Topic: We should subsidize Wikipedia
Wikipedia can avoid manipulation if it has a guaranteed funding source and doesn't have to rely on advertisers.
wikipedia can be biased in their views and influence people the wrong way
wikipedia can be edited by anybody rather they have facts or not to support their entry.
wikipedia can be skewed and give inaccurate information.
wikipedia can form biased opinions on topics or misinform the general public and therefore should not be subsidized
wikipedia can provide almost every kind of information and be the only source of information for people who are not able to visit library
wikipedia can provide valuable information and subsidization can help insuring the information is factual and viable.
wikipedia cannot be a trusted source and should not be supported.
wikipedia contributes a large part of the information found on the internet at no cost
Wikipedia could hire more moderators to control heated discussions if it had money.
Wikipedia could innovate on information dissemination if it had more money through subsidies.
Wikipedia could provide information on more topics and in more languages if it were subsidized.
wikipedia creates, maintains and allows free and open access to the worlds knowledge to anyone who may need ot want it, at any time they may need or want it.
wikipedia does not need money from readers, authors should be aware of such a thing
wikipedia does not need to be subsidized as it is a stand alone business
wikipedia does not need to be subsidized it already gets plenty of cash from donations
wikipedia does not offer quality work and provides their own option for donations for funding.
wikipedia does not properly verify their information and pays unqualified workers log in info that is not verified as well as already conducting their own fundraiser for the site.
wikipedia entries are sometimes biased and one-sided.
wikipedia gives reliable information for the public for free
wikipedia gives us a lot of information in one place
wikipedia has a vast variety of information, and it should be maintained for personal and educational use.
wikipedia has always been free to use and should continue to be free without subsidies.
Wikipedia has an incredibly large amount of money, so it does not need any subsidies.
wikipedia has become a valuable, centralized, crowd-sourced information depot that helps people access information and is to everyone's advantage to keep them funded.
wikipedia has been running by itself without any real issues for years.
wikipedia has been supported by voluntary donations for too long.  subsidizing it would give it more credibility, and would allow the volunteers to continue to update it with the most accurate information.
wikipedia has developed into a relatively unbiased and thorough repository of research and information.
wikipedia has done a great job without subsidization up until now, and continues to be a credible source of information.  taxes would be better spent elsewhere.
wikipedia has done just fine on it's own with private donations for years so there's no need to start giving it free money now.