Topic: We should subsidize Wikipedia
since wikipedia pages can be modified by any user, the information provided is not always accurate.
Since Wikipedia's free, subsidizing it is way of supporting education as well as equality.
Subsidies are the state's way of supporting ideas and ideals. Since Wikipedia's vision is sharing individual knowledge, subsidizing it will be as foolish as subsidizing Facebook.
Subsidies would replace donations which would not be necessary any more, meaning that subsidies would not increase total funding for Wikipedia.
subsiding wikipedia would mean more people would try to enter incorrect information to get some of the money
subsidising wikipedia would enable more quality information to be entered into the database and be more useful for society as a whole.
subsidising wikipedia would give it the funds needed to continue this valuable informative tool without needing to beg for funds.
subsidising wikipedia would more likely ensure it is run in a way that provides substantive information rather than ad hoc edits which can be made by anyone.
subsidising wikipedia would open it up to outside influence and could result in a deterioration in the quality of the information as those subsidising it may want information changed to make it more positive
subsidization could lead to undue influence by whoever is providing the finance
subsidization may allow those providing the finances to have influence on entries that are in their interest
Subsidization will not affect Wikipedia's ability to maintain independence and neutrality.
subsidization would improve the reach and dissemination of wikipedia's information, enabling translation into more marginal languages for example.
subsidize wikipedia so that it continues to grow and provide a place to look for helpful information
subsidizing it might give the government control over it
subsidizing something that is not an urgent need is unjustifiable to taxpayers.
subsidizing wikipedia can cause it to provide biased information
subsidizing wikipedia can lead to govenrment control of information since they could therefore tell them what they can and can't use.
subsidizing wikipedia could alter the articles in favor of who pays the bills
subsidizing wikipedia could be a back gateway to some form of governmental control, debasing the validity of the articles and information provided.
subsidizing wikipedia could introduce bias into the articles, and introduce question marks overs its supposed impartiality.
subsidizing wikipedia goes against the nature of the service. it's supposed to be free. surprising it would make it no different than an enclypedia
Subsidizing Wikipedia helps the website keep running, but this does not help any of the people that don't have access to the internet.
subsidizing wikipedia is a waste of funds. the library is free and the same information can be found there. there are more important uses of public funds.
Subsidizing Wikipedia is an unfair use of taxpayer dollars.
Subsidizing Wikipedia is not a good use of government money. Government funds should be spent on more important societal concerns.