Wikipedia Meets $16M Budget Goal...The Hard Way

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Network World says that Wikipedia has become far too big and far too important to rely on what they call "enormous annual bake sales."

The good news, according to Wales, is that the donations will enable Wikipedia to remain free of advertising. The bad news, in my opinion, is that the donations will enable Wikipedia to remain free of advertising, despite the fact that the online encyclopedia has become far too big and far too important to be funded by what amounts to an enormous annual bake sale.
Click to expand...
 
Hell, I'd have a bake sale or two if I could get $16M just by posting a picture of my ugly-ass mug begging for money.
 
on second thought I should probably read what you linked before I post.

*ducks*
 
The bad news, in my opinion, is that the donations will enable Wikipedia to remain free of advertising
Click to expand...

I was wondering who's opinion that was, so when I checked the article I realized it was some random guys blog.
 
Methadras said:
So what happens if Wikipedia goes under? Anyone?
Click to expand...

Massive drop in graduates across the board in all forms of education and I'd probably kill myself because I can't keep up with obscure comicbook news.
 
You know, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with Wikipedia trying to stay ad-free for as long as possible.

There is nothing wrong with advertising, and Wales obviously acknowledges that. But he wants Wikipedia to be different and I commend him for that. He wants Wikipedia to continue as a shining example of a self-sustaining community that works, not only for the benefit of its own members but for the benefit of everyone.

So yeah...nothing wrong with them continuing to be different from everyone else, so long as they can pay their bills. That's pretty much what Wikipedia has been about from the beginning.

(Wikimedia recently sent out emails to all previous donors asking them to become sustainers. You can give $2 - $7 / month or more automatically. If enough people do that, they won't rely on these "bake sales" so much.
 
Methadras said:
So what happens if Wikipedia goes under? Anyone?
Click to expand...

I don't think it will ever go under completely. Major corporations rely on it as much as individuals these days. One of them (probably Google) would take it over.

I hope that doesn't happen, though, as a corporate-run Wikipedia just wouldn't be the same. :(
 
I agree. As long as they can sustain this model, I commend them for it. No, advertising isn't evil, but I like avoiding any sources of bias as long as possible on what McNamara himself describes as something incredibly important.
 
OMG YOU CAN'T USE IT AS A SOURCE!!!!11

Wikipedia is amazing. It was very useful for me in college, but probably more useful in my personal life. I did not donate though, I'm po.
 
I do think the library comparison is valid. If Wikipedia ever were unable to make ends meets I'd prefer corporate or government funding over shutting it down. If it were handled like public libraries in the US I'd say that wouldnt be too bad but they could screw it up too. If I had more faith in the UN that would be a possibility. Or maybe if multiple companies came together and did a group funding thing allowing its current neutral administration to continue running it. Perhaps companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Cicso, AMD, Intel, and the like would step up.
 
Wikipedia is probably one of if not the greatest things that has come out of the Internet. It truly shows the nature the Internet come to be. I also think Youtube is one of the greatest things to come out of the Internet.

The only thing that tarnishes Wikipedia is the jackasses that think its funny to purposefully change things, and then point that out as a flaw of the system....they are the flaw.
 
Wikipedia certainly has its shortcomings, but being funded through advertising wouldn't be one of them.
 
Wiki is awesome...so much info on so many things. It's more like a living encyclopedia to me. I can find out a little about a lot and it generally points me to ways of finding out more detail. I don't take it for gospel but I give it a good bit of creedence.

I am glad there is no adverts as that would lead to at least the possibility of undo influence. I will become a sustaining member next drive. I certainly get that much use out of it.
 
DudeItsMe said:
OMG YOU CAN'T USE IT AS A SOURCE!!!!11

Wikipedia is amazing. It was very useful for me in college, but probably more useful in my personal life. I did not donate though, I'm po.
Click to expand...

Of course you can't use it as a source.
You can however use the sources the wiki page writer lists at the bottom. It's a great place to find an overview on a topic, as well as the resources you need to delve further.

Keep the corporations and government out while you can. Such parties generally can not resist the temptation to exert power. I think it would lead to eventual irrelevance as an on line encyclopedia. It would end up as entertainment imho. Sort of like how many of us now view the big news outlets as little more than ratings and politics driven entertainment.
 
Wikipedia has saved me numerous times when given vague research topics with no idea where to start. I agree with wiki being one of the greatest things on the internet. I was able to learn about my research topics in college on wiki, then find actual published articles with more detailed info to cite from .
 
Why the hell does wikiPEDIA need 16M a year to stay online? Their server bill can't be that large, if it is, how about making it so that all images only load on demand, and removing all video and audio clips hosted.
Sounds like it's a big ploy to fund wikiMEDIA and not just for the wikiPEDIA site.
 
This is the company that should be worth $1 billion+

They deserve a lot more than 16 mil I think... thanks wiki, helping people be more productive

While lameass spamtastic facebook is counter-productive to society (almost every society with internet access, look it up) and costs employers millions per year in lost work time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top