4 ms·

I skimmed the article. People search google; it gives a paragraph from Wikipedia. That answers their question, and they go on their way; this has reduced the nu

I skimmed the article. People search google; it gives a paragraph from Wikipedia. That answers their question, and they go on their way; this has reduced the number of people that click on the link to see Wikipedia. I fail to see the problem. Wikipedia doesn't show ads, and isn't run for profit. If people get the tidbit of info they needed, they've been served. If they didn't click on Wikipedia to get it, that means Wikipedia saves money. This seems like a good thing to me.

ysavir 6y ago
And when fewer and fewer people are exposed to the donation banners/buttons on Wikipedia because they stop at the Google results page, how will Wikipedia keep running? It might be a non-profit, but donation banners _are_ ads, and denying Wikipedia its page views denies them donations in the same way it would deny other sites ad revenue.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  Wikimedia Foundation mission is: >The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. The mission is NOT "get as much donation money as possible" and donations should exist to support the mission not vice-versa. Google seems to be helping in their mission of disseminating information.
  - thayne 6y ago
    > Google seems to be helping in their mission of disseminating information except for when google takes something out of context, or combines two unrelated paragraphs to convey the wrong information.
  - ysavir 6y ago
    > The mission is NOT "get as much donation money as possible" No, it's not, but it should go without saying that accomplishing the mission includes keeping Wikipedia alive and functioning. It would hardly be accomplished if Wikemedia goes under, leaving Google, Bing, DDG, and other search engines to either use out-of-date information, or worse: update that information through questionable practices. I understand that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization. But that doesn't mean that they don't have costs that need to be paid, nor does it mean that they will celebrate shutting down and handing responsibility for their mission over to a for-profit company that has no concern for that mission. Wikipedia has costs and needs to raise money to cover those costs. Caching results on Google search pages may reduce some hosting expenses, but that's only a gain so long as the money saved in server costs is more than the money lost from disappearing donations. And an organization without consistent revenue (such as from selling a product or service) needs much more runway than an organization that can depend on sales to regularly replenish the bank account. Because when the Google and other search engines eliminate the last of Wikipedia's donations, the only factor in Wikipedia's lifespan is how much cash they have in their coffers. And the more donations they collect now, the longer the runway they will have.
    - nsajko 6y ago
      If Wikimedia never received another dollar again starting today, they could still operate their sites for many years by shedding unessential expenses. In case of WMF shutting down, Wikipedia's software and data wouldn't be gone, and clones could take its place.
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      Wikimedia raises an order of magnitude more funding than it needs to cover basic hosting and operating costs. Losing some of those funds to further it's mission seems very much a net gain for it's mission. >Wikipedia has costs and needs to raise money to cover those costs. Hosting cost Wikimedia $2 million last year. It raised $120 million. It spent more on fundraising than it did on hosting. >Because when the Google and other search engines eliminate the last of Wikipedia's donations People, amazingly, go to Wikipedia independent of search engines and only a fraction of Wikimedia donations go to hosting costs. Wikipedia can likely survive indefinitely on organic views and their donations.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
CobsterLock 6y ago
I feel like you might have missed the point of the article. They go into the example with weather.com, a for-profit website, that is also losing out on clicks. The general idea seems to be that google goes to the site on behalf of the user then doesn't serve the user ads (or in the case of wikipedia donation a donation banner).
- dawnerd 6y ago
  Google for sure is just using the weather.com api like everyone else is doing. They license it for android so it would seem insane they wouldn’t for web. Also every other search engine shows some form of zero click weather. Really bad example.
fillipvt 6y ago
Does the banner asking for donations count as ads? If we assume that, wouldn't this hurt their ability to keep their servers running?

ysavir 6y ago

And when fewer and fewer people are exposed to the donation banners/buttons on Wikipedia because they stop at the Google results page, how will Wikipedia keep running? It might be a non-profit, but donation banners _are_ ads, and denying Wikipedia its page views denies them donations in the same way it would deny other sites ad revenue.

marcinzm 6y ago
Wikimedia Foundation mission is: >The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. The mission is NOT "get as much donation money as possible" and donations should exist to support the mission not vice-versa. Google seems to be helping in their mission of disseminating information.
- thayne 6y ago
  > Google seems to be helping in their mission of disseminating information except for when google takes something out of context, or combines two unrelated paragraphs to convey the wrong information.
- ysavir 6y ago
  > The mission is NOT "get as much donation money as possible" No, it's not, but it should go without saying that accomplishing the mission includes keeping Wikipedia alive and functioning. It would hardly be accomplished if Wikemedia goes under, leaving Google, Bing, DDG, and other search engines to either use out-of-date information, or worse: update that information through questionable practices. I understand that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization. But that doesn't mean that they don't have costs that need to be paid, nor does it mean that they will celebrate shutting down and handing responsibility for their mission over to a for-profit company that has no concern for that mission. Wikipedia has costs and needs to raise money to cover those costs. Caching results on Google search pages may reduce some hosting expenses, but that's only a gain so long as the money saved in server costs is more than the money lost from disappearing donations. And an organization without consistent revenue (such as from selling a product or service) needs much more runway than an organization that can depend on sales to regularly replenish the bank account. Because when the Google and other search engines eliminate the last of Wikipedia's donations, the only factor in Wikipedia's lifespan is how much cash they have in their coffers. And the more donations they collect now, the longer the runway they will have.
  - nsajko 6y ago
    If Wikimedia never received another dollar again starting today, they could still operate their sites for many years by shedding unessential expenses. In case of WMF shutting down, Wikipedia's software and data wouldn't be gone, and clones could take its place.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    Wikimedia raises an order of magnitude more funding than it needs to cover basic hosting and operating costs. Losing some of those funds to further it's mission seems very much a net gain for it's mission. >Wikipedia has costs and needs to raise money to cover those costs. Hosting cost Wikimedia $2 million last year. It raised $120 million. It spent more on fundraising than it did on hosting. >Because when the Google and other search engines eliminate the last of Wikipedia's donations People, amazingly, go to Wikipedia independent of search engines and only a fraction of Wikimedia donations go to hosting costs. Wikipedia can likely survive indefinitely on organic views and their donations.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

CobsterLock 6y ago

I feel like you might have missed the point of the article. They go into the example with weather.com, a for-profit website, that is also losing out on clicks. The general idea seems to be that google goes to the site on behalf of the user then doesn't serve the user ads (or in the case of wikipedia donation a donation banner).

dawnerd 6y ago
Google for sure is just using the weather.com api like everyone else is doing. They license it for android so it would seem insane they wouldn’t for web. Also every other search engine shows some form of zero click weather. Really bad example.

fillipvt 6y ago

Does the banner asking for donations count as ads? If we assume that, wouldn't this hurt their ability to keep their servers running?