When will Wikipedia stop begging anually?

[verb3k]

Canonical aims to make ubuntu self-sustainable. Why don't the guys at the Wikimedia Foundation work on that too instead of begging people every year?

point blank

[jacobw.uk]

Its got a really big overhead, much bigger than Ubuntu. The whole world uses Wikipedia, not so with Ubuntu.

[Ozor Mox]

What's wrong with a community project asking for donations? If you don't think it's worth anything, don't donate. Obviously plenty of people do looking at the current $3.9m of donations.

[Redache]

Canonical aims to make ubuntu self-sustainable. Why don't the guys at the Wikimedia Foundation work on that too instead of begging people every year?

point blank

Because Wikipedia would have to charge hundreds to individal users for using their website, much like what you'd pay for an encyclopedia. They are a Foundation that is committed to offering a free encyclopedia for the whole world to edit and use.

I'd rather give my money to Wikipedia than most Charities to be honest, since Wikipedia is doing something I agree with.

[Skripka]

Canonical aims to make ubuntu self-sustainable. Why don't the guys at the Wikimedia Foundation work on that too instead of begging people every year?

point blank

Because they need lots of money to fund their operations. Just like NPR or public television in the US.

[kellemes]

What's wrong with a community project asking for donations? If you don't think it's worth anything, don't donate. Obviously plenty of people do looking at the current $3.9m of donations.

+1

Nothing wrong with donations indeed.. Also Ubuntu makes it possible to donate, eventhough Shuttleworth has more money then he can handle.

[MaxIBoy]

Every time a byte goes to or from Wikipedia's servers, they are charged money. Every time you view a Wikipedia page, you cost them money. Since they don't serve banner ads, the only way for them to get money to pay this back is by asking for donations.

[linuxguymarshall]

They need to. They are nonprofit

[Erunno]

Canonical aims to make ubuntu self-sustainable. Why don't the guys at the Wikimedia Foundation work on that too instead of begging people every year?

Emphasis mine. Currently Canonical is totally dependent on the goodwill of their founder Mark Shuttleworth.

Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites in the Internet. Judging by that fact it should be easy for them to get the necessary 6 Million dollars for the upkeep of their infrastructure. It's actually very disappointing that they still haven't managed to gain the necessary money. There seems to be a widespread freeloader mentality with the Wikipedia users.

[kellemes]

(..) It's actually very disappointing that they still haven't managed to gain the necessary money. There seems to be a widespread freeloader mentality with the Wikipedia users.

Very true..

[zekopeko]

and there seems to be a wide-spread inefficiency and corruption in the upper echelons of the Wikipedia administration. the current fund riser drive is riddled with scandals about poor management of Wikipedia finances.

[Erunno]

and there seems to be a wide-spread inefficiency and corruption in the upper echelons of the Wikipedia administration. the current fund riser drive is riddled with scandals about poor management of Wikipedia finances.

This is interesting. Could you provide some links to articles further explaining these issues?

[dannytatom]

I like that Wikipedia is open and all that, but they should do something about those wiki-nazis.

Off topic, but still related. ;D

[ZuLuuuuuu]

I think, placing little text based advertisement (like Gmail's) would not hurt the users that much. 6 million dollars is a lot of money considering that they need it every two years. 3 million dolars per year...

[gerbman]

and there seems to be a wide-spread inefficiency and corruption in the upper echelons of the Wikipedia administration. the current fund riser drive is riddled with scandals about poor management of Wikipedia finances.

You can't go making such extreme claims without backing them up with references. Ironically, this is something Wikipedia intensely discourages.

[MikeTheC]

what's wrong with a community project asking for donations? If you don't think it's worth anything, don't donate. Obviously plenty of people do looking at the current $3.9m of donations.
+1


because wikipedia would have to charge hundreds to individal users for using their website, much like what you'd pay for an encyclopedia. They are a foundation that is committed to offering a free encyclopedia for the whole world to edit and use.

I'd rather give my money to wikipedia than most charities to be honest, since wikipedia is doing something i agree with.
+1


they need to. They are nonprofit
+1

[Dharmachakra]

You can't go making such extreme claims without backing them up with references. Ironically, this is something Wikipedia intensely discourages.

Where's your reference for that? I often see pages where Wikipedia warns the reader that some of the facts aren't referenced. Seems to me that they do encourage references.

[dannytatom]

I think he means Wikipedia discourages not having sources. How that is ironic, I don't know. ;o

[gerbman]

I think he means Wikipedia discourages not having sources. How that is ironic, I don't know. ;oCorrect, that was my intended meaning. It's ironic in the sense that the poster was bashing Wikipedia in a way that wouldn't be permitted by Wikipedia's own standards. Definition 3.a.1 here (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony), if it matters.

[handy]

Maybe when Jimi Wales doesn't need a new yacht?

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/

[amitabhishek]

Hey Bush! Instead of bailing out those brokers and bankers, How about lending a helping hand here?

[halovivek]

The wikipedia is doing good. since there is no ads served to gain from it. we can read the article freely. if the thought to do money in ads display. they will get 10 times money. what the now what, they are doing good. we should support them. Dont use like words begging and all. most of the searches and details you will find in wiki.

[cammin]

You can't go making such extreme claims without backing them up with references. Ironically, this is something Wikipedia intensely discourages.

There was an article (with references) on Wikipeida. But it was deleted for some reason.

[underthechair]

Maybe when Jimi Wales doesn't need a new yacht?

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/

If you want to check what the Wikimedia Foundation is doing with donations, it publishes an Annual Report here (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report) and audited financial statements here (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Finance_report).

If adverts were run on Wikipedia they would instantly generate many times more money than an annual fundraiser - enough money to buy a whole flotilla of yachts. They choose not to do this, which I think says a great deal about their attitude to yacht acquisition.

[handy]

If you want to check what the Wikimedia Foundation is doing with donations, it publishes an Annual Report here (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report) and audited financial statements here (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Finance_report).

If adverts were run on Wikipedia they would instantly generate many times more money than an annual fundraiser - enough money to buy a whole flotilla of yachts. They choose not to do this, which I think says a great deal about their attitude to yacht acquisition.

The yacht remark was tongue in cheek, the intention was to draw attention to the site I linked to.

Did you read any of the documentation on the link I posted?


This site examines the phenomenon of Wikipedia. We are interested in them because they have a massive, unearned influence on what passes for reliable information. Search engines rank their pages near the top. While Wikipedia itself does not run ads, they are the most-scraped site on the web. Scrapers need content — any content will do — in order to carry ads from Google and other advertisers. This entire effect is turning Wikipedia into a generator of spam. It is primarily Google's fault, since Wikipedia might find it difficult to address the issue of scraping even if they wanted to. Google doesn't care; their ad money comes right off the top.

You can hotlink to me ! For example, it did not take long, using the Google and Yahoo engines, to find 52 different domains that scraped Wikipedia's page on rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd. Interestingly, Google listed more than four times the number of duplicate scrapes than Yahoo. This could be related to the fact that 83 percent of these scraped pages carry ads — almost always ads from Google. Some of these scrapes are template-generated across different domains, suggesting that they are created by programs. At that point zombie PCs might be dispatched to click on the ads.

Jimmy Wales, the man behind Wikipedia, probably approves of this practice. After he made a fortune in futures trading, he started up Bomis.com in the mid-1990s. Bomis was one of the first sites to scrape the ad-free Open Directory Project, and turn it into a huge mass of paid links and ads, mixed together with porn.

[underthechair]

The yacht remark was tongue in cheek, the intention was to draw attention to the site I linked to.

Did you read any of the documentation on the link I posted?


This site examines the phenomenon of Wikipedia. We are interested in them because they have a massive, unearned influence on what passes for reliable information. Search engines rank their pages near the top. While Wikipedia itself does not run ads, they are the most-scraped site on the web. Scrapers need content — any content will do — in order to carry ads from Google and other advertisers. This entire effect is turning Wikipedia into a generator of spam. It is primarily Google's fault, since Wikipedia might find it difficult to address the issue of scraping even if they wanted to. Google doesn't care; their ad money comes right off the top.

You can hotlink to me ! For example, it did not take long, using the Google and Yahoo engines, to find 52 different domains that scraped Wikipedia's page on rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd. Interestingly, Google listed more than four times the number of duplicate scrapes than Yahoo. This could be related to the fact that 83 percent of these scraped pages carry ads — almost always ads from Google. Some of these scrapes are template-generated across different domains, suggesting that they are created by programs. At that point zombie PCs might be dispatched to click on the ads.

Jimmy Wales, the man behind Wikipedia, probably approves of this practice. After he made a fortune in futures trading, he started up Bomis.com in the mid-1990s. Bomis was one of the first sites to scrape the ad-free Open Directory Project, and turn it into a huge mass of paid links and ads, mixed together with porn.

You appear to be complaining that the content of Wikipedia is released under a free licence. Beyond that, none of what you posted has anything to do with Wikipedia.

[conundrumx]

Canonical aims to make ubuntu self-sustainable. Why don't the guys at the Wikimedia Foundation work on that too instead of begging people every year?

point blank

When will Wikipedia stop asking for money?

When we reach a Star Trek like moneyless society, I imagine. :rolleyes:

[chucky chuckaluck]

right after pbs stops having lawrence welk marathons during their fund raising drives. (that would be 'never' for those of you not in the broadcast area.)

[qazwsx]

You could adblock it.

But donate first ;)

[handy]

You appear to be complaining that the content of Wikipedia is released under a free licence. Beyond that, none of what you posted has anything to do with Wikipedia.

Yeh, right, whatever you say.

[kavon89]

Maybe they should create a "member" system which has a small annual or monthly fee like NPR. They would need to implement a benefit (even small like a t-shirt or gift pack) to being a member and not just a user (or an anonymous visitor).

It can't be ad-free browsing, or access to better information because that would defeat the purpose of Wikipedia.

I thought of maybe if they implemented a comment system, members can make comments and users with accounts can vote them up and down (like Digg, since everyone copies them) and after a certian point down voted comments are purged?

[Vadi]

I donated, yet I'm still spammed with the begging ad. Annoying.

[zekopeko]

You can't go making such extreme claims without backing them up with references. Ironically, this is something Wikipedia intensely discourages.

off course i can. this is the internet. i can make as many claims as i want without providing my source of such claims.
You can google my claim if you like and see where it takes you. There is a plenty of scandal with the wiki staff.

[ithanium]

Every year is the same. Eventually someone will buy wikipedia and they will handle the costs.

[forrestcupp]

It's a lot more attainable for a company to become self-sustainable with a solid OS than it is with an online only, user edited encyclopedia. And I'd rather see that non-intrusive call for support once a year than constant blinking flash and banner ads.

Does it make you feel guilty, or something?

[Erunno]

off course i can. this is the internet. i can make as many claims as i want without providing my source of such claims.
You can google my claim if you like and see where it takes you. There is a plenty of scandal with the wiki staff.

You have a very peculiar view about the rules of a discussion. It is your obligation to back up your allegations, anything else would be ridiculous.

[Vadi]

English Wikipedia is rather ridiculous. They deleted the page on Gufw, saying it was "not notable enough" (while it was just fine in the Asturian wiki).

Oh well, at least archive.org represents a better truth and doesn't dictiate who's recorded in history :)

[Polygon]

a lot of people on wikipedia are very power hungry and think that just because they don't know anything about the topic then its not notable enough. I wrote an article about a game, and some jerk tried to get it deleted saying its 'not notable' , even though there are PLENTY of articles about other games.

You just have to fight it, and if all else fails, get an admin to step in.

i can kinda see gufw not being notable enough as its just a small gtk front end to ufw though.

But you can always recreate it and see if you have better luck =)

[init1]

When will Wikipedia stop begging anually?

When they get enough money.

[Vadi]

When they get enough money.

Haha, I see "what you did thar".

[MikeTheC]

right after pbs stops having lawrence welk marathons during their fund raising drives. (that would be 'never' for those of you not in the broadcast area.)

+1 (don't even get me started about PBS beg-a-thons)

[forrestcupp]

right after pbs stops having lawrence welk marathons during their fund raising drives. (that would be 'never' for those of you not in the broadcast area.)

LOL. Lawrence Welk! Hey, the world needs him. Without Lawrence Welk, Geritol wouldn't have a viable advertising venue. :)

[bp1509]

d

[Vadi]

Well, I already "paid" for the service. I still get the banners. It's not very rewarding then to pay at all.

Plus, it's not like any of the contributors to the wiki get anything from this - and they're the ones who matter.

[forrestcupp]

Well, I already "paid" for the service. I still get the banners. It's not very rewarding then to pay at all.

Plus, it's not like any of the contributors to the wiki get anything from this - and they're the ones who matter.

You need to come to the realization that the purpose of donating to these projects is not to "get something from it", but to just be a support to the free software movement. If you want to get something extra for your money, you need to go back to Windows so you can pay to unlock crippled shareware. Then you'll get something extra for your money that non-paying users don't get. But that's not what software freedom is all about.

[mips]

I honestly do not understand what you are biatching about. There is nothing wrong with asking for donations. Wikipedia is not perfect but it is a very good resource.

Maybe you should stick to paid software and paid information like Encyclopedia Britannica etc.

Really, I sometimes fail to understand people.

[mips]

You need to come to the realization that the purpose of donating to these projects is not to "get something from it", but to just be a support to the free software movement.

+1

It reminds me of people that do something "good" on the basis
that there is some form of return for them. Just do good and expect no return.

[gerbman]

off course i can. this is the internet. i can make as many claims as i want without providing my source of such claims.
You can google my claim if you like and see where it takes you. There is a plenty of scandal with the wiki staff.

Of course there is no legal obligation to provide references for anything you say; however, your claims will never be taken seriously by a mentally competent person if you do not. It's your responsibility to back up what you say.

[gerbman]

Well, I already "paid" for the service. I still get the banners. It's not very rewarding then to pay at all.

Plus, it's not like any of the contributors to the wiki get anything from this - and they're the ones who matter.

They don't get anything from donations? What about the hardware, software, etc. resources that it takes to keep Wikipedia alive? It's like me telling Sourceforge that I should get paid for submitting software to them. Ridiculous.

[Vadi]

Wikipedia already gets hardware from major companies, afaik.

Free software movement? How is that related to Wikipedia? Oh, you mean that they delete article about free software? yeah, that is related.

That said, as I said, I donated. I'd at least expect something in return to the people I gave $ to - and we can ignore content since content writers don't get a penny. For one, stop annoying me for more!

[Polygon]

yeah, i agree. Although the reason i think you still see the ads is casue they dont have a system in place to see which accounts donated, and then in turn which accounts to show the ad for and which accounts to remove it.

[bp1509]

d

[Vadi]

It's a very unrewarding thing to do then - something I'll keep in mind when I make my decision next time.

Or no, because this pushed the line. You don't built a self-sustainable venture, even non-profit, by begging for donations.

[bp1509]

d

[Vadi]

Nope, I haven't been.

I'm now torn whenever to use it at all - from one point, I gave them money for the service, and from the other, it wasn't appreciated at all.

[gerbman]

Free software movement? How is that related to Wikipedia? Oh, you mean that they delete article about free software? yeah, that is related.

You missed the point of the analogy. Wikipedia users freely contribute content in the same way that Sourceforge users freely contribute content. You were implying that Wikipedia contributors should be compensated in some way beyond the services already provided by the site. How is this different from arguing for compensation for Sourceforge contributors, which I think we would agree is a little asinine.

How does continuing to provide reliable access to the site not qualify as "appreciation"?

[bp1509]

d

[gerbman]

Nope, I haven't been.

I'm now torn whenever to use it at all - from one point, I gave them money for the service, and from the other, it wasn't appreciated at all.

As noted by bp1509, your conception of "donation" is profoundly incorrect. The reward is the service, just as the reward for donating to public radio/television is the programming. If you don't enjoy the service, don't donate. The fact that you donated and still see cause to complain only shows that you don't understand this.

[joshmuffin]

When they get enough money to take over encyclopaedia Britannica.

[Vadi]

At least we aren't the only ones: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081230-wikipedias-new-plea-for-donations-stirs-skepticism.html

[phaed]

To the OP:

Wikipedia needs donations because it has annual operating costs of about $6 million, and it doesn't have a billionaire angel investor to back it like Ubuntu. I'm actually surprised that Shuttleworth with his vast wealth hasn't donated at least something, especially since Wikipedia is doing on the knowledge front what Ubuntu is doing on the operating system front.

As for building a business model to become self-sustaining, I'm not sure how Wikipedia could do that. Canonical gives Ubuntu away for free, but they charge for tech support. What exactly would Wikipedia charge for? Their purpose is to provide free information.

Ultimately, you have a vast source of free information at your finger tips. 2.6 million English language articles and counting. And you're complaining about a banner that solicits donations? If it bothers you that much, you can always pay Encyclopaedia Britannica $70 a year, but you won't get nearly as much content.

[phaed]

I think, placing little text based advertisement (like Gmail's) would not hurt the users that much. 6 million dollars is a lot of money considering that they need it every two years. 3 million dolars per year...

But that would be a lot more annoying than the donations banner, and it could introduce conflicts of interest. And Wikimedia Foundation would have to restructure as a for-profit. And it's not at all clear the ads would pay for it. There are many issues with your proposal.

[Vadi]

Canonical gives Ubuntu away for free, but they charge for tech support. What exactly would Wikipedia charge for? Their purpose is to provide free information.

Do you personally make use of their paid tech support?

Most don't.

[durand]

This thread reminded me to donate <3.

[wmcbrine]

Six million dollars is a trivial sum for the value that Wikipedia provides, which I'd rate as comparable to that provided by Google, a multi-billion-dollar corporation.

For people to complain about this is outrageous.