Wikipedia: Does it have a future?

[effenberg0x0]

Mostly everyone I know uses Wikipedia. Or at least I have this impression. Every now and then we see their banners asking for a donation to keep them alive.

Well, as a foundation, they have every right to live on donations, sure, but given the constant growth in their demand for IT resources and people needed to run them, isn't it about time they change and try to think of a new business model?

I have donated a couple times, including again today, but, in the long run, I'm sadly failing to see a future for them. And I do believe the world is better with Wikipedia than without it.

Do you believe Wikipedia will always make it, or will they eventually have no option but to change business model? Or simply die in the near future?

Regards,
Effenberg

[3Miro]

I think every year so far they have managed to gather more money then than the year before. I don't see them going away any time soon.

[forrestcupp]

When you click on the banner, one of the things it says is that they will only raise money until they get what they need for the year, then they will stop trying to raise money for the rest of the year. Well, they have had banners all year, and there are only 4 days left this year, counting today. So it appears to me that they aren't raising as much as they need in a year.

Wikipedia is not going to die off. I'll bet that even though they say there is no place for ads there, they would go that way before they let it just die. In my opinion, if I have to look at a huge ad all year of them begging me for money, how could it be any worse on me for them to exchange that for a real ad that will generate revenue for them?

[BC59]

Wikipedia is too good to be free. Something is going on.

[Copper Bezel]

Yeah, even if they had to go the banner ad route, they're not going anywhere. But I wouldn't be surprised if they could maintain the public radio model indefinitely, either. It's a small operation and hugely relied upon. If they're struggling, someone big with a stake will step in.

I think the biggest threat is that they could become victims of their own success - there are cases now where the kinds of resources they call on as sources (say, newspapers) are citing Wikipedia themselves (so the scenario becomes equivalent to Wikipedia citing itself.) I could see that sort of problem beginning to degrade Wikipedia's overall quality and reliability.

In any case, Wikipedia is simply the most important educational tool that exists as a result of the information age. I don't see it going anywhere.

[3Miro]

When you click on the banner, one of the things it says is that they will only raise money until they get what they need for the year, then they will stop trying to raise money for the rest of the year. Well, they have had banners all year, and there are only 4 days left this year, counting today. So it appears to me that they aren't raising as much as they need in a year.

Wikipedia is not going to die off. I'll bet that even though they say there is no place for ads there, they would go that way before they let it just die. In my opinion, if I have to look at a huge ad all year of them begging me for money, how could it be any worse on me for them to exchange that for a real ad that will generate revenue for them?

Most organizations don't align the fiscal and calendar years. Their fiscal year (which is the only thing that counts towards the money) may start in February or even March.

[forrestcupp]

Most organizations don't align the fiscal and calendar years. Their fiscal year (which is the only thing that counts towards the money) may start in February or even March.

I wonder when theirs starts. I couldn't quickly find anything on that.

[3Miro]

I wonder when theirs starts. I couldn't quickly find anything on that.

I just got an e-mail from them. Surprisingly it is Dec 31 and they are having trouble getting enough money.

[Brucevdk]

I have become a little bit disillusioned with Wikipedia. Both from the perspective of a contributor and a user.

I've been using Wikipedia since at least 2005 and in the past I have made several small donations.

My own contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brucevdk) over the years have been relatively minor (general copy-editing, reverting vandalism) though I did work intensely on one specific article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike) back in 2010.

As a contributor I guess it has to do with the (perception of) rampant vandalism, having to defend your contributions all the time (revert wars, speedy deletions etc.) and the fact that something you contribute might disappear or be distorted over time.

As a user I have the idea that I'm not using it as much as I used to. Wikipedia is by far the broadest general knowledge base out there so I probably do look at it from time to time. And I do think it's extremely important to centralize knowledge... But lately I seem to be getting more and more of my information from other more specific sources.

The thing is Wikipedia right now isn't helping me make sense of the world. For example, I've started researching the current state of the Semantic Web yesterday and I just don't find the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web) on it that useful. It's not even giving me a very good starting point.

I really really want to love Wikipedia, but right now it just doesn't excite me that much.

[sanderd17]

Tbh, I don't care about wikipedia. But I do care about the data they have. That dat will live for ever, even if Wikipedia dies.

When wikipedia dies, there will only be a short period of confusion about who will take the task of hosting it.

[Dry Lips]

I would ask everyone to give a liberal contribution to Wikipedia... Check also out:
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=012652707207066138651%3Azudjtuwe28q&ie=UTF-8&q=wikipedia&siteurl=xkcd.com%2F149%2F#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=wikipedia&gsc.page=1

[lisati]

I would ask everyone to give a liberal contribution to Wikipedia... Check also out:
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=012652707207066138651%3Azudjtuwe28q&ie=UTF-8&q=wikipedia&siteurl=xkcd.com%2F149%2F#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=wikipedia&gsc.page=1

This: http://xkcd.com/903/ ????

[ceramicm]

@lisati: I assumed Dry Lips meant http://xkcd.com/978/, in response to
I think the biggest threat is that they could become victims of their own success - there are cases now where the kinds of resources they call on as sources (say, newspapers) are citing Wikipedia themselves (so the scenario becomes equivalent to Wikipedia citing itself.) I could see that sort of problem beginning to degrade Wikipedia's overall quality and reliability.

[t0p]

I love the Wikipedia model - loadsa info there, some maybe true, some maybe less true, but the project as a whole moving only to the beat of their own drum. Carrying ads would be ok, only if it was made ultra clear to everyone that buying ad space does not equal buying editorial control. Is that possible? I think so, but I also think a lot of people are not gonna believe it.

Wikipedia needs a sugar daddy. If I was wealthy, I'd throw money at 'em big time. But for some reason the sugar daddies are staying away. Which I think is a crying shame cos Wikipedia's one of my first stops when I'm researching something. That doesn't mean I believe what it says, but at least it's saying something.

Come on, rich people. Give Wikipedia some of that dosh. It makes people smarter in the long run, whicn can nly be good if you're a fan of tThe Truth.

[Dry Lips]

This: http://xkcd.com/903/ ????


@lisati: I assumed Dry Lips meant http://xkcd.com/978/, in response to

I didn't mean anything at all... I just posted all xkcd comics that related to wikipedia... :guitar:

[forrestcupp]

I love the Wikipedia model - loadsa info there, some maybe true, some maybe less true,
...
That doesn't mean I believe what it says, but at least it's saying something.


A couple of years ago, Wikipedia was shown to have less errors than Encyclopedia Britannica. It's because of what Brucevdk was saying earlier. There is a group of regulars who go absolutely nuts reverting things that are wrong, subjective, or irrelevant. I once added something to an article that I thought would be fairly obscure. Within a day, it was deleted because what I wrote was too subjective.

[asifnaz]

In my humble opinion wikipedia is following a false business model . It should allow ads to survive

[Erik1984]

Tbh, I don't care about wikipedia. But I do care about the data they have. That dat will live for ever, even if Wikipedia dies.

When wikipedia dies, there will only be a short period of confusion about who will take the task of hosting it.

If a private, for-profit, company starts maintaining Wikipedia you could doubt it's objectiveness. That objectiveness will not immediately be in danger however a for-profit organization will probably want to make money with Wikipedia sooner or later. If they choose the advertisement route they become dependent on advertisers. If a big multinational buys lots of advertising space can you still trust the articles about that company? Probably big corporations already have their PR divisions edit Wiki pages, however that's not a big problem now as all changes are transparent.

[Copper Bezel]

In my humble opinion wikipedia is following a false business model . It should allow ads to survive
I fail to see any substantive difference between the business models of Wikipedia and any FOSS you choose.

[3Miro]

I fail to see any substantive difference between the business models of Wikipedia and any FOSS you choose.

+1. A small subscription fee would be better than ads, although I hope it doesn't come to that.

[madjr]

wow i think something like wikipedia (all this information contributed by humanity) should get official United nations founding! specially since our taxes are already going to the UN in one way or another. Is just that normal people should not have to be constantly worried about the future of something universal and essential like this.

[CharlesA]

hich I think is a crying shame cos Wikipedia's one of my first stops when I'm researching something. That doesn't mean I believe what it says, but at least it's saying something.

One of the first stops for me too, but I can't use it on my papers due to it not being allowed as a "credible source."

[alphacrucis2]

wow i think something like wikipedia (all this information contributed by humanity) should get official United nations founding! specially since our taxes are already going to the UN in one way or another. Is just that normal people should not have to be constantly worried about the future of something universal and essential like this.

Not a good idea. UN funding would politicise it and you would end up with pressure over content issues from certain member states.

[WinterMadness]

id prefer them to stay the way they are. a business with a traditional business model could never accomplish what wikipedia has done, and if they tried, they would collapse. there are certain things traditional companies simply cant do.

[asifnaz]

+1. A small subscription fee would be better than ads, although I hope it doesn't come to that.


I fail to understand why would somebody prefer fee over ads . Wikipedia will loose its position as a universal source of information if it starts charging fee even very small amount

[Bachstelze]

I fail to understand why would somebody prefer fee over ads . Wikipedia will loose its position as a universal source of information if it starts charging fee even very small amount

See alphacrucis2 above. If they run ads, they will get pressure over content from the companies running those ads. It happens very often in other media.

[Paqman]

I fail to understand why would somebody prefer fee over ads . Wikipedia will loose its position as a universal source of information if it starts charging fee even very small amount

Bit of a false dilemma though. Wikipedia isn't charging a fee or showing ads. For now it's managing ok on donations, any suggestion otherwise is speculation IMO.

[3Miro]

I fail to understand why would somebody prefer fee over ads . Wikipedia will loose its position as a universal source of information if it starts charging fee even very small amount

Whomever gives the money, has control. If a company pays big money to Wikipedia, then they are in a position of power. Wikipedia better say good things about their company or they will pull their money out, especially if the company gets involved in a scandal. If this happens, then Wikipedia will be come completely useless.

A small subscription would leave the power distributed over a large number of people, the same way things are right now.

[Paqman]

Whomever gives the money, has control.

Often, but not always. Donations to charitable organisations are often made for PR reasons, and come with no strings attached. The donor has already got the benefit they wanted by being seen to be associated with a project whose good reputation they want to borrow.

[3Miro]

Often, but not always. Donations to charitable organisations are often made for PR reasons, and come with no strings attached. The donor has already got the benefit they wanted by being seen to be associated with a project whose good reputation they want to borrow.

But a charitable organization will never show their donor in a bad light. In most cases, like say cancer research, this isn't an issue, however, Wikipedia is in a position to show objective data that hurts one or more of their donors.

This is less of an issue with voluntary contributions, especially if most contributions come from regular people. Then you have a distribution of "power" over a large mass of people and things work well. If Wikipedia gets "adopted" by a large corporation or institution, then things can become problematic.

This would be double problematic if we have a purely business relation of adding ads to Wikipedia.

[whatthefunk]

I remember the preinternet days when if you didnt know something it was alright to just let it be unknown. I read an interesting article a while back that discussed how little people actually know because of the internet. People know a lot of useless crap about a lot of different subjects, but nobody really knows anything well. If Wikipedia goes away, Ill still wake up in the morning. No biggie.

[Paqman]

But a charitable organization will never show their donor in a bad light. In most cases, like say cancer research, this isn't an issue, however, Wikipedia is in a position to show objective data that hurts one or more of their donors.


Sure, but the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't actually have editorial control over the content on Wikipedia, and donors know this.

[asifnaz]

Sure, but the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't actually have editorial control over the content on Wikipedia, and donors know this.

+1

Like FOS there is no single entity individual or organization controlling wikipeida so ads would never hurt its credibility

[Paddy Landau]

A couple of years ago, Wikipedia was shown to have less errors than Encyclopedia Britannica.
This is not correct (http://www.economist.com/node/6739977), unless you can reference a more recent study? The result showed that Britannica was more accurate, but not hugely so.

The findings were published in December [2005] and Britannica won—a blow had been struck by the gold-standard encyclopedia compiled by experts over the collective knowledge of a bunch of hobbyists and amateurs. Except that the results held a surprise. Britannica contained a lot of errors, and it was only 30% more accurate than the free encyclopedia.
EDIT: Nothing stops Wikipedia adopting (say) Google Ads -- that will bring in some money, without sacrificing independence.

[forrestcupp]

+1. A small subscription fee would be better than ads, although I hope it doesn't come to that.If they charged a fee, I would never use them again. However, if they had ads, I would continue to use them.


One of the first stops for me too, but I can't use it on my papers due to it not being allowed as a "credible source."But you can probably use the sources that are listed in the articles. That, at least, makes Wikipedia very useful. Also, I've heard that a lot more schools are starting to allow Wikipedia as a reference.


Sure, but the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't actually have editorial control over the content on Wikipedia, and donors know this.Great point. The articles will still be edited by "the people" who don't give a rip who the donors are. Not only that, but I think most sponsors would be perfectly happy with the mega traffic that sees their ads without having to put a bias on an article that only a small percentage may be viewing.


This is not correct (http://www.economist.com/node/6739977), unless you can reference a more recent study? The result showed that Britannica was more accurate, but not hugely so.You're absolutely right. Thanks for correcting me. I was going by memory. I didn't reread the article that you posted, but it seems like Wikipedia may be more informative on certain subjects, like medicine.

But the real point is that even though Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it is still about as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.

[Paddy Landau]

But the real point is that even though Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it is still about as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.
And much cheaper to use! The days of "you get what you pay for" is growing less and less true in the Age of the Internet and FLOSS.

[forrestcupp]

And much cheaper to use! The days of "you get what you pay for" is growing less and less true in the Age of the Internet and FLOSS.

One thing I've learned about the Ubuntu Forums is that even if you think you're an expert on a certain subject, there is someone on the forums at the same time you are posting who knows 100x as much as you do, and they are just waiting to be able to put you to shame. And it doesn't matter what subject it is, no matter how obscure. :)

If it's like that on Ubuntu Forums, you can guarantee it's like that on Wikipedia, too. ;)

[KdotJ]

That's true. There's always someone who knows more than you about a subject. as for wikipedia, I hope it stays around as I use it quite a bit. Ads are ok... fees, maybe not.

[Brucevdk]

I was researching what exactly the money donated is spent on and I came across various pages from Wikimedia such as this short FAQ (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en#If_I_donate_to_Wikimedia.2C_where_does_my_money _go.3F) and the financial reports (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports).

I haven't yet looked at these resources in in-depth (it's a lot of information and quite hard to digest), but while I was looking around I also came across this interesting article titled Top 10 Reasons Not to Donate to Wikipedia (http://mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia). The author makes a few points that definitely do make me reconsider donating to Wikipedia.

It really seems to me the budget is hyper-inflated.

The fact is, if I were to donate to Wikipedia I'd only want that money to go towards paying for hosting / data usage costs, a good system administration team and the core platform development team. That's it. Right now, I don't really know where exactly the money goes, so I'm not going to donate.

[sdowney717]

When you click on the banner, one of the things it says is that they will only raise money until they get what they need for the year, then they will stop trying to raise money for the rest of the year. Well, they have had banners all year, and there are only 4 days left this year, counting today. So it appears to me that they aren't raising as much as they need in a year.

Wikipedia is not going to die off. I'll bet that even though they say there is no place for ads there, they would go that way before they let it just die. In my opinion, if I have to look at a huge ad all year of them begging me for money, how could it be any worse on me for them to exchange that for a real ad that will generate revenue for them?

the site could easily generate funds if they allowed some adds.
What I despise are too many adds that ruin sites and adds that popup as your mouse moves on the page. Otherwise it is just acceptable. Everyone needs to make a living one way or another.

[frncz]

Finding reasons not to donate is of course easier than to actually part with one's money.
Overall, I think Wikipedia has created a fantastically useful resource. Something only possible in the internet age, with an astonishing range and an optimistic model. By and large, I find it very reliable for factual knowledge, (but I am not searching for politics, philosophy, history or religious topics).
I donate - not much, but some. I hope it lasts, in its present form.

[Paddy Landau]

The fact is, if I were to donate to Wikipedia I'd only want that money to go towards paying for hosting / data usage costs, a good system administration team and the core platform development team. That's it. Right now, I don't really know where exactly the money goes, so I'm not going to donate.
Yet you'll happily donate towards other items that you do purchase, such as food and computer hardware, when you don't have any clue where that money goes.

Why should a non-profit organisation be penalised for charging you, uh, nothing, and asking only for donations?

[Brucevdk]

Yet you'll happily donate towards other items that you do purchase, such as food and computer hardware, when you don't have any clue where that money goes.

Why should a non-profit organisation be penalised for charging you, uh, nothing, and asking only for donations?

Uhm. I never happily part with any of my hard earned money and though I am far from perfect, I do try to be a conscious buyer. Shouldn't you instead be motivating people to think all of their purchases through?

The point is that I now find myself questioning whether or not the Wikimedia Foundation is wasting the money they are given and also participating in cronyism. Until I'm convinced otherwise, I'm most certainly not going to donate.

[fdrake]

a company cannot survive with donations, they have to change business plan, they need to add adds like everybody else. Can you imagine if we had to donate money for facebook, google, wiki, twitter, etc....

[forrestcupp]

the site could easily generate funds if they allowed some adds.
What I despise are too many adds that ruin sites and adds that popup as your mouse moves on the page. Otherwise it is just acceptable. Everyone needs to make a living one way or another.I know what you mean. If all they did was put the same size rotating banner ad in the same spot that they have the banner begging for money, I'll bet that with their traffic, they could generate at least as much money as what they do through donations. They could also have a small, unobtrusive link for making donations.



The point is that I now find myself questioning whether or not the Wikimedia Foundation is wasting the money they are given and also participating in cronyism. Until I'm convinced otherwise, I'm most certainly not going to donate.And that's the great thing about Wikipedia/Wikimedia. They don't force you to pay them anything. So you can do whatever you like, and the people who want to donate can do whatever they like.

[Brucevdk]

And that's the great thing about Wikipedia/Wikimedia. They don't force you to pay them anything. So you can do whatever you like, and the people who want to donate can do whatever they like.

I find it quite funny how both you and Paddy Landau essentially ignore the whole point about Wikimedia possibly wasting millions of dollars.

[forrestcupp]

I find it quite funny how both you and Paddy Landau essentially ignore the whole point about Wikimedia possibly wasting millions of dollars.

On that same note, most of the charities out there waste a lot of the donated money they get. So if nobody donates money because of that, then nobody gets help. Sure, it would be ideal if there was never any money wasted. But sometimes the benefits of something outweighs its faults. If no one donates to Wikipedia, then all of us have to pay forced fees to Encyclopedia Britannica or some other alternative.

The smart thing for someone with your convictions to do is to follow your own convictions, and let other people who have different convictions pay the way for you. ;)

Just curious about something. Do you ever spend money on unnecessary things for pleasure, or does every cent of your money go to the bare necessities?

Besides, you admitted yourself that you haven't deeply looked into things. So you are speculating, and you don't really know how much they waste. And your list didn't include a lot of other necessary things, like legal fees.

[fdrake]

If no one donates to Wikipedia, then all of us have to pay forced fees to Encyclopedia Britannica or some other alternative.

the resurrection of ENCARTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta)! nooooooo!!!!!!

[fdrake]

from wiki:


Thank you from Executive Director Sue Gardner
Thank you.

We've taken down our fundraising banners, because we’ve hit our target. Thanks to you. Over the past few months, more than one million people have come together from all over the world to keep Wikipedia and its sister sites alive and flourishing for another year.

Your support is how we pay our bills. People like you, giving five dollars, twenty dollars, a hundred dollars. Thank you for helping us.

We’re the #5 most-popular site in the world --- we operate on a tiny fraction of the resources of any other top site. We will use your money carefully and well( :) did they really need to say that?! ), I promise you.

For everyone who helps pay for Wikipedia and all the Wikimedia projects, and for those who can't afford to help -- thank you so much for making the world a better place.

Sue Gardner

Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

[Paqman]

The point is that I now find myself questioning whether or not the Wikimedia Foundation is wasting the money they are given and also participating in cronyism. Until I'm convinced otherwise, I'm most certainly not going to donate.

Er, something wrong with Google at your end?

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report

[Brucevdk]

Er, something wrong with Google at your end?

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report

If you had actually bothered to read up the reply chain (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11581038&postcount=39) (including my first post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11570497&postcount=9)) you'd have noticed I already linked to the annual reports. And more (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports). Because besides being an over designed propaganda piece (for lack of better words), there's only 1 page covering the financials (page 22).

You wouldn't even be able to make any proper conclusions from the summarized financial data on that page.

No, if you actually bothered to do you research before attacking me, you'd have linked directly to the financial reports (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports) (as I did). Not that you'd actually read them yourselves, because that would actually require some effort on your part.

Though I wouldn't blame you, as I said myself so in my original post: "It's a lot of information and quite hard to digest". But I do blame you for attacking me in this way.

Also, did you even bother to read the article I linked to (http://mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia)? Because the author of that article certainly seems to have done his research. You haven't done anything to refute the points made by that author.

Especially the section titled "Wikimedia Foundation finances are suspect" is actually quite worrisome. Here's a single paragraph from it:



In 2011, the Wikimedia Foundation called for a budget of approximately $20 million. However, one assessment contends that Wikipedia and all its sister projects could probably operate on a budget of $1.6 million (including salaries for several IT developers), because over 99% of the actual work being done is accomplished by unpaid volunteers. A KPMG audit reported that in 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation spent only $822,405 on Internet hosting fees, plus $1,259,161 in "operating" costs (which includes many of the unnecessary staff who had been hired in just the previous two years). Even this KPMG expense summary would dictate that $2.1 million would be sufficient for the Wikimedia Foundation, so why do they call for a budget nearly ten times what's actually needed?

[Orbetrexx]

I believe it'll make out. To agree with a few other posters, its too big now. If they start to shut down, some smart businessman will seize the opportunity. Cuz if the current owners won't use ads, I'm sure whoever buys em out will.

[lisati]

the resurrection of ENCARTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta)! nooooooo!!!!!!

Any plans for a Linux-friendly version?

[Paqman]

Also, did you even bother to read the article I linked to (http://mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia)? Because the author of that article certainly seems to have done his research. You haven't done anything to refute the points made by that author.

No, I skimmed it. The author clearly has an axe to grind, the whole site is riddled with derogatory references to Wikipedia. They seem particularly miffed that their site wasn't considered notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Whatever points made there should, IMO, be taken with as large a pinch of salt as any internet rant written by someone so clearly pushing an agenda.



Especially the section titled "Wikimedia Foundation finances are suspect" is actually quite worrisome. Here's a single paragraph from it:

From the financial reporrs and the KPMG audit it seems (to my untrained eye) like Wikimedia are tryign to increase their cash reserves and income from investments. That seems like a pretty sound long-term strategy to me. Relying solely on constant rounds of donations is a risky way to run a business.

[alexan]

Wikipedia phone with wikipedia market pre-installed on it : problem solved

[fdrake]

OFF-TOPIC:

Any plans for a Linux-friendly version?
well Encarta is out of business at the moment but even then, I whould not hope too much for a linux friendly version...

[Paddy Landau]

Any plans for a Linux-friendly version?
Yes. It's called Wikipedia, and it's cross-platform! :D