Fuck you, Wikipedia


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Ads like this are enough reason to never, ever, ever donate a penny to them.


  • Dupa

    You came hear for fucking knowledge? Fuck you, pay us instead!

    Oops, sorry, "just give us a cuppa, mate. Look, we're cool and hip: There's a picture of black coffee."



  • Meh, I'm ambivalent to it. It's dismissible. It's literally the only ad they run, and only once or twice a year. It it's being completely honest about what it's doing, rather than lying or tricking you.

    It could be a little less IN YOUR FUCKING FACE, but it's not keeping you from the content (overlay/paywall).

    I've given them money ($20 I think) in the past because I find the site to be a very useful resource, and it's tax deductible.



  • I completely disagree. Donate if you want to, or don't if you don't want to, but refusing to donate simply because they dare to ask for donations from time to time is petty and childish.

    That being said, how do you think they should support their operations? Banner ads? Paywalls? Sell premium placement of content to sponsors? Sell the operation to a big corporation?

    Given the alternatives, what they are doing is by far the least objectionable.



  • @David_C said:

    simply because they dare to ask for donations from time to time is petty and childish.

    It's not them asking, it's how they ask that the objection was about.



  • I don't see anything wrong with it. I donate when they ask because I trust that they only ask when they actually need donations. It's a non-profit organization dedicated to spreading free knowledge and I support that goal very much, donating some money and clicking away the donation banner from time to time is totally worth it for me.

    If you use Wikipedia often enough to be annoyed by the banner, that means you should donate.



  • @LB_ said:

    If you use Wikipedia often enough to be annoyed by the banner, that means you should donatedismiss it.

    ­



  • Wow, you'll complain about a dismissable, non-spammy banner? From a nonprofit which runs one of the biggest sites on the internet and no ads?

    What is wrong with you?


  • Notification Spam Recipient

    At least it's not


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Lorne_Kates said:

    It could be a little less IN YOUR FUCKING FACE

    Well, that's the thing--it was nearly half the screen high. Every time they run these damn ad campaigns the ads get bigger.


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @FrostCat said:

    Every time they run these damn ad campaigns the ads get bigger.

    Maybe they're getting greedy? Size of ad = how much they really want their bonuses?



  • @FrostCat said:

    @Lorne_Kates said:
    It could be a little less IN YOUR FUCKING FACE

    Well, that's the thing--it was nearly half the screen high. Every time they run these damn ad campaigns the ads get bigger.

    It probably works better if it's bigger. If you couldn't dismiss them, or they covered up the text, I'd agree with you. Hell, it isn't even a third-party ad-- it's first party, coming from first party servers. In this case, this is one of the few times I'd say "acceptable ad". And I think we all know my opinion on ads.



  • Where the fuck do they live that a cup of coffee is $3? That's not true even in Seattle, where Starbucks has ballooned-up coffee prices beyond all belief.



  • @David_C said:

    I completely disagree. Donate if you want to, or don't if you don't want to, but refusing to donate simply because they dare to ask for donations from time to time is petty and childish.

    I refuse to donate because their site policies encourage dickholes to delete people's work with no recourse.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Where the fuck do they live that a cup of coffee is $3? That's not true even in Seattle, where Starbucks has ballooned-up coffee prices beyond all belief.

    "Price of coffee" is a generic catchall for "c'mon man just spare some change".

    Here a small Tim Hortons is $1.50. A whateverthefucksmallis Fancyfucker coffee (Starbucks, Second Cup, etc) is $2-$4, depending. Lattes and shit tend to start around $5.

    In :maple_leaf::heavy_dollar_sign: so fuck you.


  • Dupa

    @blakeyrat said:

    Where the fuck do they live that a cup of coffee is $3?

    Poland.

    Filed under: Honestly.



  • 'Round here a tall latte is probably in the $2-3 range, depending on what it is. (Americano = water = cheaper, while a mocha = no water = more pricey).



  • @Lorne_Kates said:

    In :maple_leaf::heavy_dollar_sign:

    I'm going to start calling CAD "Maple leaf heavy dollars" from now on.


  • Dupa

    @rc4 said:

    (Americano = water = cheaper, while a mocha = no water = more pricey).

    Yeah, in Poland there are a few VAT tax rates (IIRC 3). The highest one is 23%. The preferential one, for food mostly is 8%. It used to be that coffee was taxed with 8% rate, but now this is only true for black coffee. If you add something to it, it's 23% for you and fuck you in your face.


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @blakeyrat said:

    Where the fuck do they live that a cup of coffee is $3?

    Well, if we're going by their addvertising, it used to be only $1.



  • @Lorne_Kates said:

    In :maple_leaf::heavy_dollar_sign: so fuck you.

    Wait, there are places where you can pay with those now? What's next, Monopoly money?



  • @kt_ said:

    23% for you and fuck you in your face

    Ouch. As if the high tax rate alone wasn't bad enough...


  • Dupa

    Yeah, but it actually isn't the highest in the EU, it's somewhere in the middle.

    And that's fucking horrifying.



  • Yeah, but all the social services!!11 :trolleybus: :trolleybus: :doing_it_wrong: :magnets_having_sex:


  • Dupa

    Well, actually I think, that VAT's the most fair type of all the taxes. Not only compared to income tax; we have a 19% savings tax here in Poland, FFS.



  • @kt_ said:

    we have a 19% savings tax here in Poland, FFS.

    Not 19% on the contents of your bank account I hope? We've got that, at 1.2% IIRC, and you don't even get that much on a savings account any more.


  • Dupa

    Nope, it's from the interest you get. So for every 100 PLN earned this way, you get only 81 PLN. Why? Because.

    It was introduced as a temporal way to deal with <something>. It stayed this way around a decade now.



  • Ah, yes, I believe we had that system in the past at 30%. They moved to the current model because when investments come into the mix it got too expensive to determine how much to tax. I hear the want to switch systems again because of the tax-higher-than-interest thing, supposedly link it to the yield on government bonds. Though I think those are negative at the moment and I don't see them giving us money.



  • @kt_ said:

    Nope, it's from the interest you get. So for every 100 PLN earned this way, you get only 81 PLN. Why? Because.

    In the US it's regular income, so it's taxed at whatever marginal rate you're at.



  • I like Wikipedia and find it to be an excellent resource. However, it's hard to feel generous toward someone who wastes money as fast as it comes in. They would need a lot less money if it wasn't for:

    200 employees, which is four times as many as they had 5 years ago, and they are planning to hire more. This includes a legal and community advocacy department with 12 employees, and another 30 people in fundraising, grant-making, and communications. These departments run yearly expenses of over $12 million.

    Then there's $20 Million a year for the 120 engineers and developers . . . who do what exactly?

    $6 million a year in grants to local chapters, but according to a report last year by their Funds Dissemination Committee, "many of the chapters, despite rising costs, lacked the ability to execute and demonstrate proven results,”

    $2 Million in travel expenses.

    And in addition to all the money they take in from their constant begging, they're sitting on more than $50 Million in cash and investments.


  • Dupa

    @boomzilla said:

    In the US it's regular income, so it's taxed at whatever marginal rate you're at.

    This also strikes me as... fucking stupid.



  • I don't give to wikipedia, because - well, this sums it up -

    [spoiler][/spoiler]



  • Agreed. Occasional donation drive is better than constant nagging.

    I gave them a few bucks in the past. I'm less inclined to do so now, but i still think this is a fair way to finance a project like this.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @kt_ said:

    The highest one is 23%

    It's all 25% here. ALL of it. There's like 2 or 3 things exempt from it (bread, maybe milk, something else), one quarter for everything else. Wooo!


    Filed under: Fuck you, give us money — Croatian government



  • FUCK YOU FIREFOX!

    On your homepage fine but this is wandering into adware territory.



  • This reminds me of the current trend in my city with this platoons of "paid volunteers" asking for money for different NGOs. Any day I can get three or more in my walk to the office.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @cartman82 said:

    i still think this is a fair way to finance a project like this.

    I'm pretty sure this is the third time this year, and they didn't used to advertise this frequently--I guess all that staff that does who-knows-what costs a lot.

    And the ads have been getting larger and larger. I have never seen one that took up 50% or so of my screen before. I'm pretty sure people here were complaining last year when the ads were half that size.



  • They've had the adverts that big before. I've not seen it this time around but saw it a couple of months ago.



  • I really do not see what the problem is. To me, it looks like a fairly standard solicitation campaign. The same message could have come from any charity, or be given in those TV ads ("For just a dollar a day feed a little girl overseas...").

    In fact, I think it is a useful tool for identifying those who give to charities:

    [poll name=givers_and_not_never_no_how]

    • This ad offends me because I've never given to a charity--and never will--so I've never seen one of these before.
    • This ad seems standard for charities, I see them often because I give to charity.
    • No vote
      [/poll]


  • @DogsB said:

    FUCK YOU FIREFOX!

    On your homepage fine but this is wandering into adware territory.

    Agreed, this is a well deserved FUCK YOU. My browser is not your browser, Mozilla. Fuck off.

    Hijacking the new tab screen is a shitfucker move invented by one of your cocksucker CEO's to justify his own salary. It cost you users and reputation. Fuck off.

    Having the audacity to then use that anti-feature to tell people they should "fund" you to pay for cocksucker CEOs and engineers whose only job is to create features no one wants, and strip out those who do-- that's some real cognitive dissonance shit right there. Go fuck yourself and everything you stand for.

    Also, to blame the victim a bit, it's your own fucking fault, @DogsB. Read through Firefox's release notes. Find the last update that's "tolerable" for you-- that doesn't have any of the AuSyphillus shit that enables this. Roll back to that version, then turn off auto-updating.

    Or switch to Pale Moon.

    Or switch to Chrome if you're a fucking idiot, because then you'll get all the same shitty UI and UX, plus ads, plus you get to give all your browsing history to Google for free.


  • Dupa

    @Lorne_Kates said:

    Hijacking the new tab screen

    AFAIR, it's a fresh page right after starting browser. It's customary for browsers to hijack this. At least Firefox doesn't show you a deceitful login page, that although looking like a standard Google login page, logs you permanently isn't the browser, as Chrome does. Fucking fuckers. Fucking fuck. Fuckers, fuck. Fucking.

    edit

    Fucking fuckers.

    edit 2

    Fucking unfuckable fuckers.


  • Dupa

    @Lorne_Kates said:

    Or switch to Chrome if you're a fucking idiot, because then you'll get all the same shitty UI and UX, plus ads, plus you get to give all your browsing historyall your personal information and in effect a lot of monies to Google for free.

    here, FTFY. No need to thank me, it was a pleasure.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Spanky587 said:

    And in addition to all the money they take in from their constant begging, they're sitting on more than $50 Million in cash and investments.

    Given their expenses, that's actually rather low; it's only around a year of expenditure. A charity (or any other business) ought to have a bit more than that so that if the shit really hits the fan, they're not slaughtered by cashflow troubles. I've no idea why they need so many developers, as software really isn't their main product or principal asset. Maybe if they didn't do quite so much development, their finances would be healthier?



  • @kt_ said:

    AFAIR, it's a fresh page right after starting browser. It's customary for browsers to hijack this.

    And it's customary for me to rape people with a power drill and feed them their own shredded intestines while they bleed out. Doesn't mean it's correct, or should be accepted as "customary".

    My browser loads all the tabs I had open. Or if there were no tabs (or it's a new window), it shows about:blank.

    If your browser does not do this by default, it is a shitty browser.

    If your browser cannot be configured to do this, it should be uninstalled and the CEO in charge of that decision should be sent my way for a "customary" greeting.

    And also also, re: Chrome's "login".

    :middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::thumbsdown::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger::middle_finger:



  • @Lorne_Kates said:

    If your browser does not do this by default, it is a shitty browser.

    Mine shows the new tab screen for either a new window or when opening the browser without any tabs previously open. I don't know why you'd want different behaviour for those.



  • @kt_ said:

    that although looking like a standard Google login page, logs you permanently isn't the browser, as Chrome does

    It's not permanent though. You can log out.


  • Dupa

    @loopback0 said:

    It's not permanent though. You can log out.

    Fucking shit, autocomplete always knows better: should've been "into the browser", not "isn't the browser".

    But, so what? Most people don't bother, a lot of them doesn't even notice this, although they're not using the function. I can tell, I know many people using it that way.

    And it fucking grinds my gears. :frowning:



  • Except its fucking auto installed by the cunt flaps in IT. Fucking fucks. Fuck them and their fucking cunting policies. I want opera!

    *edit running a VM allows me to use whatever I want, run a VPN and bypass their cunting filters. Joy!



  • @kt_ said:

    But, so what?

    So it's not permanent.

    @kt_ said:

    Most people don't bother, a lot of them doesn't even notice this, although they're not using the function.

    Most people don't care, or even notice, that it logs them in so what's the problem?



  • @DogsB said:

    your homepage fine but this is wandering into adware territory. ...

    You never changed your browser's home page? Mine displays my personal home page, and new tabs are blank.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.