Feel guilty for not ever donating to wiki?

[PlanetJosh]

This is partly about the ad that appears at the top of wiki articles that asks for donations. It says if every reader donated $3 usd then the wiki fundraising would be satisfied in less than a day. Wondered if anyone else feels a little guilty if you've never ever donated money or anything else to Wikipedia.

I haven't tried adblock programs to remove/hide the ad so part of my guilt is having to see the ad every time which reminds me I've never given them anything. Which brings up another question, has anyone blocked the ad yet? Not if it's possible, it is according to web posts, but if you've bothered to blocked it yet whether or not you've already donated.

 

[lxskllr]

Sort of, but they'll probably get some money from me eventually. My cash is a finite resource, so I can't give to everyone who deserves it. This year I sent money to libre.fm, FSF, EFF, and DeaDBeeF.

I may send out a little more money, but I haven't fully decided yet.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I donated a while back, like last year or something. There's lot of things I always want to donate to but have to pick and choose. Sometimes I wish I was a millionaire so I could donate to more projects and causes.

 

[mmntech]

Wikimedia supposedly has a huge nest egg of cash. Enough to maintain the site ad-free for several years. They're not exactly hard up. So no, I don't feel guilty. What I don't like is how predatory their fundraising campaign has gotten. This particular one seems to have gone on a lot longer. Banners are also a lot bigger, especially on the mobile site.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Yeah I find they're begging a bit too hard. They should keep the notice minimal instead of borderline annoying. At least it's not one of those gray out javascript popup things though. If they did resort to that I'd never donate again.

 

[PlanetJosh]

Now I can't get the ad to show up on wiki articles even after a reboot. wth.

 

[gotsmack]

They should just sign up for adwords or maybe only take money from socially responsible companies like Costco or something.

 

[lxskllr]

They should just sign up for adwords or maybe only take money from socially responsible companies like Costco or something.

Introducing ads to a resource that strives to be unbiased. What could go wrong?

http://forums.anandtech.com/announcement.php?f=14&a=74

 

[KlokWyze]

I've probably donated about a total of $20 over the past several years. They do beg a little too hard. Tone it down guys....

 

[zinfamous]

They should just sign up for adwords or maybe only take money from socially responsible companies like Costco or something.

this is horrible, this idea.

 

[lxskllr]

I don't think the ad is too bad. It gets your attention, and can be dismissed without further affecting the experience. Better than NPR where everything stops for them to ask for money.

 

[Puppies04]

This is partly about the ad that appears at the top of wiki articles that asks for donations. It says if every reader donated $3 usd then the wiki fundraising would be satisfied in less than a day. Wondered if anyone else feels a little guilty if you've never ever donated money or anything else to Wikipedia.

I haven't tried adblock programs to remove/hide the ad so part of my guilt is having to see the ad every time which reminds me I've never given them anything. Which brings up another question, has anyone blocked the ad yet? Not if it's possible, it is according to web posts, but if you've bothered to blocked it yet whether or not you've already donated.

Question... If everyone donated $3 do you think they would take down the begging ads for a year?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I feel a LOT more guilty not donating to my local library than wiki.

 

[lxskllr]

Question... If everyone donated $3 do you think they would take down the begging ads for a year?

That's unknowable. NPR sometimes has lightning drives to "shorten fundraising campaigns", and according to what they say, it works. That has to be taken with a grain of salt since they're doing the accounting.

Everyone won't give them $3, so it's over when they say it's over. Having a big ass ad(which is trivially blocked) is still a bargain compared to the bad old days when you spent thousands on a set of books, then ~$100 a year to keep them updated with what the /editors/ found important. Good luck finding information on esoteric indie bands in Britannica...

 

[T9D]

https://chaturbate.com/female-cams/

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The whole concept of asking for public support for an inferior service is flawed. Can we crowd fund my next vacation please?

 

[lxskllr]

They should seriously just get some dang normal unobtrusive advertisements to pay for the site. I mean geez they could even have a movie and music market. Look up a band or band member and at the bottom have all their music or movies you can buy. Or look up a city or country and have tickets to shows there or plane and hotel reservations. This site could be worth billions more. And some day someone will buy it out and do just that. Except whoever buys it will go to far and ruin it with way to many ads I'm sure. But for now I wouldn't feel bad, they are going to sell it for billions or sell out eventually and you won't see a dime of it, for all your donations and time you took to write or help write wiki pages to make it even possible for them to sell it or sell out.

The knowledge is it's only value which makes priceless and valueless at the same time. It's also unsellable. If they did what you say, it would be instantly forked, and the original would fade into a simple parking page. Believe it or not, some people don't consider currency the most valuable asset in life.

 

[olds]

No. Because I donate.

 

[Deeko]

No, I don't feel guilty, and how obnoxious this year's ad campaign has been is not changing that.

 

[phucheneh]

'Guilty'? Is that the new spelling for 'fucking aggravated'?

Jimmy Willis or who-ever-the-fuck can take his crooked English teeth and go suck a fucking lemon.

 

[Ichinisan]

Why don't you just donate something and resolve your guilt complex? I did that ages ago. I'll probably do it again sometime too.

 

[pontifex]

what do the people at wikipedia do anyway? all the content is user created, right? So they just have to pay for the servers?

 

[lxskllr]

what do the people at wikipedia do anyway? all the content is user created, right? So they just have to pay for the servers?

Technology: Servers, bandwidth, maintenance, development. Wikipedia is one of the top 10 websites in the world, and it runs on a fraction of what other top websites spend.

People and Projects: The other top websites have thousands of employees. We have 200 employees to support a wide variety of projects, making your donation a great investment in a highly-efficient not-for-profit organization.

https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/inde...urce=donate&utm_campaign=C13_en.wikipedia.org

Edit:
Also...

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Wiki is the single greatest unwitting proponent of idiocracy the world has ever seen.

 

[lxskllr]

Wiki is the single greatest unwitting proponent of idiocracy the world has ever seen.

How's that? Don't blame the tool because of the user. If you have a specific content complaint, fix it. The world doesn't need more whining leeches. Patches, documentation, or STFU.