wikipedia

i dont understand why wikipedia is asking for so much money. why does it have 35 employees? there are hundreds of thousands of people who edit the site in their free time. you only need a handful of employees. volunteers even. you just need enough money to run the servers right? why would that require 10 million a year? i think these wikipedia people feel entitled to google money. they hang out with google people who go out and drop a few K on sushi every night, and they feel wikipedia is just as important as google, so they want google money. you know? i dont know. i might donate 5 bucks if i feel like they really need the money.

I could do with $10 million. I need it as much as Wiki does...

Ketamine IMHO

yeah i don't get it innit

apparently most of it goes towards publicity and shit. but it's not like they need to advertise wiki

I read their "financial report" (well I paged through it). Not as unreasonable at first glance as I originally thought. The organization that runs Wikipedia (called Wikimedia) is actually classified as a non-profit, and their main goal is making knowledge available to all through various programs (the primary one being Wikipedia, with a bunch of offshoots like "Wikimedia" etc.)

Looks like the "Executive Director" salary allotment is somewhere around 250k year, but that's split between at least 2 people. So, not completely unreasonable that the head of Wikipedia shouldn't make decent bank.

Still won't be donating . . . daddy needs a new cup of coffee.

i just don't get why they don't have this donation thing all year round, esp if they need some exorbitant sum like this.

what if wikipedia went down. lol? I'd be fucked for sure.

can't moneybags Gates just throw his weight around?

Wikipedia is currently the sixth most visited website on Earth, and there are no ads on on their pages. They have to maintain their financial situation somehow...

  On 12/22/2009 at 3:12 PM, Enter a new display name said:

Wikipedia is currently the sixth most visited website on Earth, and there are no ads on on their pages. They have to maintain their financial situation somehow...

just because it's visited 6th most doesnt mean they need to maintain the value they could be getting if there were ads.

  On 12/22/2009 at 3:52 PM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 12/22/2009 at 3:12 PM, Enter a new display name said:

Wikipedia is currently the sixth most visited website on Earth, and there are no ads on on their pages. They have to maintain their financial situation somehow...

 

just because it's visited 6th most doesnt mean they need to maintain the value they could be getting if there were ads.

you've kind of missed the point of wikipedia then

yeah i don't get this at all

although ten million is hardly google money lol

  On 12/22/2009 at 4:44 PM, chimera slot mom said:

  On 12/22/2009 at 3:52 PM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 12/22/2009 at 3:12 PM, Enter a new display name said:

Wikipedia is currently the sixth most visited website on Earth, and there are no ads on on their pages. They have to maintain their financial situation somehow...

 

just because it's visited 6th most doesnt mean they need to maintain the value they could be getting if there were ads.

 

you've kind of missed the point of wikipedia then

have I? can you help me get it then? the point is to be a profitable site that earns the value the 6th most visited site deserves?

10 million is nothing when you're the 6th most visited website. I'm actually surprised it would cost only that to run the complete company (to pay your employees, the place you work, infrastructure, taxes, etc...) nonethless the cost of bandwidth and servers!

its pretty weird though. The first thing i heard is that they want 10 million dollars. Why didn't they ask for a million first a couple of years ago? We don't need anything We don't need anything We don't need anything We don't need anything We need 10 million dollars please

ITS RANSOM MONEY. give us 10 million or lose all this wikiknowledge.

who wouldn't miss wikipedia?

i might donate $10 million to the english pedia only, i don't care about all the other languages

Donate some to the Simple English page

i kind of hope it goes away, wikipedia is great for entertainment research but for anything with an hint of controversy or politics the articles are useless to read. i am not a fan of it

  On 12/22/2009 at 7:13 PM, Awepittance said:

i kind of hope it goes away, wikipedia is great for entertainment research but for anything with an hint of controversy or politics the articles are useless to read. i am not a fan of it

what would you suggest as an one-stop alternative

i don't, i just have problems with the way people on wikipedia behave. A lot of established and well respected wikipedia editors overstep the rules to squash other peoples edits , unless you have the energy to keep going back and redit you'll most likely loose out to someone who just spends more time camping out in the article than you regardless of your information is factual and theirs is not. The wikipedia culture seems to encourage this type of censorship for the 'greater good' but i just can't deal with it most of the time. too frustrating.

i treat wikipedia like 7up never have never will encyclopedia dramatica is where it's at

basically, jimbo wales flying around the world in private jets and living like a rock star isn't free.

  On 12/22/2009 at 4:54 PM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 12/22/2009 at 4:44 PM, chimera slot mom said:

  On 12/22/2009 at 3:52 PM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 12/22/2009 at 3:12 PM, Enter a new display name said:

Wikipedia is currently the sixth most visited website on Earth, and there are no ads on on their pages. They have to maintain their financial situation somehow...

 

just because it's visited 6th most doesnt mean they need to maintain the value they could be getting if there were ads.

 

you've kind of missed the point of wikipedia then

 

have I? can you help me get it then? the point is to be a profitable site that earns the value the 6th most visited site deserves?

If the site's purpose was to be profitable they'd be charging for it a long time ago. They're not, and as far as Jimmy Wales' words go, they won't. Ads and subscription plans etc would degrade the site and distort the point that information needs to be free and accessible to all. If they start advertising besides the content, what would stop them from eventually start advertising in the content?

The money is to keep the whole damn endeavor self-sustained, not for getting Jimbo a golden mansion.

the US-centric-ness of English Wiki pisses me off fairly frequently.

  On 12/22/2009 at 7:17 PM, Awepittance said:

A lot of established and well respected wikipedia editors overstep the rules to squash other peoples edits , unless you have the energy to keep going back and redit you'll most likely loose out to someone who just spends more time camping out in the article than you regardless of your information is factual and theirs is not.

do they actually, though?

    Quote

  On 12/22/2009 at 9:21 PM, ezkerraldean said:

the US-centric-ness of English Wiki pisses me off fairly frequently.

 

Wikipedia seems to cater mostly to US white tweens, and yeah it pisses me off too.

 

  On 12/22/2009 at 7:17 PM, Awepittance said:

i don't, i just have problems with the way people on wikipedia behave. A lot of established and well respected wikipedia editors overstep the rules to squash other peoples edits , unless you have the energy to keep going back and redit you'll most likely loose out to someone who just spends more time camping out in the article than you regardless of your information is factual and theirs is not. The wikipedia culture seems to encourage this type of censorship for the 'greater good' but i just can't deal with it most of the time. too frustrating.

 

I read wikipedia every day and i think it's amazing, but I know where you're coming from. Some time ago, a few scientists who had been trying to add their own well-done research and information to some articles were constantly being fucked over in the editing, so the plan was to start a new site where you could add your own information as long as you were qualified in that field of research. Haven't seen that surface anywhere.

 

I have a problem with stumbling onto articles of big, but not huge, corporations where they're blatantly advertising and it slips by the editing mafia.

 

Wikipedia isn't perfect but using these types of reasons to claim it's pointless appears to me as slightly narrowminded.

  On 12/22/2009 at 9:21 PM, ezkerraldean said:

the US-centric-ness of English Wiki pisses me off fairly frequently.

i feel like it is more england-centric especially from reading the food articles