Wikipedia donations

[John Connor]

I have only donated to the add-on for Firefox called Noscript. By far one of the best protections you can have surfing the net. It's like a door before your anti-virus.

 

[alangrift]

I haven't donated to wikipedia, I spent a lot of time (over 10k edits) editing it over the years.

 

[jagec]

I haven't donated to wikipedia, I spent a lot of time (over 10k edits) editing it over the years.

Defacing articles isn't considered public service.

 

[AViking]

I never really thought about donating to them but maybe I should. I use them all the time.

 

[Evadman]

 

[yuchai]

I donated to them, maybe 2 years ago? I thought the "deal" was that they would stop bugging me after I've made my contribution. That obviously wasn't the case...

Like some have said, maybe they should just go ahead and put in some ads. Don't think I'd be much bothered by that.

 

[MrPickins]

The banner said if everyone gave $3 they would be done. Then they say they have 500 million users. WTH so they want 1.5 billion dollars?? That seems a little over the top and like seriously greedy even.

They need to just put ads in. But it sounds like they are making more money just getting donations. Doesn't seem like you are donating to a good cause, you're lining the pockets of another greedy business.

Wikipedia doesn't even need the cash:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/

 

[Kaido]

T9D, definitely.

They should sell ads, but in the right way I bet they could pull 1m a month with a banner ad on the front page. They wouldn't need to do an ad anywhere else. Every company would be fighting for the 1 space on one of the internets most visited page.

That's actually a genius idea. It'd be like the new Superbowl ad...think of the revenue they could pull in during finals season at school :biggrin:

 

[Jeff7]

I donate to Wikipedia every year. I'd hate to see it get covered in ads.

Yup. I'm totally fine with ads on Wikipedia, like relevant Google Ads or something. They'd make a truckload of money and not have to do pity appeals every year. I'm happy to donate because it's a great resource for me and a few bucks isn't going to kill me, but that email was mildly offense - 'this is your annual reminder to donate'? Seriously? I gave you a few bucks one time and now you're going to act like it's my obligation every year? Ugh.

Maybe it's just the wording...if they had buttered me up and done some Marketing 101 with something like, "Thank you for your previous contribution - your donation was very important to us and helped us keep our growing site alive for another year. As we move into the coming year, we are facing the same financial hurdles and are in need your assistance again. We would appreciate it if you would consider an additional donation; your philanthropy will help us keep this resource available for the benefit of mankind in 2014. Please click here for a $5, $10, or $25 donation". See, it's not that hard to sucker me into donating, just make it sound like my help was valued and is needed again

And the second they do ads, they'll be bound by either obligations to those advertisers, or by the rules of Google's TOS.
I've seen at least one webcomic writer say that he's had to curb some of what he puts in his comics because it might be against Google's TOS. It's self-censorship, which he signed up for the day he started using them for ad revenue.

I'd rather not see us continue down the path to Idiocracy, with ads visible anywhere you look.

That's actually a genius idea. It'd be like the new Superbowl ad...think of the revenue they could pull in during finals season at school :biggrin:

Or they could just hold them for ransom.

"Donate $XXX,000,000 by March 31st, or we'll black out the site for all of April and May."

But....I guess we'd just see more student loans and maxed-out credit cards used to fund the site, clear into the double-digit billions.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Only a small fraction of this is required to keep the site alive. No matter how many edits enthusiasts make, they don't get a penny for their hard work. So where's the cash going?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/

Yacht fund running dry again?

All this has been met with dismay by the loyal enthusiasts who do all the hard work of keeping the project afloat by editing and contributing words - and who still aren't paid. For the first time, Wikipedians are beginning to examine the cash awards - and are making some interesting discoveries.

 

[JEDIYoda]

already donated...another good deed done for the day!!

 

[Lithium381]

That's actually a genius idea. It'd be like the new Superbowl ad...think of the revenue they could pull in during finals season at school :biggrin:

lol

Stay awake all week, special on METH!


I rarely hit the homepage though, i find most wiki articles through google searches. . . still it would generate a fsckton of revenue for them.

And Vegas is the spot for DataCenters. . . . . suprised me too!

 

[Lithium381]

Only a small fraction of this is required to keep the site alive. No matter how many edits enthusiasts make, they don't get a penny for their hard work. So where's the cash going?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/

Yacht fund running dry again?

All this has been met with dismay by the loyal enthusiasts who do all the hard work of keeping the project afloat by editing and contributing words - and who still aren't paid. For the first time, Wikipedians are beginning to examine the cash awards - and are making some interesting discoveries.

You've heard of this thing called rent? How about electricity? Did you know that hardware procurement isn't free? I donate $20 a year to wikipedia . . . . i feel that i easily get my money's worth

 

[Newbian]

I donated to them, maybe 2 years ago? I thought the "deal" was that they would stop bugging me after I've made my contribution. That obviously wasn't the case...

That's where adblock comes in if they keep showing it.

 

[Hugo Drax]

You've heard of this thing called rent? How about electricity? Did you know that hardware procurement isn't free? I donate $20 a year to wikipedia . . . . i feel that i easily get my money's worth

I know you did not read the Article.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Only a small fraction of this is required to keep the site alive. No matter how many edits enthusiasts make, they don't get a penny for their hard work. So where's the cash going?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/

Yacht fund running dry again?

All this has been met with dismay by the loyal enthusiasts who do all the hard work of keeping the project afloat by editing and contributing words - and who still aren't paid. For the first time, Wikipedians are beginning to examine the cash awards - and are making some interesting discoveries.

I think the idea of unpaid volunteers contributing the majority of the work is a good one. The addition of money taints the process and allows an increased possibility of corruption or bias, even (especially) if the funding comes from the Wikimedia Foundation. It's the same reason why in a lot of countries organs, blood, and semen are donated for free; because not only is it against the principle of donation, donors should be donating because of altruistic desire, not for money or another ulterior motive.

 

[lxskllr]

I think the idea of unpaid volunteers contributing the majority of the work is a good one.

I didn't understand the repeated mention of "unpaid volunteers". People edit it for the joy of seeing something accomplished. With that model, you'll tend to get people that are dedicated to the topic. You also get assholes, but that's the cost of doing business.

The rest of the article read like a hatchet job. There may be something to it, but I'd rather read it from an unbiased source.

 

[Jeff7]

I think the idea of unpaid volunteers contributing the majority of the work is a good one. The addition of money taints the process and allows an increased possibility of corruption or bias, even (especially) if the funding comes from the Wikimedia Foundation. It's the same reason why in a lot of countries organs, blood, and semen are donated for free; because not only is it against the principle of donation, donors should be donating because of altruistic desire, not for money or another ulterior motive.

I liked the curiosity in Freakonomics, that countries with opt-out programs don't have much problem with finding organs. Opt-in states or countries do.
Checkboxes are apparently difficult to check.

 

[Kaido]

I'd rather not see us continue down the path to Idiocracy, with ads visible anywhere you look.

But ads are what plants crave

 

[mikeford]

Good chance I will donate again, but I intend to complain in the process. Wikipedia can be great, but their policy of only vetting material from mainstream media is inherently weak at a time when mainstream media does VERY poor journalism and actual reporting.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I liked the curiosity in Freakonomics, that countries with opt-out programs don't have much problem with finding organs. Opt-in states or countries do.
Checkboxes are apparently difficult to check.

It's because people don't think about it, and they don't talk about it because they think it's morbid, or back luck, or they can do it later. When push comes to shove, they haven't made a decision and in opt-in programs, the patients' families suddenly don't know their recently deceased enough to make the decision for them, or in the event that they do, they wouldn't change it anyway because they don't like the idea of their loved one not being all there in the afterlife - literally. On a related note, it's also interesting how we like to bury our deceased whole, whereas in Ancient Egypt it was considered essential for the body to be eviscerated and de-brained. Though even then, it was important for the organs to accompany the deceased. So maybe not as interesting as I thought.

It may also be that countries with opt-out programs tend to be more enlightened.