|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internet begging article.|
|WikiProject Internet culture||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
- 1 Copy edit
- 2 Online games
- 3 Banner-begging
- 4 oh the irony
- 5 wikipedia needs to be added
- 6 RfC: Should Wikpedia be added to the list at the bottom of the article?
- 7 Scam/Fraud
- 8 It's that time of the year again
- 9 Anyone else find it hilarious...
- 10 A Personal Appeal
- 11 Wikipedia or Jimmy Wales MUST be added
FWIW, Wikipedia is not a place for critical reviews of products, sites or phenomena. The article reads like an essay (an original research) and cites no references. -- Perfecto 00:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- It needed copyediting, and it got it, but it also needs even more to have sources cited ... hence the change of tag. Daniel Case 14:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Begging for gold goes on in and EQ2 and begging for lindens happens in second life, which have a real world value. Usually the amounts begged are not enough to make it profitable to exchange the money for real world money tho, so hte begging is for in game use. Does anyone now a decent referance about online game begging?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Banner-begging, like we have seen on wikipedia lately needs to be mentioned in this article. Adding a paragraph on this does not constitute vandalism.
- I've removed it; it's been uncited for a year now, and I can find no evidence of this term actually existing outside of WP. WP:NEO or WP:OR trying to describe something isn't viable...require preexisting external desciptions in WP:RS. DMacks (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
oh the irony
wikipedia needs to be added
- Wikipedia is not begging, it is asking. You can choose to hide the banners and you are not required to donate. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- And how does including WP in the list improves the article? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
"Save Karyn Avirginsplea.com One red paperclip The Million Dollar Homepage"
those are more relevant than WIKIPEDIA, the #5 site on the internet? You guys already deleted the entries on banner begging.
Why are you ashamed of the fact that wikipedia is engaged in internet begging? If you're so ashamed of it, why are you doing it?
To refute your points before, I can choose to not look at the black people in Harlem asking for money and blast music in my headphones, but it doesn't change the fact they are asking me for money. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- By that argument we should add an array of open source software which rely on donations. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you absolutely should. In fact, it should have an entire section for other forms of internet begging for open source and community projects. I will volunteer to write it. You won't delete it, right? It will list wikipedia prominently. Get some others to agree to its relevance and I will do it. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If I may join in I would argue that the other sides listed as "See Also" are all sites that are primarily money-raising sites whereas wikipedia is not. This is why I do not see it as appropriate in this particular list.HistoryStudent113 (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, for some time now, 100% of wikipedia pages have a huge banner on top begging for donations (unless you choose to opt out of such banners apparently). I'd wager to say that wikipedia, in its current state, has 100% of its pages designated for banner begging and 100% of its pages designated for user-editable encyclopedia content, making it as much of a begging site as any of those. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Not only has wikipedia been overthetop obnoxiously ebegging but half the times when you click on the x to close it it sends you to the donation page instead. This is definitely ebegging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor has expressed interest in adding a link to the Wikipedia article to the "See Also" section of this article, as asking for money is the definition of begging. I have argued that this may constitute trolling or vandalism. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not hold threaded discussions on your section, use only the spaces above them, or at "General discussion". Thank you. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments by RUL3R
Comments by 184.108.40.206
For some time now, 100% of wikipedia pages have a huge banner on top begging for donations (unless you choose to opt out of such banners apparently). I'd wager to say that wikipedia, in its current state, has 100% of its pages designated for banner begging, making it as much of a begging site as any of the listed links. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, this whole donation business could be solved with advertising on less than 1% of wikipedia's pages (chosen randomly). Asking for money is supplicating. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it fails NPOV. So to maintain integrity, you made a conscious decision to turn wikipedia into a banner-begging site which falls under the category of internet begging, thus making it relevant for the page. Thank you for making my argument for me. :D 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Previously uninvolved editors
The commonly-held definition is that begging is asking for money in a supplicating manner. This is not the case with WP. While WP does have banners requesting donations it is not primarily a fund-raising site, as the others sites listed are.HistoryStudent113 (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Concur that the WP banner does not meet the general sense of begging...it's a request for a donation for services already offered, not a request for a donation first (and that often does not provide any service in return at all). We'd first need some WP:RS specifically supporting that "please donate so that we can continue to provide free services to the public" clearly falls in the realm of "begging". DMacks (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I third this opinion. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- The link would be an inappropriate misuse of the See also. Regardless of whether WP is engaging in e-begging, the See Also should not be used as a spot to list websites an editor or editors think engage in it. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Link is not appropriate. Gerardw (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose This is silly and shouldn't have gotten this far in the first place. Declaring that "(Name of organization) is begging on the internet" by your own observation is a clear-cut violation of WP:NOR. It's also not WP:DUE, since no reliable source has supported a connection. I suggest that the RfC be closed and that the anon find something better to do with his or her energy. If the addition has to be reverted, then a request for semi-protection should solve the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources that refer to wikipedia as an "internet begging" site then I see no reason for it not to be included. If there are no such sources then it shouldn't be included - fair enough? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, but article should discuss whether asking for donations for sites such as Wikipedia is "internet begging" or not (with proper references and all that). Labongo (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Quite clearly, Wikipedia should not be in the see also section, as there is nothing there that would be of interest to readers. Can we close RFC? --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Moral support because, quite frankly, I feel it is internet begging and the banners (especially that latest ones) seem to fit in with what the article calls a "cause website". Unfortunately, the term isn't discussed in relation to Wikipedia in reliable sources, so until then it shouldn't be added. ThemFromSpace 20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Advertising has been proposed before. It was denied because advertising, by definition, fails WP:NPOV. See Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Advertising. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, what WP is doing is not advertising. It is not attempting to get you to pay for a product or service or to patronize a particular establishment. I maintain the proper term for what the WP banners are is "fundraising" HistoryStudent113 (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
"Please read: A personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
"Thank you for using Wikipedia. You're part of this story: please make a donation today. Jimmy Wales""
Comments by me
The pro and cons arguments rely on subtle differences in the definition of "begging". Unfortunately, I don't think that the definition in the different dictionnaries out there are precise enough (or even agree) to conclude. Arguing this is or this is not begging seems to be more about opinions and perceptions, i.e. subjective. The article may present a paragraph saying something like "Some people (you) may think Wikipedia should be considered as an "internet begging" site, as a banner asking for money is visible on 100% off the pages. However, Wikipedia founders think that this is not begging but fundraising, for a service that is already offered. Moreover, users will benefit from donations (add-free service), and the purpose of the site Wikipedia is not to collect money."
I think this is better than just ignoring it in the article, since probably 80% of the people who get there just want to see what does wikipedia say about the (maybe apparent) irony of this page. A rather funny picture (the screenshot of the article with the banner "I couldn't ignore that banner at the top of the site anymore... I use Wikipedia far too often to ignore the need!") has been made, I don't know how popular it is. And yes, that's how i went there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Motion to close RfC
- Absolutely. I've inactivated the rfc tag; a bot will do the rest. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Most cyberbegging sites are basically filled with liars and scammers. Many people intentionally use key words (autistic child, dead child, gravestone - all very effective) they know people will feel bad challenging even if they are obviously fake. And when one person is successful obtaining money using a sob story copycats flood the site using the similar stories. Could there be a section for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
It's that time of the year again
Anyone else find it hilarious...
- Thanks for catching that! I re-redirected that to Wikipedia:Fundraising, per above RFC. DMacks (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
A Personal Appeal
By the latest edit, "A cause website is a term for a cyber-begging site that presents a personal appeal for funds or help". I feel as if right now, Wikipedia's current banner ad above each page counts as a "cause website". Perhaps it could be listed as such? The phrase "a personal appeal" is right there in the advertisement. Kaen604 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- It still fails the basic definition, no matter what key words in a subcategory you pick. A "cause website" is a type of internet begging, and (per numerous previous discussions) WP doesn't fit the larger definition. A donation to a cause online is different than a person in real-life only in the way it's transmitted, not in the ultimate origin as a blind donation for nothing in return. DMacks (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- It does indeed still fail the basic definition of Internet Begging. It is one thing to have a campaign to have people donate funds for the running of non profits, but Internet Begging does not have a defined place. Jab843 (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
A picture is worth a thousand words. Take a look: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/46/begging.jpg/ Does this settle the issue of whether Wikipedia is internet begging site or not? Why are you admins and Wikipedia editors so ashamed of the truth? Doesn't improve the article? Who said so? You don't decide things like that on your own. You want people to donate you money but you are so arrogant to not let them even discuss about what should go into a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia or Jimmy Wales MUST be added
Why? because they do beg every year and don't say "ITS OPTIONAL YOU CAN HIDE TEH BANNERZ" it's optional with all the other internet begging, and "Please read" that sounds a lot like begging, so i will add Wikipedia, not Jimmy Wales, but i WILL add wikipedia to related pages, and you have no reason to delete it, there's no reason for you to silence the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow Siren (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
As would I, but that doesn't change the basic fact it is Internet Begging. Why is Wikipedia so afraid of being an honest encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Because they would need to verify all their sources with some sort of print media, hire actual writing staff from a pool of experts, have some kind of self-policing that would prevent just such PR revisions from happening, and a plethora of other things. Wikipedia has been, still is, and will always be a joke. As for the "Hide the banner" approach. I have done so, but it keeps reappearing almost every day. This means that WikiMedia is indeed begging, even by their own definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Get a grip, people. Wikipedia will be added to the list as soon as independent reliable sources describe Wikipedia as "internet begging". - SummerPhD (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)