Topic: We should subsidize Wikipedia
the state should not be required to subsidize wikipedia which is a private company
the wealth of knowledge in wikipdia available to the public for free is too valuable to risk ever losing so it should be subsidized to ensure it continues.
there is no need to subsidize a site that isn't necessary
there is not a bottomless well of money to pay for everything, resources like wikipedia should be paid fr by advertisers or by introducing paid for levels of membership to have access to the whole site.
there is not need to subsidize wikipedia, it does not serve any purpose that cannot be filled elsewhere.
there is so many important institution  which have to be subsidize, as a hospital, health insurance, etc and subsidize wikipedia is just wrong.
there is too little fact checking done in wikipedia and the result is dissemination of false information.
this could make it more reliable and trustworthy.
this site has proven very popular and useful for those looking for information
this site runs perfectly fine on donations, taxpayers do not need to be stuck with the bill.
those authoring articles on wikipedia are not necessarily experts on the topic and there is risk of inaccurate information being broadcast.
to keep it as a source of information and because it does not receive funding it ought to be subsidized
to keep wikipedia impartial there ought to be no subsidies provided
we have better uses for the money that wikipedia
we must be careful when subsidizing applications for the costs that this implies
we must subsidize it because through it we managed to investigate and go beyond the barriers of disinformation
we should because it provides a wealth of good information on a variety of topics.
we should certainly subsidize wikipedia because it is an open source dictionary and encyclopedia that has millions of users. without it, there will be much less learning and information available.
we should not show preference to one website
we should not subsidize a private company that is putting out possible false information.
we should not subsidize wikipedia as it is not a totally factual database.
We should not subsidize Wikipedia as there are far more reliable information sources online and Wikipedia should not be trusted as a reliable source since it can be updated by anyone.
We should not subsidize Wikipedia as there is no need, crowdfunding and volunteers have already created a good information source that will only improve with time.
we should not subsidize wikipedia as they are a private company and can raise their own funds or start charge those to use their data.
we should not subsidize wikipedia because it already receives more than enough money through voluntary donations
we should not subsidize wikipedia because it has too many errors
we should not subsidize wikipedia because it is filled with a lot of false information and therefore the government shouldn't help pay for false information
we should not subsidize wikipedia because just anyone can go on there and create fake pages with false information.
we should not subsidize wikipedia because peoples opinions will get in the way of truth.