Topic: We should subsidize Wikipedia
if wikipedia was subsidised they may start to put in whatever information the person supplying the subsidy wants rather than only the truth and this would be harmful.
If Wikipedia were subsidized it would be less objective by being accountable to a single funding source.
if you subsidize wikipedia you run the risk of paid opinion taking over.
impartial information providers ought to provide their own funding
is a necessary application to centralize the relevant information of certain topics
it can survive with money from other sources,
it could lead to donors trying to influence the content
it is a great source of information on any topic
it is a useful site but no need to subsidize wikipedia. the site can get by with private funding like it has all these years and besides, government has much more important needs to subsidize like health care
it is a valuable resource so a subsidy would help by allowing the website to produce and edit more quality articles
it is an excellent resources that should be supported
it is important to ensure that there is a place to acquire information about a subject that is free to the users
it is inaccurate and should not be funded by government money.
it is the go to encyclopedia and should be of the highest quality possible
it may effect its impartiality, governments  may use their funding to influence editors.
it needs money and is used by many people.
it should not be subsidized as it will no longer be independent.
it takes only one or two rogue editors to deface an article, or a number of them, and it could take time before other editors notice the change.
it would be unfair to single out wikipedia for subsidizing since there are other similar sites that could use funds as well.
it would be unfair to subsidize wikipedia because there are similar sites that could use subsidizing as well.  by not subsidizing we can be sure the articles are not influenced by governments.
many people turn to wikipedia for information and trust it to be correct so subsidising it should ensure the content is reliable.
no one should be unfairly subsidized while others are not
no subsidizing ought to be given since not all of the information provided by wikipedia is accurate
no subsidy should be given to wilkpedia. it is part of the free enterprise system and can be supported by users and advertisers.
not all the information is correct because it's easy to edit it.
of course, i agree with that, it would be a good thing
only donors should fund wikipedia or quora.
other places can provide information for free so why should wikipedia get money for doing the same thing?
our debt is astronomical we can not afford to spend more unnecessary money
paying wikipedia to do what they intend to do can result in being untruthful and bias
people paying money may try to influence it's content
providing subsidies would allow more money to be spent on the editing process thus making wikepedia a more reliable source of information
since wikipedia pages can be edited by anyone, none of the information is truly reliable, so subsidising such a site would be approving it's content which would be a nonsense.