Like national public radio and television outlets with their bi-annual funds solicitation, the Wikimedia Foundation has its hand out… 

“This is awkward to admit, but I have to be honest: 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way. And without more one-time donors, we need to turn to you, our past donors, in the hope that you'll show up again for Wikipedia, as you so generously have in the past.

If all our past donors gave a small amount today, our fundraiser would be over. But most people will ignore this message. We have no choice but to turn to you: please renew your gift to ensure that Wikipedia remains independent, ad-free, and thriving another year.

We're a nonprofit. That means we aren't selling the articles that millions of people read on Wikipedia each day. We don't profit from the knowledge you seek. In fact, we firmly believe that knowledge should exist outside of the realm of supply and demand. But that's hardly a given nowadays; so much of the world's digital knowledge is driven by profit in order to survive.

Wikipedia is different in that it doesn't belong to the highest bidder, the advertisers, or corporations. It belongs to you, the readers, editors, and donors. You're our community, our family. You're the reason we exist. The fate of Wikipedia rests in your hands and we wouldn't have it any other way.

It's folks like you who safeguard our nonprofit mission. You help us maintain our integrity, quality, and accessibility. And today, you have the power to keep this wonderful website free and independent for another year.
Now is the time we ask: can we count on you to renew your solidarity with a small donation? It will keep Wikipedia online, ad-free, and growing another year.”

I thought that, before making a contribution, I would first consider how reliable Wikipedia might be when it comes to credible information since I have personally observed that political organizations and individuals have had their entries either white-washed and negative information removed or muted, and others buried in scurrilous accusations.

Wikipedia’s posting policies facilitate deception and political bias…

“The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and veracity of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition. It is written and edited by volunteer editors who generate online content with the editorial oversight of other volunteer editors via community-generated policies and guidelines. Wikipedia carries the general disclaimer that it can be "edited by anyone at any time" and maintains an inclusion threshold of "verifiability, not truth." This editing model is highly concentrated with 77% of all articles being written by 1% of its editors, a majority of whom are anonymous.” <Source>

“Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.” <Source>

“Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.” <Source>

The key to my assertion is “verifiability, not truth.”

We have all seen false and misleading information knowingly published, many with unfounded allegations from anonymous sources, by the New York Times, considered to be among, if not the, most credible journalistic sources. Thus, if a lie or hoax is published by the Times, considered by many to be the Pravda of the West, it can be posted. Whereby a factual refutation that does not appear in a credible published source may not.

Over time, especially in the face of fading public interest, cruft builds up in Wikipedia and its usefulness is degraded.

Bottom line…

I have no problem donating the minimum requested donation of $3.00.

-- steve