Topic: We should subsidize Wikipedia
wikipedia is an important information source and we should subsidize it to make sure it continues to remain available.
wikipedia is an important knowledge source, that is contributed to by independent experts and the general population. it is important to maintain it.
wikipedia is an important resource for people looking for information
wikipedia is an important resource widely used and respected, it needs funds and hence subsidies to continue.
wikipedia is an important source of knowledge for people across the globe and it is important that this resource is preserved.
wikipedia is an important tool to search and is very popular today
wikipedia is an important, independent, online resource; it should be subsidised so that its founders can continue their good work in maintaining the site as free-to-use by all.
wikipedia is an incredible free source of information and should be preserved as such
wikipedia is an incredibly useful tool, with the right funding, it could be amazing.
wikipedia is an independent organisation and if we allow the government of firms to sponsor it, then it may lead to bias.
wikipedia is an inexhaustible source of knowledge and we must take care of it
wikipedia is an invaluable space for knowledge and should be preserved
wikipedia is doing just fine all by itself without any money from the government.
wikipedia is fine the way it is already set up
wikipedia is functioning well enough on its own and doesn't need or require government assistance in order to continue to do so.
wikipedia is good for the world and should be subsidizes to encourage world learning
wikipedia is important to our society
wikipedia is not a reliable search engine because of the information exchange methodology they have, since anyone could place what they would like on that page
wikipedia is not a reliable source for information and we should not waste money on it
wikipedia is not a reliable source of information and can lead to spreading of misinformation.
wikipedia is not a reliable source when it comes to information
wikipedia is not as peer reviewed and has more lax standards than other encyclopedic sources of information as anyone can edit pages and we should not fund that type of behavior.
wikipedia is not free to run even if it is free to users. subsidization would help keep it free for users.
wikipedia is not reliable because anyone can edit the pages
wikipedia is not used by all people and no one is forced to work for them.  we should not have to give them a subsidy for a service we did not ask for.
wikipedia is notoriously unreliable as to the accuracy of its articles
wikipedia is one of a number of resources, it does not warrant special treatment
wikipedia is one of the best resources for information nowadays and we should do everything to ensure it continues and grows to remain an excellent source of information
wikipedia is run by the people and it needs to stay that way because it is working.
wikipedia is still a private website, so giving a site money to keep it running is unethical.  why not subsidize any other site then?