Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:Current charitable causes

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

I hesitated before closing this discussion because I have very strong feelings on the topic. However, I am starting to realize that many other admins also participated in this discussion. I'm not sure we have any disinterested closers left. Time to be bold and take my lumps if the decision is contested.

I count 52 valid "deletes" (one discounted as unsigned) to 16 "keeps". 6 people (including one anon) made comments or retracted their comments in such a way that their final opinion could not be determined. I further note that the arguments for keeping this article held sway until somewhere between 20:00 and 21:00 on the day of nomination. After that, the community consensus swung overwhelmingly toward deletion and stayed there through the rest of the discussion.

I am calling this as a "delete" decision. Rossami (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Current charitable causes

Hopelessy PoV. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. I also fail to see how this fits in with our goal of building a free encyclopaedia. Dan100 (Talk) 15:20, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment See MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice#Time_to_replace_the_second_line for details.
• Strong keep. This page arose out of talk at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice and is part of a compromise I formulated based on feeback from several different people. I've tried to create a version that addressed their major concerns. It is also just a start. And it is part of an experiment on how to compromise on this type of thing. So far there are few different causes, add more to reduce the POV. Oh, and Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be a collection of links, but this is not an article. --mav 15:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • But you are only allowing admins to edit it. This isn't a community consensus. But you only allow admins to edit it to protect it from numerous causes filling it up. This is tantamount to admitting that it can't be written in a NPOV. Of course, one could assume that from the title: Anything considered a "Current charitable cause" is POV by definition.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you should read the page. It clearly explains why it is protected. But let me tell you again: To protect donors from people who may put in links to phony sites just to steal their credit card info. --mav 04:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is meant to have as few protected pages as possible. If from the first day the page was created it cannot exist without protection, it probably shouldn't exist. Administrators represent less than 0.2% of Wikipedia. The list can't be community consensus in the same way that other pages are (talk pages allow administrators to decide whether other peoples' suggestions are good or not--not what Wikipedia is for)--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is meant to have as few protected pages as possible. That is flat out wrong. Wikipedia is meant to be the biggest, most comprehensive, and accurate encyclopedia on the planet. Everything, I mean *everything* else is a means to *that* end (either directly or indirectly). So if, when and where one of the supporting aspects of the project get in the way of our primary goal, then it is perfectly reasonable to back-off in that case. The problem of people scamming donors by putting in bogus links is just too great - it is therefore OK to protect that page. We have had to lock out general editing the Main Page and the various templates linked from it to protect them from vandalism. We have had to do the same for the sitewide message and we should also certainly expand that to any page listed from the sitewide message - esp one that has links to external sites where people can donate to. Oh, and before anybody mentions it, this page also provides information and thus helps us toward our goal. It gives information to people with potential donor money where that money can go to. Several choices are given, but many more should be added. The page as it is now, is just a start. --mav 16:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now given the Hurricane Katrina situation. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now per Mailer Diablo --Carlsmith 15:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• It'd'be preferable to be able to link to a list that someone else maintains. Pcb21| Pete 16:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We do already from that page. This page should have a top selection of what is available. We are pretty good at creating things that are neutral and comprehensive. :) --mav 16:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with Dan100 that this does not seem to further our goal of creating a free encyclopaedia, and I don't like the idea of us being seen to endorse any particular charities as it could compromise the NPOV policy. Worldtraveller 16:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Our NPOV policy is concerned with how articles are written. This is not an article. --mav 16:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If site visitors are directed to a POV page from every single article on Wikipedia, how then can they be expected to believe that all the articles themselves are written from a neutral point of view? Worldtraveller 17:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Excellent point.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wow - giving to humanitarian efforts. So human suffering is bad? How POV. --mav 04:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since this was part of the compromise surrounding the site notice. The argument that Wikipedia is not a collection of links is not relevant since this is not a Wikipedia article. Listing resources in the project namespace need not be covered by the same policies that rule the article namespace, which is why we also have pages like Wikipedia:Public domain resources. Angela. 19:53, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since so many people oppose this, there would be little point keeping it now because it will never be prominently linked to. The compromise while the sitenotice was still up is no longer relevant since the fundraising drive has ended. In future, perhaps the compromise suggested below of simply linking to list of charities instead of this, could be considered. Angela. 13:59, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • • If site visitors are directed to a POV page from every single article on Wikipedia, how then can they be expected to believe that all the articles themselves are written from a neutral point of view? Worldtraveller 17:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not an article but it's linked to from every article, I think that fits quite clearly into the spirit of WP:NOTs claim that Wikipedia isn't a collection of links. --Gmaxwell 19:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Agree with Dan100, it's not part of an encyclopedia. Further, this isn't material that is difficult to find elsewhere and there isn't a good criteria to decide what to include/exclude... Free speech online is a humanitarian and worthy cause in intellectually repressed parts of the world, so why isn't EFF listed, etc? Finally, it's not a good use of Wikipedia resources that we donate to keep running... it would be like using or servers to run folding at home. Oh wait. :) --Gmaxwell 19:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or at least get it off of the header thats on every page. This has nothing to do w why people read an encyclopedia, and is instead a distracting ad. Sam Spade 20:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or move to the Wikimedia Foundation site. If the page is to be moved, there should still be a link to the donation page on Wikipedia, though. --Ixfd64 20:04, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
• Delete. — Trilobite 20:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think that wikimedia is getting selfish and wants all the money for itself,(check the top o each page, no need to make, other charities, on a smaller font. what is this?Imdaking 20:09:50, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
• Imagine that, Wikipedia (which is not a charity in the usual sense), wants to keep itself from going under. That's very selfish. All that happened was the Hurricane Katrina disaster happened in the middle of our fundraising drive. That was unavoidable.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- It's coming down on Friday, by which time this Vfd process won't even be finished. For the remaining 2 or 3 days, it'll do a nice job of reminding the world that we haven't lost our sense of proportion, rattling the tin for computer gear while people in the states next-door are lacking much more basic items. –Hajor 20:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Dan100 (sic) at Talk:Main Page/Archive 32#Can we have the donations box back now, please. (And not particularly relevant, but when I saw "(diff) (hist) . . MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice; 19:57 . . Angela (Talk) (vfd!)" show up on my watchlist, I was sure she meant the site notice itself...) —Cryptic (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for this page, as there was for the 2004 IOT link (which was only on the front page, not every page). Dan100 (Talk) 07:38, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - We're not a charity, sorry. People don't go to an encyclopedia to donate, and while the reminder is nice, the fact that we link charity for one event which has just occurred demonstrates that there's an American bias to this website, in that, it's Hurricane Katrina. What about donations for the sufferers of HIV in South Africa? Those of terminal cancer? The bias is clear. This can't be seriously upheld. Also delete as per Trilobite's insightful comment about media bias in such affairs. --Knucmo2 20:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, per mav above. Andre (talk) 20:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Removing it would leave a red link at the top of each and every Wikipedia page. Almafeta 20:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course, since that page text has changed every day for the past 15 days, I suppose it is now suddenly uncorrectable?--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • By that logic, we need to delete Current events, regardless of the fact that every page links to it, because what is 'current' can also be subject to interpretation. Almafeta 02:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Quoting Hajor (and I really don't mean to single him out; this is a general point): "it'll do a nice job of reminding the world that we haven't lost our sense of proportion" I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more. The page as it currently stands [1] reminds the world what a twisted sense of proportion we have: a string of links for Hurricane Katrina on top, then a couple of others shoved in at the bottom for the irrelevant Africans. As we all know, several thousand people may eventually turn out to have died as a result of Katrina, and one of the biggest problems faced by those not drowned or otherwise killed directly by the hurricane was the lack of clean drinking water in its aftermath. Turning now to poorer parts of the world: "Every day, more than 25,000 people die from water-borne diseases. Approximately 80 per cent of diseases and over one-third of deaths in the developing world are caused by contaminated water." [2] I find it unfortunate, to put it mildly, that some of Wikipedia's finest minds and most dedicated volunteers, who came up with this 'compromise' at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice, are unable to grasp the unfortunate fact that media attention and financial aid given to human suffering is not proportional to its severity. "Bush is to seek an additional $51.8bn to fund relief efforts in the southern US" [3]. Meanwhile in Niger: "Donors have given less than half of the $81 million appealed for by the UN." [4]. If only we did have a sense of proportion. — Trilobite 20:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • fully agree Dontaskme 22:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Then add more links for them. But to remove the whole page due to a current lack of balance is not the right path. --mav 04:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • My point was that human suffering on the scale of what we're seeing now as a result of Katrina is a daily reality, and if we gave other worthy causes proportionate attention Wikipedia would be forever carrying notices asking for money for some charity or another. As a result I feel it's best that Wikipedia does not go down the route of soliciting donations for charitable causes other than our own encyclopedic mission, however deserving of our readers' money they may be. — Trilobite 04:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this is an advertisement and does not fit in the goals. Worse, it appears everywhere if you want it or not. I do not want it. If I want it, I can turn on television. If the foundation raises money to pay for itself or to upgrade equipment, that is different, as it maintains independence and prevents me from being flooded with propaganda. If they feel they have too much money, they should stop the fundraising altogether. To Strong keep, if you feel your argument gets more plausible by adding a "strong", think again. Longbow4u 20:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per mav and Angela. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 20:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Another comment People are well aware of Katrina if they can access Wikipedia.--Knucmo2 20:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, but I don't see the point and I think it would not be fair. bogdan | ^Talk 21:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pretty much for the reasons listed above. Not in line with Wikipedia's raison d'etre, and it seriously undermines our no ad policy. (One would wonder why the selected places were chosen.) I'll admit Wikipedia's heart is in the right place, but Wikipedia isn't the best place for this, just like it isn't the best place for a lot of other things as per their rules. --Canuckguy 21:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I think that the welfare of those suffering due to natural disasters is far more important than the neutrality of an encyclopedia. --Ixfd64 21:21, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
• Delete The welfare of those suffering due to natural disasters is not helped by Wikipedia having a biased, partial list of places to donate to help them. This is not our mission. Agree with Canuckguy. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Other charities also need your help." Duh, really? This is cluttersome advertising, and it's patronising too. Rollo 21:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete' per Trilobite. Acetic'^Acid 21:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It seems inappropriate to single out certain charities over others. There are thousands of worthy charities. Listing them all (or attempting to, anyway) doesn't help, either, because then the page becomes so large that it's useless. Dpark 21:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per dan100. SECProto 21:56, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per Trilobite -- Joolz 21:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Suddenly asking for people to help charities just because the most popular country has a need for it is rather hypocritical. Either we prop charities all the time, or never. Since they aren't directly relevant to the encyclopedia, never is the more appropriate solution. (On related note, I dislike the fundraising notice altogether, but in the case of missing money for our servers, that's an issue that is directly relevant to process of serving every page that the notice is on.) --Joy [shallot] 22:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it does no harm whatsoever --High^{(Hopes) 22:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete - Each and every one of us has a personal page - we can list our 'favourite' charities there. Adambisset 22:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Information is easy to find elsewhere but should not be part of an encyclopedia. Dontaskme 22:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. See MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice#Time_to_replace_the_second_line for details. ~ Syrae Faileas - «Talk» 22:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it does not facilitate the making of an encyclopedia. Tuf-Kat 23:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not Wikipedia's job to solicit donations for other charities. And this could never have a fair or representative listing. Jokestress 23:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for certain admins' pet causes, jguk 23:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not related to creating an encyclopedia, and brings up questions of neutrality and POV. -- Creidieki 23:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Well meaning, but WP:ISNOT this. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless permanently unprotected, protected pages are evil. JYolkowski // talk 00:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since this will be full of edit wars and Wikipedia is not in the business of evauluating carities. Image if something like QuakeAID is sponsored by us, that could be the end of things. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Am I the only one who's already been reminded several hundred times that Hurricane Katrina victims need help? Even Amazon.com has something going on about it. You might argue that this is giving people an avenue through which to find places to donate, but if they're serious enough about it to actually donate (as I have) to a charity, I think it's safe to say that Google and/or CNN, Amazon, and every other entity in the world has helped them find somewhere to do it by now. As for other charities... It's a good idea in theory, but based on arguments made here, I don't see it working. --Schrei 00:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think we all know about Hurrican Katrina now. That's really why this link is there. So people don't think we're selfish. Wikipedia isn't going to go away because 3 people think we should be donating to charities. Over time, people stop feeling as charitable. Well, over time Wikimedia's costs don't go down. We have a bottom line to watch too--one that won't be helped by redirecting people to a POV list (which we can't all edit by the way, which just blows it out of the water) of other places to contribute money. Oh, and anyone who can access Wikipedia is already well aware of Hurricane Katrina; we don't need to point that out.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• I would also suggest reading the talk page discussion. The fact that Ayn Rand Institute lasted for more than two minutes on such a highly visible page is laughable. I'm sure any rational person can see the direction this is headed towards.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are more than enough places to get information on worthwhile charitable groups that are looking for money. If the foundation needs to raise money to continue running, then it's reasonable to run a fundraiser. To try to maintain a list of worthwhile charitable foundations here is senseless.
• Strong keep. Everyking 01:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 01:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Biased, and too easy for folks to say, "Why not my current charity needs?" Aaronwinborn 02:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too many let people read ITN and decide if they want to donate money anywhere. This link is Broken 02:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons given above. Flowerparty 02:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - so, it's OK to solicit funds for Wikipedia on each page but not for any other current charitable causes? Wouldn't that imply favoritism towards Wikipedia's needs and thus be POV in itself? --Jtalledo (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not help building encyclopedia. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for about a week or so. I'm so shocked at the delete votes that I'm donating more. --fpo 03:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Your comment seems to imply that the people who are voting delete have not dontated, don't want others to donate, or don't care about the hurt people. This isn't correct and it's a pretty hurtful position. I hope you think about the other reasons we think wikipedia doesn't need to be in the bussiness of recommending or approving charities, and revise your position. --Gmaxwell 05:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If Wikipedia were to endorse charity every time something bad happened somewhere, we'd just become the Yellow Pages of giving people money. Setting aside very real issues of systemic bias, this is simply unmaintainable, hopelessly POV, and unneeded: people who want to donate money to a good, non-Wikipedia cause can do so without us poking them. Lord Bob 03:34, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, I'm highly unimpressed with the point-proving shenanigans of some of those pushing to delete. On the other hand, this is exactly why I wasn't keen on anything resembling endorsement of specific charities.

Comment - This is a moral issue either way, and I wouldn't say that those who are pushing for deletion are using sophistry at all. Another point I have is to respond to User:Jtalledo's point about bias. NPOV only applies to articles.--Knucmo2 10:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It's also worth noting the nominator's comment in a similar dispute over putting a donations box on the Main Page, in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami: "There is clear community consensus for it and let's be honest here, it is the right thing to do." I would love to know how he reconciles his views then and now. --Michael Snow 03:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem: there is no consensus for this page, and the 2004 IOT was infinitely worse than this and did not occur in the richest country in the world. Dan100 (Talk) 07:53, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:48, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete We have a perfectly good list of charities (which could use a little charity itself if all those red links are an indicator). It is far less Amerocentric than this hopelessly lopsided list, and I can't understand, if promoting other charities is the point, why the banner message didn't just point to the already existing article. Denni☯ 04:09, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
  • Because that article lists wiki links, not direct links to places were donor dollars can help. Nor is it organized by event. --mav 04:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It's two mouse clicks to get to the charity's website from that article. How hard is that? And I am prepared to give credit to people for figuring out that the Red Cross might be helping out victims in Lousiana and Somalia, while AfricaCrisis.org is really a bad plan if you want to help children in Baton Rouge.

I guess what my real concern is, Mav, is that we have this =honking= big list of sites to go to to offer aid to the Katrina victims, while Sudan gets one and Niger gets two. In the big picture, both of these make Katrina look like a Sunday picnic, and in the meantime, both cancer and AIDS eat people like they were dim sum. This list is hugely distorted in where its priorities lie, and is unworkable as it stands. Denni☯ 02:55, 2005 September 9 (UTC)Denni☯ 02:43, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

• Comment' Note that the nominator said this about the removal of the tsunami support message from the Main Page.

I don't care that Jimbo doesn't like it. I don't care that Brittanica haven't got one. There is clear community consensus for it and let's be honest here, it is the right thing to do. If any admin is reading this, please restore it at the earliest possible opportunity. Thanks in advance. Dan100 10:00, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

So this current nomination sounds a bit hypocritical to me. Is this not also the right thing to do? Note that this effort is an attempt to create a non-event specific page. Sure more editing is needed to get it there, but that editing will not happen if the page is in danger of being deleted. --mav

Lol how many times are you going to link to that Mav? As I've said in my other replies so far: There is no consensus for this page, unlike for that single link on the Main Page back in January, nor do I believe the Katrina disaster warrants a link from Wikipedia. It's nowhere near the scale the 2004 IOT was. Dan100 (Talk) 07:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

The Katrina disaster is not the only thing listed on this page. It just happens to be the most recent event listed and somebody else added all the extra Katrina links - not me. I was my hope when creating this page that it could be expanded and improved to the point where it could be used to help more than example events I listed just to get the page started. Having haphazard disaster-by-disaster efforts is POV and will be factious. This could have been the start of a sustainable answer to this type of thing. Yet you killed that effort with this VfD. Many people affected by the events listed on that page could have been helped that won’t be due to all this. I hope you all get a warm fuzzy feeling about that. --mav 16:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• That was a while ago. I'm willing to assume good faith and say that he simply changed his mind over the nine months that have passed since the first of January, 2005. Lord Bob 04:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

And there is now nearly clear consensus to remove this one, although I'm sure the discussion is suppressed somewhat because the VFD notice has been removed from the article again. It appears to be out of the site notice now, so I'm not sure why. I think Mav should refrain from futher inserting or removing of this article because its clear from the prior discussion that he is very emotionally involved in this issue. --Gmaxwell 05:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I don't really like the idea of Wikipedia wanting you to donate to anyone other then them, and I certanly don't like the fact a link is on EVEY PAGE about it. --Bky1701 07:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia as an encycylopedia and lets keep it that way --Clawed 08:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per all the reasons stated above. →Vik Reykja 09:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Get rid of the ad or Delete: 1) Why now as opposed to all the time? Oh wait, there's a current catastrophe in America, which is obviously more important than other places in the world which deal with conditions worse than New Orleans's on a daily basis. 2) Organisations to donate to are not hard to find, phishers notwithstanding. 3) If Wikipedia puts a call out for this, then they have to put a call out for every worthy cause. 4) Part of Wikipedia's ethos is no advertising: the only advertising or soliciting for funds we do is to keep the site operational. That's it. Darobsta 09:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per lots of people above. Hopelessly POV and in no way contributes to the goal of building an encyclopedia. And part of our ethos is no advertising. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Regardless of which way this goes, could the admins please stop changing the page/template long enough for the vote to take place? Especially stuff like Ayn Rand - what's the point of locking it in the first place if stuff like that happens anyway... --Schrei 09:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Though I have my sympathies for the people who suffer, I strongly feel that this is not the forum for doing this for the following reasons. a)It's bound to be POV. b) It'll dilute our own fundraising efforts. c) It's simply taking us away from our core mission. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — tpower 10:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I fail to see the purpose of this in an encyclopaedia. JSIN
• Remove immediately this article is in the Wikipedia namespace, where it clearly does not belong. It also unnecessarily replicates information of List of charities. The encyclopedia therefore would not loose any information by speedily deleting it. Gebruiker:Dedalus 11:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Since I have already voted for immediate removal of this page, I wanted to add a link to Jimbo Wales' comment and add that this we need a policy in place to keep this from happening in the future. It is an idea, though well-meaning, that goes completely against the spirit and policies of Wikipedia. Jokestress 19:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • He comments that we need a policy about this issue, not against it. Pcb21| Pete 20:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • And I quote, "the arguments for it are not persuasive to me, and we deseparately need a coherent policy about this in the future, to avoid this kind of edit war.". Interesting. I would have that arguments for it not being persuasive was tantamount to not being in favor of it.--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:26, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Why is it so wrong to help other worthy causes? I'm not sure the bandwidth used for this page is all that much compared to the amount of help it creates for carities that really don't get as much press as say the red cross. The fact that it is a "locked" page is good so that it doesn't really have much extra bandwidth/server time utilized on helping other causes. This is not just because of the hurricane, there are other good causes on the page as well. -- ×××jijin+machina | Chat Me!××× -- 01:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It might be a worthy cause, but other 'worthy causes' are taking preference over certain others. I think a consensus has been reached, time for the admins to step in. --Knucmo2 14:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • They did, but other admins feel very strongly about this matter because they believe that our message might help those in need, and they feel ethically bound to push that agenda. Other admins feel very strongly that the list isn't helpful and consider the result here to command a change. As a result there was an edit war, and Jimbo had to step in to stop it. :( On the plus side, it's been removed from the site-notice which is all people mostly cared about, ... now this is just a POV fork of list of charities in the wrong namespace. --Gmaxwell 15:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:29, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

• Delete. There is nothing bad about encouraging people to donate to charity, in fact, this is great! But this can so easily be done in an NPOV style. In fact, it's ALREADY BEEN DONE. Instead of linking to this messed up page, just link to Wikipedia list of charities ("Thanks for your charity! You are still welcome to make a _donation_ or _purchase Wikimedia merchandise_"). Then everyone can add charitable causes to the aforementioned page, organized by country, in true NPOV fashion, each proportionate to the attention in the current public conscious. Connelly 06:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I like this solution. I think it might be a good compromise; user:anthere
  • Hmm. I think this would be a minor improvement. But I fear it would largely just shift the problem, it would encourage edit warring on the charities article, and there are many users (including myself) who consider list of charities as non-encyclopedic content that should be removed along with many of our other list of articles. At least when it is not linked site wide it assuming good faith on the part of link submitters comes more naturally. I think when it comes down to it, if someone is motivated enough to donate their hard earned money, they are motivated enough to actually find a charity since it is rather easy without our help... so the only purpose for our list is to potentially show users good charities they might not have found otherwise, but there in lies the rub: many people will jockey over whats in the list and the order of the list to try to obtain better visability for charities they feel are better... On the sitenotice talk I made a late and not-serious suggestion that we make the notice say Wikipedia would like to remind you to feel guilty if you are not suffering as much as so many other people in the world. Without a link. Because beyond directing people to a POV list of charitites the only other thing we could accomplish with a donation notice would be to remind people to donate, which would be better accomplished with my above message. :) --Gmaxwell 15:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not so sure. I think charities simply decree those who donate as socially responsible for disasters and shift the burden of blame. I see this in a lot of cases. In addition 90 per cent of charity in the USA is collected and spent locally, thus, we see privelege applying to charity (how ironic), namely that rich, well-funded charities are usually in rich communities and poor communities have poor charities, and about only 10-15 of all donations are sent the way of the indigent. Thus no amount of donations fix this fundamental social problem.--Knucmo2 16:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, my comment could be construed as unhelpful to those in the Katrina incident. But my main point is: I think that Wikipedia does an exceptional job of covering current events in an NPOV style. I compare Wikipedia to the major TV news channels, and Wikipedia is just so much more "unbiased" (in the common sense of the word). I find it highly refreshing to not have peoples' bizarre ideologies always pushed down my throat. Surely Wikipedia can do this for Katrina, too! I don't have any problem with Wikipedia linking to a general list of charities, but it seems strange when Wikipedia links directly to a list of Hurricane Katrina relief organizations (Like maybe...an agenda being pushed down the reader's throat? Would you resent this if say you think the Sudanese need help much more than the Katrina refugees?). - Connelly 10:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and regretably so because I am sure that the page was made with plenty of good intentions. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not the website to post these kind of things. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Sjakkalle. Martin 14:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• No vote and go for consensus instead. Take this to Wikipedia talk:Current charitable causes. As has been pointed out elswewhere before by others, we shouldn't be voting on policy on MFD (not even on application of policy). 80.126.238.189 17:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete immediately. I'm sure this was created with the best of intentions. However, 1) Wikipedia is not a list of links. This page can never be anything but a list of links. 2) The selection of "worthy" charities is inevitably biased. It also represents an area where Wikipedia does not have any special expertise. (Unless you plan to enlist a dedicated cadre to visit each charity and confirm that they are real, that they are efficient, that they are well run, that their goals are in line with the advertised goals, etc.) 3) There have been far too many very sophisticated hacks, phishing attacks and cons associated with charities both in the tsunami disaster and even faster and more numerous since this hurricane. This list of links is just a convenient target. We can do our best to defend our links but it is not our core skill set and it is not an efficient use of our developers' time. 4) This stretches the "no advertising" rule past the point of breaking. If you want a charitable giving clearinghouse, go to the United Way. We all do have lives outside of Wikipedia. We don't have to solve every problem through our work here. Rossami (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... good intentions aplenty, but simply saying "here's a list of links to some charities that may or may not be good" just isn't part of what an encyclopedia should be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Leave this kind of thing to the BBC and news agencies. You will never get a sensible consensus on which good cause is the most important at any time and WP is about consensus. --BozMo|talk 09:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and keep instead the neutral List of charities ChaTo 13:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We shouldn't try to get people to donate to any charity, really; to ourselves is just about OK, but... James F. (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• No vote - Who would actually use or benefit from this charity list? You won't get impulse donations. The list could be compromised in time by unreliable posters. The warning already tells the potential donor "buyer beware". What's the point? - Tεxτurε 17:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.