Talk:Internet begging

message: add a reference to wikipedia as a great example of ebegging  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.171.88.163 (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

message: FWIW, Wikipedia is not a place for critical reviews of products, sites or phenomena.  The article reads like an essay (an original research) and cites no references.  -- Perfecto 00:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It needed copyediting, and it got it, but it also needs even more to have sources cited ... hence the change of tag. Daniel Case 14:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit 

message: Begging for gold goes on in and EQ2 and begging for lindens happens in second life, which have a real world value.  Usually the amounts begged are not enough to make it profitable to exchange the money for real world money tho, so hte begging is for in game use.  Does anyone now a decent referance about online game begging??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.125.13 (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online games 

message: Banner-begging, like we have seen on wikipedia lately needs to be mentioned in this article. Adding a paragraph on this does not constitute vandalism.
If you feel otherwise, then please lets discuss it here, don't just revert the changes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.211.134 (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it; it's been uncited for a year now, and I can find no evidence of this term actually existing outside of WP. WP:NEO or WP:OR trying to describe something isn't viable...require preexisting external desciptions in WP:RS. DMacks (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner-begging 

message: Look at the top of the screen to see what I mean.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.180.105 (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  oh the irony 

message: The #5 site on the internet is banner begging. Why does your bot call it vandalism and trolling when I add it to the site? Hello?? 74.101.199.15 (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not begging, it is asking. You can choose to hide the banners and you are not required to donate. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: And how does including WP in the list improves the article? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: You did not answer my question... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: By that argument we should add an array of open source software which rely on donations. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK We are not resolving this by ourselves alone, let's find more opinions. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia needs to be added 

message: An editor has expressed interest in adding a link to the Wikipedia article to the "See Also" section of this article, as asking for money is the definition of begging. I have argued that this may constitute trolling or vandalism. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not hold threaded discussions on your section, use only the spaces above them, or at "General discussion". Thank you. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Concur that the WP banner does not meet the general sense of begging...it's a request for a donation for services already offered, not a request for a donation first (and that often does not provide any service in return at all). We'd first need some WP:RS specifically supporting that "please donate so that we can continue to provide free services to the public" clearly falls in the realm of "begging". DMacks (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I third this opinion. --Cybercobra 
(talk) 09:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  This is a very simple case.  At present, Wikipedia does not discuss Wikipedia's fundraising measures, so readers of Internet begging are not helped by a See also link to Wikipedia.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Absolutely.  I've inactivated the rfc tag; a bot will do the rest.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should Wikpedia be added to the list at the bottom of the article? 

message: Adding WP to this list does not improve the article in any way, and may be an act of pure trolling. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by RUL3R 

message: For some time now, 100% of wikipedia pages have a huge banner on top begging for donations (unless you choose to opt out of such banners apparently). I'd wager to say that wikipedia, in its current state, has 100% of its pages designated for banner begging, making it as much of a begging site as any of the listed links. 74.101.199.15 (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by 74.101.199.15 

message: The commonly-held definition is that begging is asking for money in a supplicating manner.  This is not the case with WP.  While WP does have banners requesting donations it is not primarily a fund-raising site, as the others sites listed are.HistoryStudent113 (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur that the WP banner does not meet the general sense of begging...it's a request for a donation for services already offered, not a request for a donation first (and that often does not provide any service in return at all). We'd first need some WP:RS specifically supporting that "please donate so that we can continue to provide free services to the public" clearly falls in the realm of "begging". DMacks (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I third this opinion. --Cybercobra 
(talk) 09:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  This is a very simple case.  At present, Wikipedia does not discuss Wikipedia's fundraising measures, so readers of Internet begging are not helped by a See also link to Wikipedia.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previously uninvolved editors 

message: Advertising has been proposed before. It was denied because advertising, by definition, fails WP:NPOV. See Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Advertising. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  General discussion 

message: The pro and cons arguments rely on subtle differences in the definition of "begging". Unfortunately, I don't think that the definition in the different dictionnaries out there are precise enough (or even agree) to conclude. Arguing this is or this is not begging seems to be more about opinions and perceptions, i.e. subjective. The article may present a paragraph saying something like "Some people (you) may think Wikipedia should be considered as an "internet begging" site, as a banner asking for money is visible on 100% off the pages. However, Wikipedia founders think that this is not begging but fundraising, for a service that is already offered. Moreover, users will benefit from donations (add-free service), and the purpose of the site Wikipedia is not to collect money."
I think this is better than just ignoring it in the article, since probably 80% of the people who get there just want to see what does wikipedia say about the (maybe apparent) irony of this page. A rather funny picture (the screenshot of the article with the banner "I couldn't ignore that banner at the top of the site anymore... I use Wikipedia far too often to ignore the need!") has been made, I don't know how popular it is. And yes, that's how i went there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.154.194 (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by me 

message: I propose to close this RfC as there is a clear consensus against adding Wikipedia to the list of links. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 19:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  I've inactivated the rfc tag; a bot will do the rest.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion to close RfC 

message: Most cyberbegging sites are basically filled with liars and scammers.  Many people intentionally use key words (autistic child, dead child, gravestone - all very effective) they know people will feel bad challenging even if they are obviously fake.  And when one person is successful obtaining money using a sob story copycats flood the site using the similar stories.  Could there be a section for this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.75.42 (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scam/Fraud

message: Wikipedia is an internet begging site. One of the mods should add it in immediately.
Jimbo would approve.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.188.6.25 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's that time of the year again 

message: ...that "A personal appeal" redirects here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.193.230.30 (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that! I re-redirected that to :Wikipedia:Fundraising, per above RFC. DMacks (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone else find it hilarious... 

message: By the latest edit, "A cause website is a term for a cyber-begging site that presents a personal appeal for funds or help"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_begging. I feel as if right now, Wikipedia's current banner ad above each page counts as a "cause website". Perhaps it could be listed as such? The phrase "a personal appeal" is right there in the advertisement. Kaen604 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It still fails the basic definition, no matter what key words in a subcategory you pick. A "cause website" is a type of internet begging, and (per numerous previous discussions) WP doesn't fit the larger definition. A donation to a cause online is different than a person in real-life only in the way it's transmitted, not in the ultimate origin as a blind donation for nothing in return. DMacks (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does indeed still fail the basic definition of Internet Begging.  It is one thing to have a campaign to have people donate funds for the running of non profits, but Internet Begging does not have a defined place. Jab843 (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/begging Good game. 184.96.245.157 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A Personal Appeal

message: Why? because they do beg every year and don't say "ITS OPTIONAL YOU CAN HIDE TEH BANNERZ" it's optional with all the other internet begging, and "Please read" that sounds a lot like begging, so i will add Wikipedia, not Jimmy Wales, but i WILL add wikipedia to related pages, and you have no reason to delete it, there's no reason for you to silence the truth  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow Siren (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Get a grip, people. Wikipedia will be added to the list as soon as independent reliable sources describe Wikipedia as "internet begging". - SummerPhD (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia or Jimmy Wales MUST be added

message: Please add Wikipedia to See Also list, please.
177.2.79.43 (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2015 

message: Citation, the top of this very window.
Wikipedia is engaging in internet begging at this very moment.
:This has already been discussed repeatedly.  Please familiarise yourself with RfC: Should Wikpedia be added to the list at the bottom of the article? above.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia.org 

message: Gentlemen,
I would like to suggest that a new addition be added to the Internet begging web page section 2, with the heading "Respected scientific Websites infiltrated"
The text to be as follows.
Professional beggars are now infiltrating respected scientific Websites in their quest to get people to send them money. Some BOINC projects have suffered from this, e.g. Seti@home. People put begging links in their signatures and profess in posts to be in financial trouble. Well meaning people asre encouraged to help them out and get fleeced in the process. Prevention is a robust moderation regime.
Sir Goodenough (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, , but can you offer a reliable source to support this? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respected scientific Websites infiltrated 

message: Currently, the last section of this article mentions two video game streamers, with real names and all. Neither of them has an article on Wikipedia, so are they really "notable"? There's no citations either. It makes some wild claims, and honestly sounds like...Libel? Trolling? Not neutral, in any case.
But I don't know anything about these two persons or Wikipedia editing standards. Maybe someone who knows about these things should take a look?Auaurorau (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch! I removed it. It's up to anyone adding content, especially about living persons, to provide a cited reference. DMacks (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the "Notable e-beggars" section?