Wikipedia seeking donations again. Here's the most compelling argument to give I've seen so far

Yes it is!

Now cough it up you little shits!

I haven’t done any essays since 1986, and I did them myself.

Wikipedia is worth a donation simply for what it is.

Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia co-founder) is on the record as stating that “Altruism is evil,” yet he asks his users for donations which would seem to be asking his donors to be altruistic. Is this a contradiction?

Do you have a cite on him stating that? It’s not that I don’t believe you, but it seems like an odd thing to be said by someone who co-founded a free resource like Wikipedia. (Well okay, it seems like an odd thing for anybody to say, but in this case it also seems hypocritical.)

I’ve loved Jimmy since I met him at school, but this sure does seem hyprocritical

Don’t you mean to say, “[Citation Needed]”?

I think Wikipedia should stop begging and accept advertising. No pop ups thou! They are annoying as hell. The ads would take up less space than their begging.

I think NPR should accept ads also. Ads are much less annoying than their fund drives.

I’m not sure that I accept as a reliable cite, but I will say that Google turns up numerous mentions of Wales’ interest in Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
Assuming it’s true, it does seem odd that he’d be involved in, and begging for, something like Wikipedia.

At first I was going to say I’d be skeptical of someone’s ex-wife saying they said something like that, but then there’s this:

I think you can argue that donating to Wiki isn’t really “altruistic” but just compensating them for what you’ve decided it’s worth to you. Paying for something you’ve benefitted from that also happens to benefit others isn’t really “altruism” in my view.

I never knew altruism was scacrificing your own VALUES for others. Time, money, and some other stuff maybe, but values?

Though if he actually thinks Rand’s crap is something more than an interesting thing to talk about and is yet butthurt about not getting enough donations, well screw him.

He seems to be using a nonstandard definition of the word altruism.

But you aren’t paying for it, because it doesn’t cost anything. He even flat out calls it donating, not paying.

Even if you use the Randian definition of altruism, you have a problem in that people aren’t in any way adding content in order to compensate other people. They are giving it because they want common knowledge. They are giving away knowledge for free, and even Rand would have to call that altruism.

Ever since the insisted on using biscuit instead of cookie and maize instead of corn, I refuse to donate :slight_smile:

More English speakers say corn and cookies than maize and cookie. And refusing to call Burma, Myanmar? Who is Wikipedia to tell the actual rulers of a country what they can call it. Yeah I know it’s not recognized but they do control it. As Archie says to Mike when Mike says he renounced his baptism. “Go renounce your bellybutton it’s still there.”


If you Google “Altruism is Evil” and “Jimmy Wales” you will get numerous links of varying reliabilty, but, regretably, most of these links are dead.

I’m so fucking tired of seeing his smarmy mug. It was the impetus I needed to finally install adblock in my new browser.

Pay us money to keep Wikipedia free!
(I get it, the idea is just slightly humorous to me. But I think occasional obnoxious fund drives are better than all-the-time obnoxious ads, AdBlock notwithstanding)

But…if my values say that altruism should be practiced whenever possible, but altruism requires sacrificing my values…I’m so confused.