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

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.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser











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