Comments on: What’s Up With The Wikipedia Plea for Donations?

By: nicolapie

nicolapie — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 07:13:47 +0000

I’m just curious about them raising 6million to cover costs of the salaries of the 23 employees, plus “website-management costs..” That’s $260,000 a year each if split equally? That’s a pretty huge salary. So I’m wondering how much they really need to make in donations.
I also think that is important to question which is better: for Wikipedia to get adds, make some revenue, and therefore have a secure income and better reliability of information… or to not risk letting it decrease in popularity by introducing advertisements? Would it stop being a universally used service? Wikipedia is powerful now because informed people trust it and use it (with discretion of course), and less informed people use it, too. It is equally accessible information, by anyone. People can empower themselves.
Wikipedia is great because it is a great reflection that we are curious, by nature, to seek truths. A nice commonality of the lovely race of humankind.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 05:18:21 +0000

Sorry, but since Wales has such disdain for the “White Male” version of reality, this white male says screw him.

Wikipedia is a joke. Try and post anything critical of Obama and it gets taken off immediately. These are a bunch of lefty punks getting rich off of volunteer efforts.

Screw them all!

By: Peggy

Peggy — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:42:42 +0000

Advertising can and will affect content posted on the site.

Say Wikipedia is sponsored by Tylenol, and a user adds the story about Tylenol laced with poison back in the 1980′s, well all Tylenol has to do is tell the moderators at Wiki “We will pull our advertising dollars, if you do not remove the articles involving poison scares and our products”. Every company especially large ones have some skeletons in the closet that they don’t want people finding out about. It’s better to keep it donor only.

By: Salbaba

Salbaba — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 02:58:34 +0000

16 millions is kinda bullshit for website. I bet he wanna buy lamborghini, hollywood palace with that big money. server only cost 30k and he asked 16 million that is bullshit, better donate yer money to haitian…

By: Paula

Paula — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 03:01:40 +0000

Seriously people, ya, how much does it cost to run a website like Wikipedia?
I’ll be interested to see if the website looks different after all the cash has been raked in.
Wikipedia, although helpful, not entirely dependable or 100% factual information.
I enjoyed the post about the “food banks”, people are starving and we are paying some British dude gobs of money. It doesn’t make sense and no, I did not donate.

By: Florin

Florin — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:21:51 +0000

If they have the 6 Million foundraising goal , why they put now the 16 Million goal up???? Let me tell you why, because some hosting companies will be overpaid and they will give some money underhand back. Somebody gets a new car, a house and a pool for Christmas this year ) Easy beasy!!!

By: semra

semra — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:16:58 +0000

I think Wale doesn’t want to pay money to people who write for Wikipedia. if Wikipedia gets advertisement, the revenue will increase highly and writers want to receive a share logically. Wale forced to pay them if he wants to keep on. However, it is not going to be easier than right now.
Excuse my English

By: greg

greg — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:22:24 +0000

i think its jimmy’s personal scam for gettn rich. hes been doing this every year for the past several years–last year i think he raised even more than 6mil. so my question is: EXACTLY how much does it cost to run a free info website where the vast majority of the information is being posted by free volunteer labor?

By: Christopher Williams

Christopher Williams — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:17:23 +0000

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

By: Velvet Blues

Velvet Blues — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:03:50 +0000

@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.

By: TrainWreckIdeas

TrainWreckIdeas — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:54:49 +0000

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.

By: Velvet Blues

Velvet Blues — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:15:00 +0000

@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.

By: Forsaken@Domain Marvelous | Domain Name Information |

Forsaken@Domain Marvelous | Domain Name Information | — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 01:41:32 +0000

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.

By: qarla

qarla — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:26:58 +0000

100% correct!

By: Velvet Blues

Velvet Blues — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:40:45 +0000

@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.

By: haverhill01835

haverhill01835 — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:08:41 +0000

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…)

By: Miguel @ Simply Blog

Miguel @ Simply Blog — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:47:26 +0000

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

By: Velvet Blues

Velvet Blues — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:35:21 +0000

@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.

By: Jen Patton

Jen Patton — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:11:01 +0000

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.

By: Kurt Avish

Kurt Avish — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:50:43 +0000

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.