A Worthwhile Charity

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and that there are some features you can't use or read.

We are an active community of worldwide senior members participating in chat, politics, travel, health, blogging, graphics, computer issues & help, book club, literature & poetry, finance discussions, recipe exchange and much more. Also, as a member you will be able to access member only sections, many features, send personal messages, make new friends, etc.

Registration is simple, fast and completely free. Why not register today and become a part of the group. Registration button at the very top left of the page.

Thank you for stopping by.

Join our community!

In case of difficulty, email worldwideseniors.org@gmail.com.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2

A Worthwhile Charity
Topic Started: Nov 29 2012, 04:23 AM (692 Views)
Trotsky	Nov 29 2012, 04:23 AM Post #1
Big City Boy Posts: 38,319 Group: Member Member #79 Joined: September 8, 2005	I am always leery about charitible donations because so very often the bulk of the money goes to salaries and self promotion. But I sent a small $10 check to Wikimedia Foundation because I find Wikipedia the most useful NON-PROFIT site on all the web. I use it several times a day. Give it your consideration also if you are so inclined. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give/en Edited by Trotsky, Nov 29 2012, 04:25 AM.

Replies:
Bitsy	Dec 13 2012, 02:16 PM Post #16
Veteran Member Posts: 31,383 Group: Member Member #267 Joined: March 11, 2006	friendshipgal Dec 13 2012, 07:56 AM I wouldn't donate to Wiki mainly because it's biased politically. http://mashable.com/2011/11/24/google-search-infographic/ Since I do not use Wiki for research papers but as a means to familiar myself with the subject matter, I find it an extremely credible source. I always follow the reference links/footnotes to verify their conclusion. Let’s face it: we all use Wikipedia when conducting research. It’s a great first resource to familiarize one’s self with a topic but using Wiki for a research paper is a deadly academic sin. But if you find a good wiki link, check out the reference links at the bottom for more credible resources. Quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/study-wikipedia-perpetuates-political-bias/2012/06/18/gJQAaA3llV_blog.html But a new study shows that collective intelligence generally produces biased information, except in a narrow range of circumstances. Northwestern’s Shane Greenstein and the University of Southern California’s Feng Zhu analyzed a decade’s worth of Wikipedia articles on U.S. politics and found that only a handful of them were politically neutral. Interesting that this study showing that only a few political article were netutral, note that they did not say that the political articles considered bias were inaccurate. Therein is the key....accuracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Quote: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/david-swindle/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-ii-coddling-progressives/ http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/08/29/wikilies-my-five-favorite-wikipedia-distortions/ These other two websites are pot/kettle. Both extreme conservative fringe sources. For those conservative who disagree with Wiki....here is your own Wikipedia. Enjoy.. I am looking forward to some citations from his site. http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page



FuzzyO	Dec 13 2012, 02:22 PM Post #17
Posts: 16,968 Group: Administration Member #710 Joined: March 30, 2010	Wikipedia can be used for so much more than political references. It's a helpful starting point for many things and often a quick and easy way to satisfy one's curiosity.



friendshipgal	Dec 13 2012, 05:04 PM Post #18
Guess everyone wants their own Trudashians Posts: 12,815 Group: Member Member #241 Joined: February 12, 2006	FuzzyO Dec 13 2012, 02:22 PM Wikipedia can be used for so much more than political references. It's a helpful starting point for many things and often a quick and easy way to satisfy one's curiosity. True and I do use it for that myself, but I do wonder about the accuracy of it. My youngest son went back to college , one thing they were asked is not to use wiki. Edited by friendshipgal, Dec 13 2012, 05:07 PM.



Dana	Dec 14 2012, 01:29 PM Post #19
WWS Hummingbird Guru & Wildlife photographer extrordinaire Posts: 13,054 Group: Member Member #830 Joined: March 23, 2011	Here's another worthwhile charity and they do not send anything back to donors. So simple yet it really does save lives. One net for 10$. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_But_Nets http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/12/13/disease-burden-global.html The trends show a shift worldwide. The exception is Sub-Saharan Africa, which continues to have a high rate of death from AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis despite progress in expanding access to HIV medications and bed nets to prevent malaria that are credited with increases in life expectancy in the region.



Bitsy	Dec 14 2012, 01:56 PM Post #20
Veteran Member Posts: 31,383 Group: Member Member #267 Joined: March 11, 2006	Wikipedia like a good, stimulating conversation or an play/book /piece of art often acts as a stimulus for me to gain more information and knowledge about a topic. I like and share the authors definition...it is a bridge. Quote: As Wikipedia has grown, it has become increasingly clear that it functions as a necessary layer in the Internet knowledge system, a layer that was not needed in the analog age. A study carried out by Alison Head and Michael Eisenberg, published in a March 2010 edition of the Web journal First Monday, surveyed university students about their research habits and, in particular, how they begin research projects. Most of the nearly 2,500 students who responded said they consult Wikipedia, but when questioned more deeply, it became clear that they use it for, as one student put it, "pre-research." In other words, to gain context on a topic, to orient themselves, students start with Wikipedia. That makes perfect sense. Through user-generated efforts, Wikipedia is comprehensive, current, and far and away the most trustworthy Web resource of its kind. It is not the bottom layer of authority, nor the top, but in fact the highest layer without formal vetting. In this unique role, it therefore serves as an ideal bridge between the validated and unvalidated Web. Some are concerned that students and researchers are confused about the authority of Wikipedia, using it interchangeably with peer-reviewed scholarly material, but I would argue that just the opposite is happening. That such a high percentage of students in the study indicated they do not cite Wikipedia as a formal source, or admit to their professors they use it, confirms that they are very aware of the link it represents in the information-authority chain. That last fact is critical. For a knowledge system to function effectively, its users must have an intuitive understanding of the layers it contains. Today, when starting a serious research project, students are faced with an exponentially larger store of information than previous generations, and they need new tools to cut through the noise. Intuitively they are using Wikipedia as one of those tools, creating a new layer of information-filtering to help orient them in the early stages of serious research. As a result, Wikipedia's role as a bridge to the next layer of academic resources is growing stronger. http://chronicle.com/article/Wikipedia-Comes-of-Age/125899/



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free. Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Rants, Bouquets, Consumer Issues · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2