this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2025
785 points (99.2% liked)

memes

18283 readers
449 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 94 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Legitimately, Wiki is one of the great institutions of the modern net. One of the few things that I look at, with all its flaws, and say "Damn, that's a fine contribution to human society"

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 67 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Love the arc of Wikipedia btw.

Wikipedia in 2001: "Don't use that site for school, it's not a good primary source."

Wikipedia in 2025: "Please, we're begging you, just $3 can keep the last bastion of truth on the Internet from falling to misinformation."

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 53 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Funny enough, by the time I reached college, my professors were all extremely positive about Wikipedia. Though they emphasized that, as an encyclopedia, it was not valid to use as a source, they all praised it for its breadth, accessibility, and providing citations to valid sources that often could be used in an academic context.

[–] varjen@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

It's a good place to start and usually has a decent source list that can be used to find better sources for each topic.

[–] baltakatei@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Not an insignificant fraction probably would be tickled pink if some of their students worked to improve articles about their field. I'm reminder of a quote from Small Gods by Terry Pratchett in which a philosopher named Didactylos warns against defacing scholarly works with scribbles unless the scribbles improve the reader's ability to understand the work (bold added):

“I’ve got Abraxas’s On Religion,” he said.

“Old ‘Charcoal’ Abraxas,” said Didactylos, suddenly cheerful again. “Struck by lightning fifteen times so far, and still not giving up. You can borrow this one overnight if you want. No scribbling comments in the margins, mind you, unless they’re interesting.”

“This is it!” said Om. “Come on, let’s leave this idiot.”

Brutha unrolled the scroll. There weren’t even any pictures. Crabbed writing filled it, line after line.

“He spent years researching it,” said Didactylos. “Went out into the desert, talked to the small gods. Talked to some of our gods, too. Brave man. He says gods like to see an atheist around. Gives them something to aim at.”

[–] TheRealKuni@piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago

Small Gods is such an incredibly good book.

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 68 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I donated $15 and got an invitation to add Wikipedia to my will

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

which showed up right after i clicked submit on the donation

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 7 points 1 week ago

Yeah, scummy

[–] QuantumTickle@lemmy.zip 35 points 1 week ago

Fuck it, I'm tired of donating every time they ask. Just switched to monthly.

[–] otterpop@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'll just leave this right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer

I used to donate but have since switched to other more needing causes.

[–] edinbruh@feddit.it 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

IMHO, with all its problems, Wikipedia is still (one of) the best achievement of mankind

[–] otterpop@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

I agree, I love Wikipedia! If they're ever actually in need of money and not just trying to grow for growth's sake I'll pitch in.

[–] Qwel@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago

Yes, it's just that money in particular is not very useful for them right now

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

If you feel that Wiki has savings and therefore doesn't need your money today, that's fine.

But other than that WTF is this nonsense? None of it follows. Says Wiki keeps increasing spending while not noting the obvious - that its savings are growing too. Worse, without noting that a big chunk of the expenses are going towards savings. From the report below, out of the 111M spent, 51M went to savings. His expenditure graph includes savings yet he thinks that's all spending. 😄

Anyone curious what Wiki spends on: https://wikimediafoundation.org/who-we-are/annualreport/2021-annual-report/financials/#section-2.

[–] jimmux@programming.dev 28 points 1 week ago

I donated once, and the payment processor failed so it didn't even go through.

I still get the thankyou emails.

I'm such a phoney.

[–] NahMarcas@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I donated to archive.org too, i think there solid things to save

[–] wurstgulasch3000@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago

They also need the money more

[–] TheMinions@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 week ago

I donated 3.10 to cover the cost of using a card personally.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] GarboDog@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Donated to Wikipedia before and once we have an income again we’ll be donating again since we use it quite a lot

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago

How I felt paying for WinRAR

[–] TrapRag@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago
[–] jaupsinluggies@feddit.uk -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I donated once but then I found out they have a CEO on a six figure salary.

So they can get stuffed. If they want more cash they can give that leech the boot.

[–] shane@feddit.nl 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You're asking people working for the non-profit to accept lower pay of tens of thousands of dollars? So basically because someone doesn't make a personal sacrifice of a significant fraction of their salary you're not willing to help at all?

I don't like or accept this logic.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Now I wonder, because both 999k and 100k are six figure sums, and one of them I find much more reasonable than the other.

But yeah, running a non-profit often takes money instead of earning you money, and if they have spare money to pay salary to the CEO, maybe they're all right

[–] bobgobbler@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That’s not what being a non profit means… they are allowed to make a “profit,” and pay for their liabilities. They just must reinvest them back into the business.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

I'm not sure that not having anyone on salary is part of that deal. Or if you were referring to the part where I said about salary being negative, that's from experience, a couple of directors of a non-profit I know had to donate their salary and add on top of it when times were rough (in that organisation it was pretty often). Large non-profits probably don't have that issue

[–] bobgobbler@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 week ago

lol wow talk about a statement that lets everyone else know not to take anything else you’re about to say seriously.

You say “6 figures” as if that’s anything BUT the average for a corporate executive… actually kind of fucking low.

The median total compensation for S&P 500 CEOs was $17.1 million in 2024, marking a 9.7% increase from the previous year.

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/06/08/ceo-pay-study/