A personal plea for cash by Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, has melted enough hearts to keep the ubiquitous online encyclopedia running for another fiscal year – and then some. The Wikimedia Foundation announced today that it's raised more than $6.2m since launching a fund-raising campaign in early November. The website …
Lol! If only editing a bank's ledger file was as easy...
It was for some. Why do you think the The UK,US and other countries are having the banking mess.
Wikipedia matters to you...
...just as I, Jimmy Wales, matter to you. I, Jimmy Wales, matter very very much indeed.
Google will be happy
They can continue to artificially seed wikiwhacky results into the top of its search algorithm.
Otherwise, we would see a lot more (other) crap results.
This is all that the whacktonians are good for.
Maybe they'll stop censoring views that disagree with the editors now
I'm glad that wikipedia is going to continue on, but at the same time, I would have rather seen them bought out and get some new management in there. Perhaps new management wouldn't censor so many things, and push their agenda out as "fact". There are way too many biased articles out there, where the opposite viewpoint is censored. See overstock.com for more details, and this is a small example.
i use wikipedia from time to time and i think its the best..
do wiki answers and wikipedia fall into the same section?????
Is the Wikedeepia solely responsible for the naked short selling fiasco that brought the western world to its knees?
They should start charging the news media for using their site, in the last few days I've spotted pictures on the BBC news website which are ripped directly from the wiki site. May encourage the hacks to do a little bit more research than immediately type wikipedia.org .
Does this mean that Jimmy Wales' name is going to be removed from every sodding page that wiki drags up, just checked... nope now he's thanking us all.
Paris cos all she needs to rise funds is a camcorder and the latest beau de jour.
Make the contributors pay
Maybe Wikipedia would be a little tidier if they had the contributors paying to edit. Sort of like a scientific journal.
By wiki logic
If you post an article stating that they no longer need cash then the wikifiddlers can cite it when they edit the wiki page.
Where's a Jimbo Wales icon (maybe surrounded by a revolving world)?
not sure of their censorship
I've got no issue with the factual, geographic, historic, etc...things on Wikipedia.
But I don't understand where the "celebrity" ones begin and end.
I've seen minor celebs from late-night sky/cable or local radio scrapped as not famous enough to be on there, but Big Brother contestants remain?
Frankly I've got a lot more respect for someone who spins a roulette wheel on a channel few people watch, or sells revolting jumpers on Bid-Up, than I have for some shouty obnoxious bint whose only claim-to-fame is drinking a fish gut smoothy or wanking with a wine bottle.
Paris, because she's probably famous enough to be on there
Where your money goes
Please see wikipediareview.com/blog/ for background information. You really need a Jimbo Wales icon with horns =))
why don't they just add some ads - maybe then they won't be in such a "perilous" position every year + maybe they can afford some serious moderators.
They'd have made even more money without that scary picture of their founder! I might even have contributed something myself...
Wikipedia's permanent third position in Google results
Winkypop: They can continue to artificially seed wikiwhacky results into the top of its search algorithm.
My thoughts entirely. These days Google always seem to put the relevant Wikipedia page at position 3, sometimes 2, in the search results, pretty much where your sight naturally falls on the page. The aim is surely that people just click on it and don't notice how irrelevant the other results are.
What a waste of money.
That is all.
I want my money back.
I was stupid and naive enough to donate 20 squid to the Wikipedians back when I believed there could exist an impartial organisation capable of providing information for "free".
Should have known there's no such thing as a free lunch.
...what a bunch of bitter assholes. Granted, this is an IT forum, but still...
Was reminded of that Byrne scuffle last night when browsing Shii's site.
It seems that Shii was hounded away from the wiki due to clique related action.
I had to laugh when examining the logs detailing his poor treatment at the hands of Wikifiddlers, as I spotted the handle SlimVirgin amongst the other cliquey malfeasance practicioners...
No sweat for this. Wikipedia is a constant - and sometimes vital - source of info. Glad they made it.
So, what's the beef?
In agreeing with you pretty much totally, one question that pops up is that given the relative costs of storage and what I understand to be the point of a Wikipedia type accoutrement, why is it not relevant for Wikipedia to have articles on anything and everything? As long as certain niceties (privacy, legal, moral and such) are observed.
You people make me sick...
It's useless, it's biased, it censors everything, rah, rah, rah...
I'm facinated and repulsed by how some people here manage to find something to hate about everything. Most people with whom I have ever talked about wikipedia find it deeply impressive that something of such quality and usefulness could come into existence so quickly in the absence of a profit motive.
Notwithstanding the whole Pat Byrne fiasco and other allegations of impropriety, wikipedia is a pretty inspiring story. Considering their decentralised structure I am surprised they have withstood the forces of corruption and special interests so well - I guess the panopticon can work in reverse aswell eh!
Really, 2 million dollars in voluntary donations in 8 days is testament to how much people really value Wikipedia i.e. a lot. I really can't fathom you people who do nothing but bitch about it, maybe I should consult the oracle... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard
Wikipedia isn't a source for anything. It's merely a summary of facts (or otherwise) from other sources. On many topics there's better and more authoritative information available elsewhere online. We're better off without it.
That final paragraph
Was that really necessary?
If there was some tact, or wit involved...
I don't mind the wiki - it's useful for a quick reference. A lot of the tech / physics stuff is usually (in my experience) completely wrong, or so badly written that it's not helpful. It is worrying to think so many people will take it as being the gospel, helping to spread the misinformation.
But $6m dollars a year to run it? Really? Admittedly I didn't read their full break down (apparently I have to donate online in order to receive it or something) but does it really cost that much? How much of that is Jimbo's salary?
And frankly, I think most people have gotten so used to seeing adverts (and the likes of AdBlock Plus are so effective) that I wouldn't mind a few ads if it stops the "please help us!" messages that permanently plaster the site.
At least it proves that Vulture Central reads it too. I find WP pretty sound on factual matters, and often written in a more accessible style than more 'serious' sources. Articles also often admit contrary points of view, unlike those that believe they are infallible.
@Ros: WP aims for there always to be better sources available ...
I have a copy of the Brittanica, on paper, on a shelf.
For at least almost and probably absolutely everything in it there is at least one better and more authoritative source available.
The same applies to WP, it is part of the rules applied there.
The point of an encyclopedia is to bring together information on most things. It is never a primary source.
The other and better references for individual atoms of knowledge are fine, but you need an index to find them. There is Google, of course, and there is the human evaluation, which even if it uses imperfect humans adds something to that indexing for most areas.
I donated £20. I have got a lot of use out of Wikipedia and am happy to help keep it in its current form. The day they put ads on is the day I never give them another penny of funding from my pocket, though.
My question is, if Wikipedia hadn't of got the money they wanted would the US government given them tax money to stay afloat? I mean if the lefty newspapers in our country are going to be awarded tax dollars why not wikipedia. While wikipedia definitely has an agenda towards the left they are far more center then the commy failing print media we have.
"Notwithstanding the whole Pat Byrne fiasco and other allegations of impropriety, wikipedia is a pretty inspiring story"
That statement reminded me of:
Mr. Praline: I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Further proof if proof were needed
...that a fool and his money are soon parted.
Anyone who gave hard-earned cash for this putrid pile of maundering donkey flop should be ashamed of themselves.
I refuse to look at anything that cites only wikipedia and mark down anything submitted with wikipedia as a reference. Totally useless.
Since wikipedia use only public domain images [which is why there are almost no celebrity pics on wikipedia] that's unlikely to happen.
And, since a good proportion of wikipedians out there update the pages from what they've learned from online news sources (e.g. BBC news online) wikipedia is likely to be behind BBC news in content so I think you ought to give us a citation to back up your claim!
More should be raised
You can see the breakdown without donating here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Questions/en#How_is_the_revenue_spent.3F
Now, you might be surprised to know that the US alone is spending 500 BILLION dollars annually for their military. I think we better question that, and think what our world would be like if more money would be spent on projects that spread knowledge instead of fear, destruction and oppression.
Just to compare...
How much do you think El Reg could raise from its readers in a similar appeal if it was in danger of going under?
I know it's traditional for a Perfect Organ like the Reg to criticise the imperfections in Wikipedia, but come on guys - get real - just which of you is more important to the world?
Because if Wikipedia ran ads, Google would go bust. Oh wait, that's not such a bad idea. Bring it on.
Paris, because she doesn't need to advertise.
It's far from perfect. but for a quick idea on something, I find it extremely useful. but I wouldn't stake anything really important on it's knowledge, like my my personal safety, my family's or my job!
Too may people go there look up what they know about already, just to poke fun at it's imperfections. Well here's an idea, if it's not good enough, start your own one and all you know-alls can have your own perfect little online tome of knowledge free from any inaccuracies.
For the rest of us looking up roughly how a toilet flush system works, or how XYZ band got started and their current status, it's perfect!
Would you care to provide a citation or two?
I've never yet come across an article that mentions competing theories on anything, but perhaps we have been looking in different areas?
Fund raising to spend on...... A fundraising team!
From http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/41/FY_2008_09_Annual_Plan.PDF p13
'Establishment of new fundraising team $510,000'
So nearly 10% of the money raised is being spend to raise money... This is over 1/2 as much the entrie actual technology budget for last year (07-08). The only thing wikipedia really needs is the technology, its awash with volunteers for the other stuff, but unfortunately the 'professionals' seem to want in on the act.
Wikipedia is run by humans
Yes fallible humans with good intentions who have to arrive at judgements and who sometimes make mistakes, and whom I will never put on any pedestal. So what does anyone expect from an organisation that employs all of 23 people ? Get real folks, this is a human organisation. The most likely critics if someone provides something mostly good for free are going to be those who previously made money by supplying a competing product paid for by other means. I havn't donated to Wikipedia yet, but it's enough use to me that I would if they were strapped for cash. I help keep a more specialised online news organisation going through a voluntary subscription, because what they write is worth a lot more to me than the effort I would have to go through to research, digest and compile the same information by other means.
@Fund raising to spend on...... A fund-raising team!
'Establishment of new fund-raising team - $510,000'
Here comes the corporate bloat folks! Its all downhill from here.
I dont see any bandwith/hardware costings?
In there sexy corporate pie chart I didnt see any costings for hardware or bandwith or is that included in technology? It must be a lot more for a site 4th most popular in the world
"withstood the forces of corruption and special interests so well"
If you really think that I must conclude that you have no idea what is actually going on in the Land of Truth By Consensus.
The only articles that are relatively intact are the ones concerning science and boring stuff that the moronic super-editors are not interested in or do not have the knowledge to fudge almost imperceptibly. Anything else is good for target practice from the endless horde of special-interest groups, of which the super-editors themselves are part.
The definition of corrupt is when the people with authority use their authority based on personal bias rather than defined and accepted rules. If the super-editors actually followed their own rules, one could argue your point, but the fact is that they don't (well, a portion of them in any case).
Therefor WhackyLand is most definitely corrupt.
The WP article on global warming is a reasonable example, with references to various opposing points of view and no less than 135 citations. I wouldn't normally look to WP for GW info (having my own set of prejudices!) but I can't fault it for balance.