3 ms·
In my experience the rate of flattr donations is not very bursty month over month. Even before they allowed to subscribe to continue re-flattring a Thing each m
by joeyh 16y ago
In my experience the rate of flattr donations is not very bursty month over month. Even before they allowed to subscribe to continue re-flattring a Thing each month.
And of course I have lower volumes than wikipedia would, so I'd expect it would average out even more for them. :)
One thing is for sure: If Wikipedia managed to handle their funding through Flattr, Flattr itself would be making a killing with their 10% cut.
- gwern 16y ago> One thing is for sure: If Wikipedia managed to handle their funding through Flattr, Flattr itself would be making a killing with their 10% cut. A serious issue and a major downside from the perspective of Wikipedia, since people still worry about community effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre_Universal_en_Espa%C3%B1ol#Reasons_for_the_split http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre_Universal_en... Of course, there have been large-scale collaborations that have worked out before, so it's not impossible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Wikipedia#Off-line_publication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Wikipedia#Off-line_publi...
- ErrantX 16y agoWell. I was mostly basing the fits and spurts thought on how we tend to get traffic on Wikipedia. Activity and visitor counts do vary wildly; and, of course, one would assume that suddenly high profile news stories would bring in a spike of traffic and possibly donations. I'm not convinced that uptake would be widespread enough, though, to get enough people to contribute. The big ad-banner prompt is a "once a year" prompt, something that exists all the time I reckon would have less impact.