backtop


Print 36 comment(s) - last by wordsworm.. on Jan 11 at 12:09 PM

The Wikimedia Foundation hits its $20 million USD fundraising target for Wikipedia

For those of you who have been greeted by banners at the top of Wikipedia pages for the past few months urging you to donate money, those longing eyes will no longer haunt you. The Wikimedia Foundation announced today that it has reached its $20 million USD fundraising goal and will now be taking down those banners.
 
According to a Wikipedia blog posting by Jay Walsh, over one million donors from around the world contributed to the $20 million campaign. Walsh also indicated that its 2011 haul far surpassed the "meager" $4.5 million raised during 2008.


Say "goodbye" to these Wikipedia fundraising banners
 
Likewise, Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, posted the following message:
 
Thank you.
 
We've taken down our fundraising banners, because we’ve hit our target. Thanks to you. Over the past few months, more than one million people have come together from all over the world to keep Wikipedia and its sister sites alive and flourishing for another year.
 
Your support is how we pay our bills. People like you, giving five dollars, twenty dollars, a hundred dollars. Thank you for helping us.
 
We’re the #5 most-popular site in the world --- we operate on a tiny fraction of the resources of any other top site. We will use your money carefully and well, I promise you.
 
For everyone who helps pay for Wikipedia and all the Wikimedia projects, and for those who can't afford to help -- thank you so much for making the world a better place.
 
Wikipedia serves over 20 million articles, is the fifth most popular website on the internet, and will celebrate its 11th anniversary on January 15, 2012.

Sources: Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Gov should pay for it
By Nyu on 1/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: Gov should pay for it
By Cullinaire on 1/2/2012 9:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
Plenty of people use public libraries even in this day and age. Look around...


RE: Gov should pay for it
By TSS on 1/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: Gov should pay for it
By idiot77 on 1/2/2012 11:43:58 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sure your sample size is adequate.


RE: Gov should pay for it
By TSS on 1/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Gov should pay for it
By The Raven on 1/3/2012 12:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
Though I think you might be giving your personal stats a little too much gravity, I think you are right that libraries in their current form are on the way out. I think we should start buying failing cybercafes and retrofit them into libraries. But I think this should be done by wealthy tycoons such as Andrew Carnegie ;-)


RE: Gov should pay for it
By Loveless on 1/3/2012 4:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
Go to a library branch that provides computers with free access to the internet. You will see plenty of people there. Most of the people are on the computers, of course.

A club that I am a part of holds meetings at a public library branch every month, so I have recently witnessed personally how busy it gets. As long as the libraries offer internet computer time, people will be interested in keeping them open.


RE: Gov should pay for it
By Keeir on 1/3/2012 5:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
Errr.. I think your just proving that Libraries are obsolute.

If a Public Library has become nothing more than a "free" place to rent movies/CDs/Internet Access... then is it really a "Library" anymore?

If what the public needs/demands has changed, why address a new problem with an old solution? Hopefully funding for public libraries has shifted to significantly less support for books, and more for internet access. Potentially a more effective means of distributing Internet Access or free public meetings could be found than a large building with many rooms devoted to containing paper/film/etc copies of books and resources that are rarely used...


RE: Gov should pay for it
By wordsworm on 1/11/2012 12:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
Your town is probably illiterate... except for those 2-5 people.


RE: Gov should pay for it
By Shlong on 1/3/2012 4:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
He does have a valid point though, I've been to various Libraries across the country and it seems it's now mainly used by people who don't have access to the internet. I used to go to library all the time when I was younger (before the internet) but ever since my first 14.4k modem and the discovery of Microsoft Encarta CD (now changed to Wikipedia), I've never been back since. I don't know about you, when was the last time you personally visited the library?


RE: Gov should pay for it
By jahinoz on 1/2/2012 10:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone can edit a wikipedia article. That's why. There was a brief period awhile ago where the wikipedia page for prime minister of england was renamed to "captain smirk" with a photoshopped picture of him giving the world the finger.

If you need a laugh there's a few more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/06/the-funni...


RE: Gov should pay for it
By BZDTemp on 1/3/2012 8:09:36 AM , Rating: 4
Yes - but when someone does an edit others will check and if needed correct faster than you'd imagine.

For instance not to long ago I added Donald Trump as an example in the definition of Megalomania. My addition only lived for a few hours until it was kindly removed and I was informed my IP-adress was now on a watch list.

Wikipedia works and it's good that it is by the people rather than being Government funded considering what lunatic ideas governments come up with. Imagine a wikipedia where articles must pass inspection from republicans, democrats and so on.


RE: Gov should pay for it
By The Raven on 1/3/2012 12:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah another example is Armstrong and Getty. They are a radio talk show that I listen to and they are constantly bagging on the inaccuracy of Wikipedia, and persistently charge their listeners to make stuff up all the time. To this date I rarely see the false information. And when I do, I undo the stupid (but somewhat entertaining 'facts'.)
You should see all of the corrections that have gone on.

People talk about how important Twitter and Facebook are during political uprisings but no one ever criticizes these services (rightly so) because something wasn't cited properly. It is just free speech. The thing that is oft forgotten is that there is another side of free speech... the freedom to believe whatever you see fit. Check the sources. If there aren't any, look it up somewhere else to verify the alleged facts. And when you find it add a citation in Wikipedia.


RE: Gov should pay for it
By tastyratz on 1/3/2012 3:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well stated,
Wiki is self regulatory by nature. It might not be an authority, but it is what I would call one of the largest digital community efforts.
I can't imagine the incredible loss to society as a whole we would have if wiki were to disappear. It has to be one of the better resources to come out of the internet for the greater good.


RE: Gov should pay for it
By Subzero0000 on 1/3/2012 4:00:12 AM , Rating: 2
Which governments?
The whole world is using wiki. It will be extremely complicated to involve every governments around the world. (all the currency exchange rates and political affairs...)

Besides, with wiki, the last thing you would want is governments getting their hands on it.


RE: Gov should pay for it
By TheDoc9 on 1/3/2012 11:46:13 AM , Rating: 2
If the gov got involved it would be a disaster. If it takes 20 million per year now to operate, it will be 60+ with the gov. running it.

On top of that there will be no more public edits, and the information will be several years out of date. It will also be as accurate as the latest agreeable scientific source. Meaning you will find little info beyond those that have the money to pay for a study, which in turn would need to be reviewed by the government for 'accuracy'.


RE: Gov should pay for it
By The Raven on 1/3/2012 12:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
Why would gov'ts need to fund this? Did you read a single word of the article? News flash: It said that they made their goal. (Or should I say 'we', as a collective?) No gov't $$$ needed.


RE: Gov should pay for it
By piroroadkill on 1/4/2012 5:33:06 AM , Rating: 2
To be honest, I don't really know why you got shat all over in the ratings.

It is used in very much the same way as a library was or indeed is still used.

I know in the UK, plenty of libraries are getting closed down due to funding concerns and underuse.

One thing you can definitely say about Wikipedia is that it gets used a LOT.


Effective Fundraising
By Loveless on 1/3/2012 4:55:05 PM , Rating: 5
It seems the promise of removing Jimmy Wales face from the top of every Wikipedia page is an effective way to raise 20 million dollars.




Spending much?
By EricMartello on 1/2/12, Rating: -1
RE: Spending much?
By B-Unit on 1/2/2012 10:19:06 PM , Rating: 5
LMAO! You think you can host a super-encyclopedia with enuf traffic to rank #5 website in the world for $10k a year? WTF are you smoking?


RE: Spending much?
By B3an on 1/2/2012 10:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
I LOL'd too.


RE: Spending much?
By EricMartello on 1/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Spending much?
By Rookierookie on 1/3/2012 1:00:23 AM , Rating: 3
If you didn't want to pay you didn't have to, it wasn't that hard to click the close button on that banner was it?

But hey, never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, no.


RE: Spending much?
By stm on 1/3/2012 1:35:39 AM , Rating: 2
Hello friend, You can read up on wikimedia's financial stuff here:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2011-2012_Annu...

Check out the "Breakdown by function" near the end. For example, "In 2010-11, Tech spending is projected to be $8.3 million; in 2011-12, it is planned to be $12.4 million."

Good luck!


RE: Spending much?
By The Raven on 1/3/2012 12:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=sear...

And check their credibility as a charity here.
4-star all the way!


RE: Spending much?
By EricMartello on 1/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Spending much?
By powerwerds on 1/6/2012 3:09:28 PM , Rating: 1
You are suffering from a disconnect with reality. What a negative outlook you have. I have psychoanalyzed you and have determined the following.

Parents get divorced, kid sees one parent swindle the other out of copious amounts of money with dubious expense claims, kid inherits grossly inaccurate world-view of people who ask for money for legitimate reasons, kid grows into person fearful and skeptical of entities in charge of money management, person shares world-view on internet in a fashion such that realistic people cringe in pity.

Either you're as bad as your example, or something as bad as your example happened to you, but I'm fairly certain the world (this charitable institution) isn't as bad as you believe. Get a hug, smoke a bowl, believe in the goodness of others, you may have been burned before, but what a shame to live in such constant gloom.

You are no doubt just another bitter scrub, but I thought your disconnect sufficient enough to warrant note. I feel sorry for anyone that ever engages in monetary dealings with you cause if you act the way you think everyone else acts, everyone else is screwed.


RE: Spending much?
By EricMartello on 1/9/12, Rating: 0
RE: Spending much?
RE: Spending much?
By BSquared on 1/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Spending much?
By hankw on 1/3/2012 6:33:42 AM , Rating: 3
Seriously? 13mill for 97 employees = 134,020/person. What the hell am I doing working for a "for profit" organization? :D


RE: Spending much?
By gamerk2 on 1/3/2012 8:33:06 AM , Rating: 2
On average; top salaries employees are probably in the million range, like any normal coorporation, so the rest of the staff [probably IT personel and lawyers] are closer to the 80k range, or about average for their fields.

So salaries look pretty in line with whats expected, if not a little low.


RE: Spending much?
By mcnabney on 1/3/2012 9:27:45 AM , Rating: 3
There is also a lot more to employee compensation than just salary. Benefits, bonuses, employer-side of SS/FICA, matching 401k contributions... It piles up fast. My salary is ~$85k, but my total cost of employment is over $120k.


RE: Spending much?
By ati666 on 1/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Spending much?
By wempa on 1/3/2012 10:51:04 AM , Rating: 2
Those numbers actually seem very reasonable compared to any other firm's expenses. Anybody who works in IT knows that ~130K average for an overloaded salary is surely within line. Compare that to the estimated cost of 278K per job created or saved from the last government stimulus.


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki