds of researches in it.Wikipedia is not the only website that has information in it.
I don't think that Wikipedia will turn into site because they are already collecting donations :)
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
17 Dec 11
I don't think there are any websites as easy to access as Wikipedia. We can only hope there are enough donations. Are you willing to donate?
