Wikipedia now accepts Apple Pay donations

AppleInsider

Popular online reference website Wikipedia recently rolled out support for Apple Pay donations, enabling a fast and secure alternative to credit card and PayPal payments.

Source: Nikolaj Hansen-Turton via Twitter

The non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia's massive collection of user created and maintained articles, is largely supported by reader contributions. Anyone familiar with the website has seen or knows of the regular donation messages that pop up from time to time, asking users to give "the price of a cup of coffee" to keep its servers running.

"We're a non-profit that depends on donations to stay online and thriving, but 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way. If everyone who reads Wikipedia gave just a little, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come. The price of a cup of coffee is all we ask," the donation message typically reads.

For years, Wikipedia limited donations to bank transfers or payments processed through credit card providers and PayPal, but the entity is expanding support to include other platforms like AmazonPay.

This week, Wikipedia added Apple Pay to the list of accepted payment methods. Nikolaj Hansen-Turton spotted the new option on Tuesday and shared a screenshot of the Apple Pay donation button to Twitter. The feature appears to rolling out to users around the world as it is not yet enabled in certain locations.

9to5Mac reported on Hansen-Turton's tweet earlier today.

In March, the Wikimedia Foundation was said to be in talks with big tech companies over the potential monetization of content pulled from Wikipedia and used on platforms like Apple's Siri and Amazon's Alexa.

Read on AppleInsider

ne1

I will never donate to Wikipedia again— too biased and unreliable. 

waveparticle

ne1 said:

I will never donate to Wikipedia again— too biased and unreliable. 

Can you name an article? 

ne1

waveparticle said:

ne1 said:

I will never donate to Wikipedia again— too biased and unreliable. 

Can you name an article? 

Not without getting into politics which I don’t do on these forums and which would probably get us shut down anyway. 

Alex_V

Wikipedia has an article on the “reliability of Wikipedia.” There have been numerous studies on this question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

I find Wikipedia to be an excellent starting point for knowledge on a topic. It encourages wide reading through its links. Topics are now better organised into subject areas. I will often give references to Wikipedia in my teaching. Wikipedia is an incredible resource, it is comprehensive, and dwarfs all other encyclopaedias, plus it is being translated into many languages. Of course, it is a work-in-progress. I'm eternally grateful to all those editors who volunteer their time, knowledge, and effort.

slprescott

While I respect differing opinions, I do choose to donate to Wikipedia each year. It’s a service that I use daily — for work and personal life — and want it to continue.

mattinoz

Stopped donating after they banned people I know for editing to correct a politicians lie on their own profile.  Was a fairly minor point but they sided with the political narrative over truth. 

There have been a number of cases since like politicians deleting information to distance themselves from a scandal and wiki banning edits that reinstated the verified truth. 

Look it’s great outside of politicians. Well I hope it is but confidence is reduced by those incidents.

crowley

mattinoz said:

Stopped donating after they banned people I know for editing to correct a politicians lie on their own profile.  Was a fairly minor point but they sided with the political narrative over truth. 

There have been a number of cases since like politicians deleting information to distance themselves from a scandal and wiki banning edits that reinstated the verified truth. 

Look it’s great outside of politicians. Well I hope it is but confidence is reduced by those incidents.

The fact that Wikipedia needs the determination of people like this lady speaks to the limitations and problems of the form: https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/

netrox

 ne1 said:

I will never donate to Wikipedia again— too biased and unreliable. 

I always find the same pattern - people who accused Wiki of biased is simply because they are biased and feel slighted if their biases aren't confirmed by Wikipedia articles. It's a common issue on both sides. Snopes is another example - Snopes was praised initially but its consistency at debunking misinformation has based angst among all sides that don't like their biases being not confirmed. 
 
I keep donating every year. It's a great place to learn about many things. 

StrangeDays

netrox said:

 ne1 said:

I will never donate to Wikipedia again— too biased and unreliable. 

I always find the same pattern - people who accused Wiki of biased is simply because they are biased and feel slighted if their biases aren't confirmed by Wikipedia articles. It's a common issue on both sides. Snopes is another example - Snopes was praised initially but its consistency at debunking misinformation has based angst among all sides that don't like their biases being not confirmed. 
 
I keep donating every year. It's a great place to learn about many things. 

I agree 100…Snopes is solid, but now that we have people promoting alternative-facts and a post-truth era, they’ve started whining about it. 

waveparticle

I have been a long time user of Wikipedia and a big fan. I have seen its contents grow to become very thorough. You can almost learn quantum mechanics just from Wikipedia. 

Dogperson

I donate. If I want to know about wombats, metasequoia glyptostroboides or Jupiter, I can read it all. 
It’s not google!