Wikipedia Raises $16M in Fundraiser

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Tired of seeing founder Jimmy Wales’ picture every time you go to Wikipedia? Rejoice! The fundraiser was successful and is now over. Instead of the usual image, you now see a Thank You note…..no, no thank you. :D

"This outpouring of support by hundreds of thousands of ordinary people from all walks of life is a testament to the spirit of the Wikimedia movement," said Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales in a prepared statement
Click to expand...
 
Money well earned. Good job, they do much more for help for society than that shitty counter-productive face.book
 
I kept throwing dollars at Jimmy, but he never stripped. :mad:
 
Dylan80 said:
Money well earned. Good job, they do much more for help for society than that shitty counter-productive face.book
Click to expand...

yeah because Wikipedia and Facebook are so very comparable, right?
 
To most surfers, Wikipedia serves a purpose as a quasi-take-this-as-gospel informational website....while Facebook is rooted firmly in fantasy land :p
 
While it is always recommended to verify one's research, Wikipedia, at least at a glance, can be interesting for every day curiousities about the who's, where's, why's and how's. It's a useful site.
 
hey who would have thought that a company with no product or obvious revenue sources might need money to survive
 
Huh, 48 hours ago they were seemingly still millions away from their goal...

With how quickly things get edited there, you'd think the begging banner could have been more accurate?

Site's gotten pretty darn big I must say. These days I'm more surprised by the content that's not there than the content that is.
 
I have mixed feelings about Wikipedia. Some of the sources are dodgy, but over time many subjects seem to improve and few I've seen get much worse. Not all sources are of equal quality, but Wikipedia treats them the same. As long as "this page says" something, it's accepted as fact.

As a trivia resource or starting place to learn about something, it's second to none. I've found exactly what I'm looking for using much better sources due to a Wikipedia article using the accepted terminology. Knowing the right words to use makes google a pretty good resource. ;)

The writing overall on Wikipedia is pretty bad. Most active articles have no coherence, and often take schizophrenic turns in the middle of a paragraph. That's another problem too, lopsided acceptance of certain facts are changed to nearly give equal weight to the arguments. At worst, and I'm not suggesting it's typical of most articles, Wikipedia is a marginal kook's dream.
 
I'd rather have an idiot read wikipedia than whatever shows up on the first page of a google search. Wikipedia rocks.
 
So that's why his picture kept coming up on the pages, thought it was a missing persons ad or something. LOL
 
I like wikipedia, I can kill afternoons just by clicking a bunch of blue links and then clicking the blue links on the article that I just blue linked into and then I find more and more and more...

Takes me about 3-4 hours to read the original article I was looking at. :D

Sure, it might be bad as a resource, but for curiosity it's fun and helpful. If you were serious about getting facts on something you'd use multiple sources, instead of relying on the one site anyway.
 
I donated - don't use it all that often, but I'm glad it's there. Hope it keeps growing. One of a small handful of sites on the web that I think exemplifies what makes the net so damn cool.
 
God I hate these fundraisers... If you're going to see a banner at the top of an article, it may as well be a paid ad. Let the billionaire corporations pay for it rather than the users.

Besides, I'd much rather an inconspicuous AdWords panel in the sidebar than a huge picture of Jimmy staring at me on every page.
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
God I hate these fundraisers... If you're going to see a banner at the top of an article, it may as well be a paid ad. Let the billionaire corporations pay for it rather than the users.

Besides, I'd much rather an inconspicuous AdWords panel in the sidebar than a huge picture of Jimmy staring at me on every page.
Click to expand...

It's kinda hard to claim that you're unbiased when you've got corporate sponsership.
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
Besides, I'd much rather an inconspicuous AdWords panel in the sidebar than a huge picture of Jimmy staring at me on every page.
Click to expand...

14249.jpg
 
LC155 said:
I like wikipedia, I can kill afternoons just by clicking a bunch of blue links and then clicking the blue links on the article that I just blue linked into and then I find more and more and more...

Takes me about 3-4 hours to read the original article I was looking at. :D

Sure, it might be bad as a resource, but for curiosity it's fun and helpful. If you were serious about getting facts on something you'd use multiple sources, instead of relying on the one site anyway.
Click to expand...

I used to do that on slow days at work. Hours of reading about potatoes and june bugs and ........................
 
ryan_975 said:
It's kinda hard to claim that you're unbiased when you've got corporate sponsership.
Click to expand...
Not in the slightest. For starters, the people receiving the ad revenue aren't writing the content. And besides, the people with an interest in skewing the information - the sponsors themselves - already have as much freedom to do so as anyone else.

If they start locking down sponsors' articles, then you'll have a point; short of that, however, I don't see anything changing for the worse.
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
Not in the slightest. For starters, the people receiving the ad revenue aren't writing the content. And besides, the people with an interest in skewing the information - the sponsors themselves - already have as much freedom to do so as anyone else.

If they start locking down sponsors' articles, then you'll have a point; short of that, however, I don't see anything changing for the worse.
Click to expand...

A blind eye could be turned when sponsors start changing their own articles, or their competitors' articles. They could also demand that certain things are said in certain ways or they'll take their money somewhere else.
 
ryan_975 said:
A blind eye could be turned when sponsors start changing their own articles, or their competitors' articles. They could also demand that certain things are said in certain ways or they'll take their money somewhere else.
Click to expand...

I'd be more concerned that a sponsor with a contract could find a way to quickly sue Wikipedia into non-existence.

Besides, corporate sponsorship can mean having the corporate name on it. Could you see Apple wanting it called Wik-ipad-ia, for example?
 
I prefer Wikipedia to remain free of contract sponsorship - If corporations/organizations want to make donations, then great. One idea would be to have them create a "sponsor page" that lists the top 100 donor so that top donors can get some visibility - but keep the adverts off of the site.
 
ryan_975 said:
A blind eye could be turned when sponsors start changing their own articles, or their competitors' articles.
Click to expand...
Like I said, the people running the site and receiving the revenue aren't writing the content. They don't have the power to turn a blind eye. The only thing they can do to ensure a biased article is take editing rights from the public, and they're never going to do that.

ryan_975 said:
They could also demand that certain things are said in certain ways or they'll take their money somewhere else.
Click to expand...
We're talking about the 8th most popular website on the planet. They'd have no incentive to keep their sponsors happy. It's not like they're going to struggle to find a (less whiny) replacement. They can name the terms of any contract.

Tolyngee said:
I'd be more concerned that a sponsor with a contract could find a way to quickly sue Wikipedia into non-existence.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling it would do any company far more harm than good to crush an immensely popular non-profit organisation...
 
LC155 said:
I like wikipedia, I can kill afternoons just by clicking a bunch of blue links and then clicking the blue links on the article that I just blue linked into and then I find more and more and more...

Takes me about 3-4 hours to read the original article I was looking at. :D

Sure, it might be bad as a resource, but for curiosity it's fun and helpful. If you were serious about getting facts on something you'd use multiple sources, instead of relying on the one site anyway.
Click to expand...

Thought it was just me and I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top