as others have said, don’t necessarily stop using wikipedia & related tools (wiktionary, etc). they’re still useful and using them doesn’t directly benefit the foundation.
however, if the union calls for an editorial strike (no more editing) or a full-on boycott, follow what they say, out of solidarity. it’s what i plan on doing. in general, i think this is the best reaction to union busting: follow what the union says.
Continue using Wikipedia. They don’t run ads so traffic doesn’t translate to revenue for them. Just don’t donate and their server costs will become unsustainable once they run out of cash in about 20 years
Wikipedia itself is still one of the best resources on the internet, and they actually make it pretty easy to back up their data, which is why there are so many clones out there.
If Wikimedia foundation died, somebody else would take over, and hopefully the quality wouldn’t decline too much.
Don’t abandon Wikipedia over this, if it’s useful it’s useful (though it shouldn’t be overrated). Do reconsider donating to Wikimedia Foundation, since the money apparently can be spent even on union-busting.
Great. So what do I use instead?
as others have said, don’t necessarily stop using wikipedia & related tools (wiktionary, etc). they’re still useful and using them doesn’t directly benefit the foundation.
however, if the union calls for an editorial strike (no more editing) or a full-on boycott, follow what they say, out of solidarity. it’s what i plan on doing. in general, i think this is the best reaction to union busting: follow what the union says.
and yea, stop donating if you’re doing that.
Continue using Wikipedia. They don’t run ads so traffic doesn’t translate to revenue for them. Just don’t donate and their server costs will become unsustainable once they run out of cash in about 20 years
Wikipedia itself is still one of the best resources on the internet, and they actually make it pretty easy to back up their data, which is why there are so many clones out there.
If Wikimedia foundation died, somebody else would take over, and hopefully the quality wouldn’t decline too much.
Reputability and reliability will absolutely take a deep dive.
The greatest asset of Wikipedia is not the trove of data (I have the copy on my computer), but efficient moderation, neutrality, and trust.
None of the clones are nearly as trusted, as they’re edited at a whim of whoever owns them, or simply poorly moderated.
Don’t abandon Wikipedia over this, if it’s useful it’s useful (though it shouldn’t be overrated). Do reconsider donating to Wikimedia Foundation, since the money apparently can be spent even on union-busting.
Your local library? I’ve been trying to get in the habit of borrowing non-fiction books from my friend Anna.
Does she have an archive or what?
Something like that. She’s a very generous person.