Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Signpost has identified an extensive scam perpetrated by a company that calls itself "Elite Wiki Writers" or "Wiki Moderator", among many other names.Some of the other names they are suspected of using include wikicuratorz.com, wikiscribes.com, wikimastery.com, and wikimediafoundetion.com.
A note on the separate status of the Wikimedia Endowment. The Wikimedia Endowment, held from 2016 to 2023 by the Tides Foundation and now a standalone 501(c)(3) nonprofit, is not and has never been included in Wikimedia Foundation assets, even though Wikimedia Foundation fundraising staff solicit donations to the Endowment and the Wikimedia Foundation itself made donations to the Endowment.
Legitimate reviewers at AfC are all volunteers and will never ask for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, it is a scam. To report it, send a copy of the email, including headers, to paid-en-wp wikipedia.org.
The Wikimedia Foundation mainly finances itself through donations from the public, collected through email campaigns and annual fundraising banners placed on Wikipedia, as well as grants from various tech companies and philanthropic organizations.
Wikipedia is funded primarily by donations and grants. It does not charge for access nor offer any paid subscription services. It does not charge for access nor offer any paid subscription services. If you're looking to acquire a profitable company to diversify your business portfolio, or if you're thinking of trying to save an indebted company ...
The majority of funding for the Wikimedia Foundation comes from individual donors all around the world. These donations allow the Foundation to provide the world-class technology infrastructure that supports 15 billion monthly views to Wikipedia and its sister projects, protect free knowledge globally through legal and advocacy efforts, and support the incredible volunteer editors who have ...
A 2006 review of Wikipedia by Library Journal, using a panel of librarians, "the toughest critics of reference materials, whatever their format", asked "long standing reviewers" to evaluate three areas of Wikipedia (popular culture, current affairs, and science), and concluded: "While there are still reasons to proceed with caution when using a ...
Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.