 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
One discussion point that arises with some frequency during deletion discussions is a claim of "I was going to donate a lot of money to Wikipedia, but now that I see how you editors are acting, I'm not going to." This is most commonly used by editors who are new to Wikipedia and have been looking to use it to promote a favorite business, person, or cause. If you've been directed to this page, perhaps you have used it yourself.
This is not an effective gambit.
The reasons why this statement fails to have the intended impact include:
- Nobody believes you were going to donate. There is nothing cheaper than to say that you were going to donate but won't. It costs you nothing, so it's recognized as any easy boast.
- The people you are addressing would not have been helped by the donation. In the vast majority of cases, what you're saying is not being seen by anyone who is actually employed by Wikipedia. The editing and deletion discussions are manned by volunteers. Your donation would not have changed their income or the comfort of their work.
- The different treatment you desire would not be worth the donation. The editors you are talking to are not likely to want a Wikipedia stripped of proper editorial review or to be a more promotional site.
- A Wikipedia that was friendly to promotional edits would have access to far more money than whatever you are claiming you would have donated. Imagine a Wikipedia where the willingness to donate was allowed to control content and discussions. This is a heavily-trafficked site with high Google ranking on almost any subject it covers. The amount it could make allowing companies to pay for control over their own articles is huge. But then, it wouldn't be Wikipedia.
- The people you are talking to have donated far more than you would have. The amount of time that has been spent editing Wikipedia articles is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of hours, including much effort by experts in their fields. That's billions of dollars worth of time, donated for free.
So don't act as if you're financially punishing Wikipedia for being Wikipedia. Instead, try to find ways in which Wikipedia goals are in line with your personal goals, and try to work with other editors to work toward those overlapping goals.
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
One discussion point that arises with some frequency during deletion discussions is a claim of "I was going to donate a lot of money to Wikipedia, but now that I see how you editors are acting, I'm not going to." This is most commonly used by editors who are new to Wikipedia and have been looking to use it to promote a favorite business, person, or cause. If you've been directed to this page, perhaps you have used it yourself.
This is not an effective gambit.
The reasons why this statement fails to have the intended impact include:
- Nobody believes you were going to donate. There is nothing cheaper than to say that you were going to donate but won't. It costs you nothing, so it's recognized as any easy boast.
- The people you are addressing would not have been helped by the donation. In the vast majority of cases, what you're saying is not being seen by anyone who is actually employed by Wikipedia. The editing and deletion discussions are manned by volunteers. Your donation would not have changed their income or the comfort of their work.
- The different treatment you desire would not be worth the donation. The editors you are talking to are not likely to want a Wikipedia stripped of proper editorial review or to be a more promotional site.
- A Wikipedia that was friendly to promotional edits would have access to far more money than whatever you are claiming you would have donated. Imagine a Wikipedia where the willingness to donate was allowed to control content and discussions. This is a heavily-trafficked site with high Google ranking on almost any subject it covers. The amount it could make allowing companies to pay for control over their own articles is huge. But then, it wouldn't be Wikipedia.
- The people you are talking to have donated far more than you would have. The amount of time that has been spent editing Wikipedia articles is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of hours, including much effort by experts in their fields. That's billions of dollars worth of time, donated for free.
So don't act as if you're financially punishing Wikipedia for being Wikipedia. Instead, try to find ways in which Wikipedia goals are in line with your personal goals, and try to work with other editors to work toward those overlapping goals.