Fred McGriff Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCM Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I could do with $10 million. I need it as much as Wiki does... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dese manz hatin Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ketamine IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ezkerraldean Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tessier Ashpool Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr lopez Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Enter a new display name Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred McGriff Posted December 22, 2009 Author Share Posted December 22, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chim Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 yeah i don't get this at all although ten million is hardly google money lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred McGriff Posted December 22, 2009 Author Share Posted December 22, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Dylan Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rambo Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 ITS RANSOM MONEY. give us 10 million or lose all this wikiknowledge. who wouldn't miss wikipedia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IRARI Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 i might donate $10 million to the english pedia only, i don't care about all the other languages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capsaicin Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Donate some to the Simple English page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IRARI Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IRARI Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 i treat wikipedia like 7up never have never will encyclopedia dramatica is where it's at Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 basically, jimbo wales flying around the world in private jets and living like a rock star isn't free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chim Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ezkerraldean Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 the US-centric-ness of English Wiki pisses me off fairly frequently. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chim Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IRARI Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.