11 ms·

Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

158 points by rwwmike 16y ago

clemesha 16y ago
Why are people so consistently negative about Wikipedia? Just looking at the top comments here, and other places around the internet - I think it's far too common. Let's be more positive. Wikipedia is amazing - congrats to them for successfully achieving their fund-raising goals.
- mike_esspe 16y ago
  Wikipedia is amazing, but deletionism policy is bad. BTW, anyone wants to make a service, which hosts base content from wikipedia, but allows to fork and merge articles a la git? By default you see main article (if it exists), but if you want to see alternative opinions - they are just several clicks away.
- mortenjorck 16y ago
  I think there's a tendency toward cynicism with Wikipedia precisely because it's an amazing idea that, in many ways, has been beautifully delivered on – but that where it falls short, it can be maddeningly frustrating. It's not all that different from other bureaucracies. Like the bureaucracies responsible for administration in other spheres, the practical result is more than serviceable. Your city council, despite its backroom deals, manages to keep your town livable. Your insurance company, despite its shrewd actuarial restrictions, generally has your back. Wikipedia, despite its policy of deletionism, is a great first resource for a vast variety of subjects. Every bureaucracy could do with a lot of improvement, and Wikipedia's no different. But we're still much better off with it and its imperfections than we'd be without it.
- Untitled 16y ago
  > Why are people so consistently negative about Wikipedia? I am not negative about Wikipedia, but about its management. The add campaign was distasteful and I suspect just an ego trip for Jimmy Wales. The real Wikipedia is the thousands of faceless people who write the articles.
  - patio11 16y ago
    The add campaign was distasteful and I suspect just an ego trip for Jimmy Wales They published the results of the split tests: Jimmy Wales ROFLstomped all their other creatives. It blows my mind, too, but there you go: the people who matter (i.e. people who donate to the foundation) want to Jimmy's rugged and photoshopped good looks, and all he has to do is glance in their general direction and their wallets open.
    - quickpost 16y ago
      Good call. This post sums it up quite nicely: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-science-behind-wikipedias-jimmy-appeal/ http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-science-behin... EDIT: Raw Data here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testi...
    - Untitled 16y ago
      Maybe, but there are other factors. Firstly, the question is the size. Were all the advertisements the same size? (i.e. were they all images or were some text - like google adwords?). Then there is the question of how non-donors feel. The ad campaign made me negative about WP (and I bet quite a few other people). The third problem is the damage to the image of WP. An idiot on the top of every page begging for money really knocks the image for me.
      - tokenadult 16y ago
        Then there is the question of how non-donors feel. The ad campaign made me negative about WP (and I bet quite a few other people). That's an important point that is harder to reveal through A/B testing. What would Wikipedia's fundraising look like if there were another online encyclopedia that appeared to be a credible contender? Is Wikipedia Google in this space, or is it AltaVista?
    - miniatureape 16y ago
      Suspecting A/B tests, I actually waited until I got one of the photos of Mr. Wales looking off in the distance before I donated (anything was better than the glaring full-on eyes). I didn't see any of the volunteer ads until after I donated.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  I don't trust Wales to run the organization effectively. I think that things are just going to get worse for Wikimedia as they get more money. My opinion on Wales is not high generally and Wikipedia has implemented some policies that I find rather undesirable in the recent years. Wikipedia has also done little to really actively improve the encyclopedia; they make all the wrong organizational changes, which in general tend to further stupid political bickering and turf wars, and these are the biggest problems to successful Wikipedia editing. Good governance would move to minimize these so that editing remains (or now, becomes) reasonable for people who don't have time to sit around for six hours a day and justify every change they make over and over again until the other guys get sick of it. What it comes down to is that Wikipedia is really one great big edit war, though they'll never admit it.
  - zmmz 16y ago
    Not trying to provoke you or anything, but as I am somebody who has not given this topic much thought I would be curious to hear of your concrete examples and arguments about bad policies? I am somebody who can't see himself as contributing to wikipedia, but some changes might make me reconsider. What would you like to see changed?
    - cookiecaper 16y ago
      I don't remember them all anymore -- I keep only loose tabs on Wikipedia these days. I was a very active editor and a founding member of a WikiProject in the 2004-2005 timeframe. I thought the blanket removal of most fair use images and the policy banning them was inappropriate and one of the least pragmatic things from an editorial quality perspective that could have been done. That's the only big policy change since I quit that I can remember right now, though I know there have been several other that I felt were misguided or inappropriate. When I browse talk pages these days, I see very many new policy links, and that's part of the problem. Wikipedia has a pretty steep learning curve just to format an edit in a way that won't be reverted under a cavalcade of acronyms from the WP pagespace. Edits on controversial topics are nearly impossible, primarily because articles will often be locked in the first place, or if they're not, each member on each side exhausts his/her three reverts, someone complains to an admin, and the page is locked so that it can all pick back up in a few days. It becomes especially difficult on pages that are hand-sanitized by a politician's staffers or other editors paid to keep WP articles favorable, because they literally have all day and they make their money by being combative, intimidating opposing editors, and otherwise staving off legitimate unfavorable edits. And that's part of what makes this all so frustrating. Wikipedia has no real conflict resolution mechanisms. Open-source software is supposedly an inspiration for WP, but OSS has very clear, authoritarian project leaders that don't tolerate silliness. WP is an absolute free-for-all; there are policies, but in general they just mean you have to avoid specific phraseology and can still do whatever you want. As such, editing WP is very inconsistent but almost universally frustrating and it's often clear even to readers which group has established turf over a given article or set of articles. On top of all of this, Jimmy Wales has an extreme aura of arrogance and ethical pliability. See the incidents around "co-founder" and "founder" of Wikipedia for just one example; there have been some other good ones over the years. Wales misappropriated Wikipedia, really the brain child of Larry Sanger, for his own and hasn't known what to do with it since. Sanger, meanwhile, started another wiki-based site that evolved on the Wikipedia model with approved revisions and a few other small tweaks (Citizendium, I don't know if it's still alive or not). It also seems to me that Wales has been trying to carefully straddle the community line regarding policies, etc., (except a few cases where lawyers specifically said "this part is not optional, sorry") because he doesn't really know what's good for WP. It's all some kind of anomaly to him and he's just trying to keep a light touch so he doesn't scare it away. As such, WP yet languishes in its morass of "whoever-is-the-most-obsessed" methodology for resolving editorial conflict and lacks any serious drive or leadership. WP is already like a big corporation because it already has a CEO that got there through business school instead of innovation. That's always the sign that you shouldn't expect many interesting advances from a given group anymore -- they are interested in maintaining their model and milking it for money until someone comes around and obsoletes them. Hiring a chief executive trained in milking money out of existing infrastructure instead of a chief executive trained in contributing something new is a huge red flag from every non-financial perspective (though the finances usually languish along with the invention and research). Basically, it boils down to frustration over the lack of conceptual or procedural improvement in Wikipedia and the general belief that Wales is blatantly unqualified in almost all relevant respects and sort of wandered into his position accidentally. I don't necessarily blame him for that (though I do blame him for the morally dubious stuff, like Bomis, Sanger, and that girl), it just doesn't bode well for the organization. And, as I'm sure we all know, it's generally a pretty bad thing when confused people get a whole bunch of money, as Wales just procured for himself. Wikimedia already emanates these astonishingly corporate vibes, I think we should only expect those to increase.
Ryan_IRL 16y ago
I'm aware it is temporary, but I'm surely not the only one thinking that banner is more annoying than the occasional ad would have been.
- chaosmachine 16y ago
  They could definitely make a killing with just a single AdSense block at the bottom of every article. Maybe even just the top 1000 articles. Instead, we get places like Answers.com mass-duplicating Wikipedia content and slapping big image ads on it.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    One of the things people are worried about with that it would allow something close to paid additions/rebuttals to Wikipedia articles, at least if ad buyers were good enough at the AdSense targeting. The goal is to have a neutral article that covers all viewpoints fairly, but then you'd have this little box where whoever pays the most money would get the opportunity to insert a link to their take on the subject.
    - axod 16y ago
      Surely if you just have general 'run of site' advertising which isn't targeted to specific articles, there's little chance of conflict.
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      Exactly. Or to put a finer point on it: there becomes a much greater pressure to insert ads as content. Why pay for an ad sense spot if you can just insert your own ad into the relevant wiki article?
      - jimmybot 16y ago
        So all the merchants that can't buy an ad aren't trying to subtly insert ads as content currently? Advertisers only have one choice now--try to get a mention, try to get a link, perhaps as a source--do whatever it takes to get into the content of the article. If Wikipedia sold ads, they would have the alternative to buy an ad instead; I don't see how the problem of advertisement-as-content would be worsened when given a choice to buy an ad. If anything, I think it's the other way around.
StavrosK 16y ago
Great, now how much more money do they need to buy the disk space necessary to stop deletionism?
- slig 16y ago
  All the editing history is archived, right?
  - iamwil 16y ago
    Who digs through editing history when they're looking stuff up? And he's talking about the number of articles, if I'm not mistaken.
    - slig 16y ago
      I thought that, since all the edits were kept in the database, more harddrives wouldn't matter. But as kens pointed out, that is not the case.
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    Some stuff is never written because people know it would be deleted. Other stuff becomes harder to find (do deleted articles come up on searches..?)
    - uriel 16y ago
      > Some stuff is never written because people know it would be deleted. Or simply, knowing that it is likely to be deleted puts you off from contributing at all. I know that is one of the main reasons I have almost completely stopped contributing to Wikipedia.
  - kens 16y ago
    No, normal users cannot see deleted articles or their edit histories (which I think is crazy). Only Wikipedia administrators can see this information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Access_to_deleted_pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Acces... says: Because many deleted articles are found to contain defamatory or other legally suspect material, deleted pages are not permitted to be generally viewed. However, they remain in the database (at least temporarily) and are accessible to administrators, along with their edit history unless they are oversighted. Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review (or simply ask an administrator to supply a copy of the page). Note that these requests are likely to be denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request.
ck2 16y ago
Is their budget public? I'd really like to see how you spend $16 million. Is there actually paid staff/benefits? Because $16M is more hardware/bandwidth than I can fathom.
- citricsquid 16y ago
  http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Budget http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Budget PDF for 2011: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-1... (Page 24 for pie chart comparison) Summary: They want to expand, a lot, almost every sector has more than doubled in allocated budget from 09-10s budget
  - ck2 16y ago
    Thanks! So they spent nearly $9M in salaries vs $2M for bandwidth, $1M in travel expenses, $2M in office rent/furniture/meetings https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Ffoundation%2Fd%2Fdd%2F2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&docid=a9195ac7cb3a86770a771ec7db3ac037&a=bi&pagenumber=44&w=972 https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikime... 2010 Wikipedia Spending, in USD, in thousands 8,972 Salaries and wages 1,837 Internet hosting 3,270 Capital expenditures 483 Donation processing fees, charitable registrations 2,274 External contractors 864 Travel for staff, Board, Advisory Board and volunteers 134 Wikimania Travel 155 Legal 1,273 Office rent, furniture and equipment, supplies and maintenance 813 Staff and volunteer meetings, conferences, training, workshops 325 New allocation for awards and grants supporting volunteer initiatives -------------------- $20,400K TOTAL (*$20M*) Direct link to pie chart as image (thanks to google) https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Ffoundation%2Fd%2Fdd%2F2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&docid=a9195ac7cb3a86770a771ec7db3ac037&a=bi&pagenumber=24&w=972 https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikime... and the whole document in html/images https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&pli=1 https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=http://u...
d2viant 16y ago
I've always thought Google should just buy them. If you're going to index the worlds information, this is a good start. Google has the resources and power to make sure it remains alive and well.
- kmfrk 16y ago
  Are you sure the owners would accept the offer? This allows Wikipedia to be truly free.
  - corin_ 16y ago
    For the various reasons other people have commented, I can't see anyone ever trying to buy Wikipedia. However, in reply to your question: In many (I'd argue most) cases, people have a price. Hell, I'd bet that with enough billions you could bribe a hell of a lot of married couples to split up, yet alone someone to abandon their community spirit and sell a volunteer-run organisation. (Second paraphrase doesn't, however, top the first.)
- sgt 16y ago
  I tend to disagree due to future uncertainties. While Google may seem like the ultimate do-no-evil company at this moment, what will happen in 15, or even 30 years? If Google eventually "turns", it may lead to fragmentation of the Wikipedia project, and consequently a lack of focus. To me, Wikimedia (the foundation) seems like the type of foundation that will always keep a clear focus and maintain the core values of Wikipedia.
  - JusticeJones 16y ago
    I'd hardly call Google the 'ultimate do-no-evil' company after they signed that anti-net-neutrality pact with Verizon last summer.
    - btilly 16y ago
      Funny, when Google and Verizon agree on a framework for net neutrality, everyone thinks they are being evil. When the FTC issues a ruling that looks almost exactly the same, everyone lauds them for their forward thinking stance. Can you explain what, exactly, you thought was so horrible about what Google and Verizon did?
kprobst 16y ago
I wasn't aware that not meeting that goal would result in slapping ads on articles. Also, Wikipedia itself was fully funded a while ago through next year, the foundation was trying to raise money for other projects and programs that aren't the encyclopedia itself.
- checoivan 16y ago
  Or raising for the future instead of waiting for the imminent to happen, running out of money, and act in desperation.
  - kprobst 16y ago
    That would be a good idea, but they seem to do the same thing every year.
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      Why change what works?
      - InclinedPlane 16y ago
        That's a pathology called "non event feedback", just because you've avoided catastrophe with risky behavior in the past doesn't mean that the risk doesn't exist, it just means you've gotten lucky. Why change wikimedia's method of fund raising and budgeting? Because wikipedia is a valuable resource and it would be far greater if we could ensure it remains available for reading and continued revision not just for the next year or the next decade but indefinitely. They've already raised enough money to have ensured that had they invested the money correctly. Instead, the money has been squandered on salaries for positions within the foundation which provide questionable value.
- neilk 16y ago
  > I wasn't aware that not meeting that goal would result in slapping ads on articles. Yeah, RWW says that in a couple of places, but I don't know why. I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation has ever implied that. (Disclaimer: I work there.) The slogan/hashtag was #keepitfree, but I don't think that implies a number. Anyway, if there had been a shortfall in community donations, the WMF would just have readjusted its budget, or sought more big-donor money. Ads on Wikipedia are not even a remote possibility. But we prefer to get everything from the readership in small donations. Big donations expose the projects to charges of bias, or require us to jump through various hoops that don't directly benefit the community. We'd rather be working for the community 100% of the time, rather than balancing the concerns of the community and people with deep pockets.
sdghjtykty 16y ago
●---------------------------------------● Happy New Year◎,◎appy shopping ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- Happy New Year◎,◎appy shopping ●---------------------------------------●
solipsist 16y ago
If someone was asked, "Would your rather use a website that has ads or one that has no ads?", they would most likely choose the latter. However, Wikipedia has shown the world something that no one would have expected; it seems as if most people would rather have the ads given the circumstances.
- philipn 16y ago
  Most people being commenters on HN? Or the 500,000 people who have donated to Wikipedia?
  - Untitled 16y ago
    > Or the 500,000 people who have donated to Wikipedia? How many of those that donated thought that the advertisements would disappear after they gave money?
- rb2k_ 16y ago
  I think the problem for a lot of people is that "the website" doesn't seem to be where the majority of the money is going. There are grants, "External contractors", salaries, ... I personally think that most people would be happy if they just concentrated on keeping the site up and running. While they DO need a bit of workforce for that, they should stick to the "core" that is the website. p.s. I'm perfectly happy with another non-profit trying to make workshops, grants and other things, but I'd prefer there to be a "we're just the website" one too...
known 16y ago
Wiki is really worth $16 million.
- carussell 16y ago
  It's called Wikipedia, FYI.
corin_ 16y ago
I'm now seeing 'If everyone reading this donated £5, our fundraiser would be over today. Please donate to keep Wikipedia free.' banners. If they've already hit the target, presumably they must have already set a new target in order to make that statement?
gopi 16y ago
I don't understand why they are so adamant about ads... A small adsense block (with 2 text ads) will cover all their expenses and more. It will not be intrusive and useful to visitors in most situations (as their content is well suited for a contextual ad system like adsense)...Also there is precedence in non-profits doing this like firefox with their google search deal (which makes them $100 million or so a year)

158 points by rwwmike 16y ago

Why are people so consistently negative about Wikipedia? Just looking at the top comments here, and other places around the internet - I think it's far too common. Let's be more positive. Wikipedia is amazing - congrats to them for successfully achieving their fund-raising goals.

mike_esspe 16y ago
Wikipedia is amazing, but deletionism policy is bad. BTW, anyone wants to make a service, which hosts base content from wikipedia, but allows to fork and merge articles a la git? By default you see main article (if it exists), but if you want to see alternative opinions - they are just several clicks away.
mortenjorck 16y ago
I think there's a tendency toward cynicism with Wikipedia precisely because it's an amazing idea that, in many ways, has been beautifully delivered on – but that where it falls short, it can be maddeningly frustrating. It's not all that different from other bureaucracies. Like the bureaucracies responsible for administration in other spheres, the practical result is more than serviceable. Your city council, despite its backroom deals, manages to keep your town livable. Your insurance company, despite its shrewd actuarial restrictions, generally has your back. Wikipedia, despite its policy of deletionism, is a great first resource for a vast variety of subjects. Every bureaucracy could do with a lot of improvement, and Wikipedia's no different. But we're still much better off with it and its imperfections than we'd be without it.
Untitled 16y ago
> Why are people so consistently negative about Wikipedia? I am not negative about Wikipedia, but about its management. The add campaign was distasteful and I suspect just an ego trip for Jimmy Wales. The real Wikipedia is the thousands of faceless people who write the articles.
- patio11 16y ago
  The add campaign was distasteful and I suspect just an ego trip for Jimmy Wales They published the results of the split tests: Jimmy Wales ROFLstomped all their other creatives. It blows my mind, too, but there you go: the people who matter (i.e. people who donate to the foundation) want to Jimmy's rugged and photoshopped good looks, and all he has to do is glance in their general direction and their wallets open.
  - quickpost 16y ago
    Good call. This post sums it up quite nicely: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-science-behind-wikipedias-jimmy-appeal/ http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-science-behin... EDIT: Raw Data here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testi...
  - Untitled 16y ago
    Maybe, but there are other factors. Firstly, the question is the size. Were all the advertisements the same size? (i.e. were they all images or were some text - like google adwords?). Then there is the question of how non-donors feel. The ad campaign made me negative about WP (and I bet quite a few other people). The third problem is the damage to the image of WP. An idiot on the top of every page begging for money really knocks the image for me.
    - tokenadult 16y ago
      Then there is the question of how non-donors feel. The ad campaign made me negative about WP (and I bet quite a few other people). That's an important point that is harder to reveal through A/B testing. What would Wikipedia's fundraising look like if there were another online encyclopedia that appeared to be a credible contender? Is Wikipedia Google in this space, or is it AltaVista?
  - miniatureape 16y ago
    Suspecting A/B tests, I actually waited until I got one of the photos of Mr. Wales looking off in the distance before I donated (anything was better than the glaring full-on eyes). I didn't see any of the volunteer ads until after I donated.
cookiecaper 16y ago
I don't trust Wales to run the organization effectively. I think that things are just going to get worse for Wikimedia as they get more money. My opinion on Wales is not high generally and Wikipedia has implemented some policies that I find rather undesirable in the recent years. Wikipedia has also done little to really actively improve the encyclopedia; they make all the wrong organizational changes, which in general tend to further stupid political bickering and turf wars, and these are the biggest problems to successful Wikipedia editing. Good governance would move to minimize these so that editing remains (or now, becomes) reasonable for people who don't have time to sit around for six hours a day and justify every change they make over and over again until the other guys get sick of it. What it comes down to is that Wikipedia is really one great big edit war, though they'll never admit it.
- zmmz 16y ago
  Not trying to provoke you or anything, but as I am somebody who has not given this topic much thought I would be curious to hear of your concrete examples and arguments about bad policies? I am somebody who can't see himself as contributing to wikipedia, but some changes might make me reconsider. What would you like to see changed?
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    I don't remember them all anymore -- I keep only loose tabs on Wikipedia these days. I was a very active editor and a founding member of a WikiProject in the 2004-2005 timeframe. I thought the blanket removal of most fair use images and the policy banning them was inappropriate and one of the least pragmatic things from an editorial quality perspective that could have been done. That's the only big policy change since I quit that I can remember right now, though I know there have been several other that I felt were misguided or inappropriate. When I browse talk pages these days, I see very many new policy links, and that's part of the problem. Wikipedia has a pretty steep learning curve just to format an edit in a way that won't be reverted under a cavalcade of acronyms from the WP pagespace. Edits on controversial topics are nearly impossible, primarily because articles will often be locked in the first place, or if they're not, each member on each side exhausts his/her three reverts, someone complains to an admin, and the page is locked so that it can all pick back up in a few days. It becomes especially difficult on pages that are hand-sanitized by a politician's staffers or other editors paid to keep WP articles favorable, because they literally have all day and they make their money by being combative, intimidating opposing editors, and otherwise staving off legitimate unfavorable edits. And that's part of what makes this all so frustrating. Wikipedia has no real conflict resolution mechanisms. Open-source software is supposedly an inspiration for WP, but OSS has very clear, authoritarian project leaders that don't tolerate silliness. WP is an absolute free-for-all; there are policies, but in general they just mean you have to avoid specific phraseology and can still do whatever you want. As such, editing WP is very inconsistent but almost universally frustrating and it's often clear even to readers which group has established turf over a given article or set of articles. On top of all of this, Jimmy Wales has an extreme aura of arrogance and ethical pliability. See the incidents around "co-founder" and "founder" of Wikipedia for just one example; there have been some other good ones over the years. Wales misappropriated Wikipedia, really the brain child of Larry Sanger, for his own and hasn't known what to do with it since. Sanger, meanwhile, started another wiki-based site that evolved on the Wikipedia model with approved revisions and a few other small tweaks (Citizendium, I don't know if it's still alive or not). It also seems to me that Wales has been trying to carefully straddle the community line regarding policies, etc., (except a few cases where lawyers specifically said "this part is not optional, sorry") because he doesn't really know what's good for WP. It's all some kind of anomaly to him and he's just trying to keep a light touch so he doesn't scare it away. As such, WP yet languishes in its morass of "whoever-is-the-most-obsessed" methodology for resolving editorial conflict and lacks any serious drive or leadership. WP is already like a big corporation because it already has a CEO that got there through business school instead of innovation. That's always the sign that you shouldn't expect many interesting advances from a given group anymore -- they are interested in maintaining their model and milking it for money until someone comes around and obsoletes them. Hiring a chief executive trained in milking money out of existing infrastructure instead of a chief executive trained in contributing something new is a huge red flag from every non-financial perspective (though the finances usually languish along with the invention and research). Basically, it boils down to frustration over the lack of conceptual or procedural improvement in Wikipedia and the general belief that Wales is blatantly unqualified in almost all relevant respects and sort of wandered into his position accidentally. I don't necessarily blame him for that (though I do blame him for the morally dubious stuff, like Bomis, Sanger, and that girl), it just doesn't bode well for the organization. And, as I'm sure we all know, it's generally a pretty bad thing when confused people get a whole bunch of money, as Wales just procured for himself. Wikimedia already emanates these astonishingly corporate vibes, I think we should only expect those to increase.

Ryan_IRL 16y ago

I'm aware it is temporary, but I'm surely not the only one thinking that banner is more annoying than the occasional ad would have been.

chaosmachine 16y ago
They could definitely make a killing with just a single AdSense block at the bottom of every article. Maybe even just the top 1000 articles. Instead, we get places like Answers.com mass-duplicating Wikipedia content and slapping big image ads on it.
- _delirium 16y ago
  One of the things people are worried about with that it would allow something close to paid additions/rebuttals to Wikipedia articles, at least if ad buyers were good enough at the AdSense targeting. The goal is to have a neutral article that covers all viewpoints fairly, but then you'd have this little box where whoever pays the most money would get the opportunity to insert a link to their take on the subject.
  - axod 16y ago
    Surely if you just have general 'run of site' advertising which isn't targeted to specific articles, there's little chance of conflict.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    Exactly. Or to put a finer point on it: there becomes a much greater pressure to insert ads as content. Why pay for an ad sense spot if you can just insert your own ad into the relevant wiki article?
    - jimmybot 16y ago
      So all the merchants that can't buy an ad aren't trying to subtly insert ads as content currently? Advertisers only have one choice now--try to get a mention, try to get a link, perhaps as a source--do whatever it takes to get into the content of the article. If Wikipedia sold ads, they would have the alternative to buy an ad instead; I don't see how the problem of advertisement-as-content would be worsened when given a choice to buy an ad. If anything, I think it's the other way around.

StavrosK 16y ago

Great, now how much more money do they need to buy the disk space necessary to stop deletionism?

slig 16y ago
All the editing history is archived, right?
- iamwil 16y ago
  Who digs through editing history when they're looking stuff up? And he's talking about the number of articles, if I'm not mistaken.
  - slig 16y ago
    I thought that, since all the edits were kept in the database, more harddrives wouldn't matter. But as kens pointed out, that is not the case.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  Some stuff is never written because people know it would be deleted. Other stuff becomes harder to find (do deleted articles come up on searches..?)
  - uriel 16y ago
    > Some stuff is never written because people know it would be deleted. Or simply, knowing that it is likely to be deleted puts you off from contributing at all. I know that is one of the main reasons I have almost completely stopped contributing to Wikipedia.
- kens 16y ago
  No, normal users cannot see deleted articles or their edit histories (which I think is crazy). Only Wikipedia administrators can see this information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Access_to_deleted_pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Acces... says: Because many deleted articles are found to contain defamatory or other legally suspect material, deleted pages are not permitted to be generally viewed. However, they remain in the database (at least temporarily) and are accessible to administrators, along with their edit history unless they are oversighted. Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review (or simply ask an administrator to supply a copy of the page). Note that these requests are likely to be denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request.

ck2 16y ago

Is their budget public? I'd really like to see how you spend $16 million. Is there actually paid staff/benefits? Because $16M is more hardware/bandwidth than I can fathom.

citricsquid 16y ago
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Budget http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Budget PDF for 2011: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-1... (Page 24 for pie chart comparison) Summary: They want to expand, a lot, almost every sector has more than doubled in allocated budget from 09-10s budget
- ck2 16y ago
  Thanks! So they spent nearly $9M in salaries vs $2M for bandwidth, $1M in travel expenses, $2M in office rent/furniture/meetings https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Ffoundation%2Fd%2Fdd%2F2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&docid=a9195ac7cb3a86770a771ec7db3ac037&a=bi&pagenumber=44&w=972 https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikime... 2010 Wikipedia Spending, in USD, in thousands 8,972 Salaries and wages 1,837 Internet hosting 3,270 Capital expenditures 483 Donation processing fees, charitable registrations 2,274 External contractors 864 Travel for staff, Board, Advisory Board and volunteers 134 Wikimania Travel 155 Legal 1,273 Office rent, furniture and equipment, supplies and maintenance 813 Staff and volunteer meetings, conferences, training, workshops 325 New allocation for awards and grants supporting volunteer initiatives -------------------- $20,400K TOTAL (*$20M*) Direct link to pie chart as image (thanks to google) https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Ffoundation%2Fd%2Fdd%2F2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&docid=a9195ac7cb3a86770a771ec7db3ac037&a=bi&pagenumber=24&w=972 https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikime... and the whole document in html/images https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&pli=1 https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=http://u...

d2viant 16y ago

I've always thought Google should just buy them. If you're going to index the worlds information, this is a good start. Google has the resources and power to make sure it remains alive and well.

kmfrk 16y ago
Are you sure the owners would accept the offer? This allows Wikipedia to be truly free.
- corin_ 16y ago
  For the various reasons other people have commented, I can't see anyone ever trying to buy Wikipedia. However, in reply to your question: In many (I'd argue most) cases, people have a price. Hell, I'd bet that with enough billions you could bribe a hell of a lot of married couples to split up, yet alone someone to abandon their community spirit and sell a volunteer-run organisation. (Second paraphrase doesn't, however, top the first.)
sgt 16y ago
I tend to disagree due to future uncertainties. While Google may seem like the ultimate do-no-evil company at this moment, what will happen in 15, or even 30 years? If Google eventually "turns", it may lead to fragmentation of the Wikipedia project, and consequently a lack of focus. To me, Wikimedia (the foundation) seems like the type of foundation that will always keep a clear focus and maintain the core values of Wikipedia.
- JusticeJones 16y ago
  I'd hardly call Google the 'ultimate do-no-evil' company after they signed that anti-net-neutrality pact with Verizon last summer.
  - btilly 16y ago
    Funny, when Google and Verizon agree on a framework for net neutrality, everyone thinks they are being evil. When the FTC issues a ruling that looks almost exactly the same, everyone lauds them for their forward thinking stance. Can you explain what, exactly, you thought was so horrible about what Google and Verizon did?

kprobst 16y ago

I wasn't aware that not meeting that goal would result in slapping ads on articles. Also, Wikipedia itself was fully funded a while ago through next year, the foundation was trying to raise money for other projects and programs that aren't the encyclopedia itself.

checoivan 16y ago
Or raising for the future instead of waiting for the imminent to happen, running out of money, and act in desperation.
- kprobst 16y ago
  That would be a good idea, but they seem to do the same thing every year.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    Why change what works?
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      That's a pathology called "non event feedback", just because you've avoided catastrophe with risky behavior in the past doesn't mean that the risk doesn't exist, it just means you've gotten lucky. Why change wikimedia's method of fund raising and budgeting? Because wikipedia is a valuable resource and it would be far greater if we could ensure it remains available for reading and continued revision not just for the next year or the next decade but indefinitely. They've already raised enough money to have ensured that had they invested the money correctly. Instead, the money has been squandered on salaries for positions within the foundation which provide questionable value.
neilk 16y ago
> I wasn't aware that not meeting that goal would result in slapping ads on articles. Yeah, RWW says that in a couple of places, but I don't know why. I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation has ever implied that. (Disclaimer: I work there.) The slogan/hashtag was #keepitfree, but I don't think that implies a number. Anyway, if there had been a shortfall in community donations, the WMF would just have readjusted its budget, or sought more big-donor money. Ads on Wikipedia are not even a remote possibility. But we prefer to get everything from the readership in small donations. Big donations expose the projects to charges of bias, or require us to jump through various hoops that don't directly benefit the community. We'd rather be working for the community 100% of the time, rather than balancing the concerns of the community and people with deep pockets.

sdghjtykty 16y ago

●---------------------------------------● Happy New Year◎,◎appy shopping ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- ------- http://simurl.com/voblec http://simurl.com/voblec -------- Happy New Year◎,◎appy shopping ●---------------------------------------●

solipsist 16y ago

If someone was asked, "Would your rather use a website that has ads or one that has no ads?", they would most likely choose the latter. However, Wikipedia has shown the world something that no one would have expected; it seems as if most people would rather have the ads given the circumstances.

philipn 16y ago
Most people being commenters on HN? Or the 500,000 people who have donated to Wikipedia?
- Untitled 16y ago
  > Or the 500,000 people who have donated to Wikipedia? How many of those that donated thought that the advertisements would disappear after they gave money?
rb2k_ 16y ago
I think the problem for a lot of people is that "the website" doesn't seem to be where the majority of the money is going. There are grants, "External contractors", salaries, ... I personally think that most people would be happy if they just concentrated on keeping the site up and running. While they DO need a bit of workforce for that, they should stick to the "core" that is the website. p.s. I'm perfectly happy with another non-profit trying to make workshops, grants and other things, but I'd prefer there to be a "we're just the website" one too...

known 16y ago

Wiki is really worth $16 million.

carussell 16y ago
It's called Wikipedia, FYI.

corin_ 16y ago

I'm now seeing 'If everyone reading this donated £5, our fundraiser would be over today. Please donate to keep Wikipedia free.' banners. If they've already hit the target, presumably they must have already set a new target in order to make that statement?

gopi 16y ago

I don't understand why they are so adamant about ads... A small adsense block (with 2 text ads) will cover all their expenses and more. It will not be intrusive and useful to visitors in most situations (as their content is well suited for a contextual ad system like adsense)...Also there is precedence in non-profits doing this like firefox with their google search deal (which makes them $100 million or so a year)