What’s Up With The Wikipedia Plea for Donations?

12 Responses to “What’s Up With The Wikipedia Plea for Donations?”

• On December 30th, 2008 at 10:50 pm, Kurt Avish wrote:
  

  Out of subject: By the way there was a PR update yesterday I managed to reach a pr 1 atleast lol. Domain name age 28 days.

  Now concerning the post:

  I personally dont think that adding some advertisements on wikipedia will ruin user experience. If they place the adverts at the right place and not bombard users with too much annoying banners of the type “Hey you are the 1000th visitor and you won 1 million dollars” then it should be fine.

  Wikipedia contain very useful content and content matter most. For example if I am looking at a website which is giving me valuable information, I wont matter about the little ads by the side.

  However for a site which have poor content and an overdose of ads…that really ****.

  I think wikipedia should not only depend on donation. They can do a little survey or poll to know about people opinion about the ads.
• On December 31st, 2008 at 8:11 am, Jen Patton wrote:
  

  It kind of blows my mind when I think about all of the food banks who are begging for donations because so many less people are giving and here is a site that would be able to easily attract advertisers yet they are asking people to donate.

  I say- get the advertisers- it is not going to detract from Wikipedia if it is done tastefully. Use the tools that you have available to you- how many people would kill to have a site like that so they could have advertisers.
• On December 31st, 2008 at 9:35 am, Velvet Blues wrote:
  

  @Kurt, Congrats with your PR. That’s pretty good for a new domain.

  Yes, if tastefully done, then ads would be a good idea. And you’re right, they should poll their users to see what is the best solution for the future.

  @Jen, You are right. There are so many other important causes which help people with more pressing needs. So it does seem a bit unfair that a web encyclopedia is also asking for donations, especially when it would be relatively easy for them to raise their own money through advertisements.
• On January 1st, 2009 at 2:47 pm, Miguel @ Simply Blog wrote:
  

  Interesting, if organizations were transparent about their spending and needs, folks might be more willing to give. You all are right- these are apparently tough times for people. Yes, Wiki should consider allowing ads but with tact of course.

  -Mig
• On January 1st, 2009 at 4:08 pm, haverhill01835 wrote:
  

  If Wikipedia began taking ads - what would make it overall different than lets say Google? There’s continued questions as to the reliability of information that can be garnered from Wikipedia. I’m all for keeping the non-commercial nature of Wikipedia the way it is, but I’m also for better reliability of the material on the site. If advertising were to help offset the cost of paying for reliability - then I’m all for it. (I go Google anyway when it comes to research…Wikipedia usually doesn’t even make it to my radar screen…)
• On January 1st, 2009 at 6:40 pm, Velvet Blues wrote:
  

  @Miguel, that is so true. Wikipedia isn’t that transparent. It’ll be interesting to see whether or not they decide to implement advertising, because I doubt that donations will be going up.

  @haverhill01835, thanks for visiting. Yes, Wikipedia is generally regarded as a resource because at the very least, it does link to credible sources. One of the reasons why Wikipedia isn’t regarded as that reliable is because it is edited by volunteers. If Wikipedia had more revenue, they could devote more energies to moderating the different articles and fact checking, or by rewarding volunteers or part-time workers for doing this. Either way, I am pro-advertising. I think that it would cover their operating costs and pay for additional improvements.
• On January 2nd, 2009 at 2:26 pm, qarla wrote:
  

  100% correct!
• On January 3rd, 2009 at 7:41 pm, Forsaken@Domain Marvelous | Domain Name Information | wrote:
  

  Wikipedia is the number one source of information on the web and putting up ads on it would not affect its visitor numbers in anyway.

  The only way they can spoil their reputation is by asking for money or worse, consider membership or subscription features. God-willing, the latter is never implemented in Wikipedia.
• On January 3rd, 2009 at 8:15 pm, Velvet Blues wrote:
  

  @Forsaken, yes I doubt that ads would change Wikipedia. But apparently they won’t need ads. They announced that they not only met, but exceeded, their fundraising goals. In 8 days, they raised over $2 Million Dollars! So, I stand corrected on this one.
• On January 8th, 2009 at 10:54 pm, TrainWreckIdeas wrote:
  

  I am just so glad that they met their goal. Whenever I am bored, wikipedia lifts me from that place of solitude. After I watch a movie, and there is something I think I missed, Wikipedia usually brings me up to speed.

  TrainWreckIdeas’s last blog post..AN OLD FLAME
• On January 8th, 2009 at 11:03 pm, Velvet Blues wrote:
  

  @TrainWreckIdeas, yes, I suppose it is good that they reached their target. And I definitely overestimated the support of the Wikipedia community. Donors definitely stepped up to the plate when asked to contribute.

  And yes, I use Wikipedia for everything as well. It’s always a great starting point for learning about something.
• On December 19th, 2009 at 9:17 am, Christopher Williams wrote:
  

  Maybe the worlds governments should sponsor wikipedia and similar projects, as they are for everyone.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://www.velvetblues.com/web-development-blog/wikipedia-plea-for-donations/trackback/

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Name (required)

Email (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail