I have recently been reading the Ambassadors, by Henry James. Here is the
version from 2005:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=32161591

Here is the current version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambassadors

They are both very bad. So, two points. (1) Wikipedia was very bad in
2005. (2) It hasn't changed since 2005.

This raises a number of important questions.

Obviously the original e-mail belonged on wiki-en-l and was off-topic for foundation-l. But I can't understand why so many different people think it is a good idea to respond to off-topic posts in kind. Please stop participating in the off-topic contests.

Putting this in context. If I were to donate, say £1,500 of gross income to
WMF, it would be reasonable to ask what this money was for: how it was
helping. The WMF goal is to "collect and developing educational content and
to disseminate it effectively and globally". Wikipedia is the main engine
of this project, and is the reason I imagine most people want to donate
money. Would I donate such a sum of money if I thought that it was not
actually helping develop educational content? Hence my question: has
Wikipedia actually changed since 2005? Has any educational content been
added (I am not including porn star bios as educational content, clearly).

I had three answers:

1. The first that this was seriously off-topic. I don't understand why
not.

2. The second compared Wikipedia to going to the barbers, getting a nice
trim, and then the hair getting all messy again. That is clearly not a
reason for donating money, quite the reverse. How is the money actually
going to help, if it all is going to be a mess again in 6 months? I
appreciate a lot of it goes to support the servers and IT and things, but
wouldn't it be more efficient simply to stop people editing, clear up some
of the mess, and lock Wikipedia down? That would be much cheaper. And I
would be willing to fund a clean-up effort.

3. I wasn't quite sure of Phil Nash's objection, I think he was trying to
say that there is no evidence of Wikipedia failing to develop or grow. To
that, I say that if I am going to donate money, I would like clear evidence
that Wikipedia is progressing in the direction I would hope.

I would like to point out I do support a number of charities. I help the
Warburg institute with its library acquisition fund. This makes hard-to-get
books available to students. I don't support WMF, and I won't until there
is clear evidence the money would be used for a good purpose. What do
others think? Why do people donate to WMF?

Peter
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/060939.html

Besides the obvious technological expenses, there are also directors to pay, lawyers to keep on retainer, public relations firms to pay, etc. In fact, too much of the money is going to pay people who have very little to do with the quality of the content or even the delivery of the content.
Source(s):
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cf…
http://www.wikipediareview.com/Top_10_Reasons_…

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...30200156AAGJpGa

I dont understand how information about pornography, computer games, tv shows... is not educational.
If I want to know whether Berle Ives was ever a guest star on Bewitched, why wouldn't we fulfill a request like that in project ?

Ha ha ha :

If the asshole bothered to read his own "encyclopedia", he'd know it's spelled Burl Ives.

Is it possible that, as a multiply sockpuppeting banned user, you just
actually don't understand Wikipedia in any regard whatsoever?
David Gerard http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/060963.html

As for you, like "The Blues Brothers", you claim the moral high ground as if
you were "on a mission from God", yet are not only banned from Wikipedia,
but have expressed an intention to challenge from within, as a kind of
breaching experiment, by complaining to our major donors that you have been
prevented from adding "good content". In fact, you've tried this on several
occasions, none of which have resulted in an perceived reduction on
donations. That should tell you that apart from the various other banned
malcontents who inhabit Wikipedia Review, you are alone, and very much so.

Phil Nash (aka RodHullandEmu) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/060968.html

You are, and have been, committed to several conclusions about
Wikipedia - that the idea of an editable encyclopedia itself is
fatally flawed, that it is unduly oriented to topics of interest to
"the masses", and that the community and its bureaucracy are hopefully
corrupt and ineffective. That, combined with an absolute disregard for
community norms and rules, makes you both a steadfast and imperfect
critic. So I don't imagine anyone expects you to donate or is
surprised that you don't. Few banned editors do.

Nathan http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/060944.html

Phil Nash (aka RodHullandEmu)

Like I said before, any nonprofit with a competent managerial staff would immediately
invest that money--either in a headquarters building, or at least in some kind of
investment that pays a decent rate of interest. The accounts and CDs they have it in are
nearly worthless, as it stands today, except as "parking places".

Oh the "right" view. How Victorian. Can we not say that view which is "supported by the evidence" ? The "right" view sounds so Ivory Towerish to me.

Authors do get recognition, just not in the same way.

The "Neutral Point of View" is not to support the "correct view" (shudder) but rather to support that view which *you* as the self-proclaimed or university-proclaimed expert can.... get ready, get set.... SUPPORT. That's the very point. If you cannot support your view with evidence, than you are not an expert. Rip up your degree. Or else maybe, you are just not a teacher. That Wikipedia, is forcing some so-called experts to re-evaluate their base knowledge is a good thing, not a bad one. If we can shake the very foundations of the university system, than good. I'm very willing to see the entire ediface crumble to the ground under our ceaseless onslaught. Viva [sic] la Revolution !
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/061122.html

Is this the first time that Rod has been ID'd by his real name?

I'm not that bothered by an article on a novel that has changed that much in five years, given that the novel hasn't changed that much either. When you look at an article on a prominent but essentially static subject such as "apple", just sitting there looks good in comparison.