Topic: We should subsidize Wikipedia
subsidizing wikipedia is unnecessary. it's isn't in need of a subsidy. it's doing just fine on it's donations. there's no staff to pay, it's all volunteer. there's no need to waste funds on this.
Subsidizing Wikipedia means supporting mediocrity and unfounded information, and governments should aspire for a better option.
subsidizing wikipedia means that even more information will be available to people for free
subsidizing wikipedia takes money away from more important issues.
subsidizing wikipedia will give it an influx of new money to help support knowledge.
Subsidizing Wikipedia will help it develop and improve,  which will improve the quality of education- since many students use Wikipedia as a learning tool
Subsidizing Wikipedia will help it encompass more knowledge, generating the greatest, unbiased documentation of life on earth as we know it.
subsidizing wikipedia will lead to bias in the contents. content creators and moderators will be afraid to criticize the people who contribute money to wikipedia
subsidizing wikipedia would allow for more accurate content and would allow viable usage for research while maintaining false information is not used.
subsidizing wikipedia would allow it to increase its relialibilty as a source of information because it could afford to pay editors
subsidizing wikipedia would enable better moderation of the platform, more efficiently taking action against malicious editing and curbing the flow of fake news.
subsidizing wikipedia would help keep the site online without it having to rely on donations
subsidizing wikipedia would help with an influx of new information.
subsidizing wikipedia would improve the resources available for moderating its content, improving the accuracy of the information.
subsidizing wikipedia would increase contributions and increase reliability because facts could be verified.
subsidizing wikipedia would lead to articles biased toward the people controlling the money
subsidizing wikipedia would lead to bias in its articles and slanted information
Subsidizing Wikipedia would mean that users would have to pay to use the site instead of it remaining free.
Supporting Wikipedia does not make any sense. It's the same as buying an old storage unit - it will take ages just look through it, and it's probably not worth a lot.
the content cannot always be trusted and can't be used in academic research
the government should not spend its limited funds on a private enterprise.
the government shouldn't fund something that can give bad information as users can change it.
The money that could be used for Wikipedia would be more effective if used for other government programs.
the money used for subsidizing wikipedia could be used to combat disease and poverty. wikipedia could  raise money through advertising if it chose.
the one problem that concerns me is that it can be edited by anyone
the open source nature of wikipedia means anyone can add gibberish and falsehood in its contents thereby making it unreliable.
the public would be better served by investing in current governmental obligations.