6 ms·

I just wish Wikipedia would find a self-sustaining model that didn't rely on perpetual annual donations. I'm not proposing a for-profit company, but I am propo

I just wish Wikipedia would find a self-sustaining model that didn't rely on perpetual annual donations. I'm not proposing a for-profit company, but I am proposing finding a non-compromising way to make just enough revenue to keep it going sustainably while remaining neutral. PS I donated to Wikimedia last year, so I'm willing to contribute until the project finds a more sustainable model.

fallentimes 17y ago
I am proposing finding a non-compromising way to make just enough revenue to keep it going sustainably while remaining neutral. Monetization, non-compromosing and neutral have trouble playing nice with each other.
- spydez 17y ago
  I knew of one non-profit that lived off interest, basically. For every million dollars they raise, they can afford to hire one more worker or do X more things, based off the interest that money makes sitting in a bank. It seems like a good way to go, if you can just raise the millions needed. Maybe some billionaire can set Wikipedia up with a trust fund...
  - fallentimes 17y ago
    How do they deal with interest rate fluctuations?
    - ars 17y ago
      You buy long term (5-10 years) CD's. You know your expenses pretty well, so it's easy to plan it that far ahead. Or coupon bonds, which pay interest regularly with a fixed amount and on a fixed schedule (set at purchase time for as long as 30 years). Slightly more risky since they are not FDIC insured, but if you hold to maturity you have zero risk due to market fluctuations, only a risk of the firm going bankrupt totally.
  - ddemchuk 17y ago
    That would be a pretty massive trust fund to pay for all of the server space + bandwidth they need in addition to their staff
- ars 17y ago
  Google offered to host them for free, without ads. They turned them down. I guess that's where the non-compromising comes in - despite google offering to be totally hands off, just free hosting.
jasongullickson 17y ago
"I'm not proposing a for-profit company, but I am proposing finding a non-compromising way to make just enough revenue to keep it going sustainably while remaining neutral." If you're proposing, let's hear the proposal...
- brfox 17y ago
  Clearly labeled sponsored links (text ads) at the bottom of a few heavily used pages.
JesseAldridge 17y ago
It's a public good and should therefore be funded by the government. Note that government funded does not mean government run.
- mhansen 17y ago
  Neutrality will suffer under that small conflict of interest
  - JesseAldridge 17y ago
    Yes, just like neutrality has suffered for PBS. http://www.pbs.org/roperpoll2009/ http://www.pbs.org/roperpoll2009/ Oh, wait... "PBS remains the network with the most trusted news and public affairs programs, with 43% trusting its programs a “great deal.” CNN came in second with 28% and FOX News third at 27%."
tptacek 17y ago
It works for NPR. Why not for WP?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
teeja 17y ago
Wikipedia can never work, it's a socialist experiment. ;->
- lupin_sansei 17y ago
  It would only be socialist if the state ran it.
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    Quite right - that's one of the biggest mistakes people make thinking politically. Socialism and Communism aren't bad because they're ostensibly about sharing, cooperation, or being nice. They're bad because they're run by the government, who arrests or executes its citizens if they decline to participate in the government-run activity. If you've ever shared a refridgerator with multiple people pitching in to fill it with groceries, you've been part of a "commune" (lower case), which can be fine and great thing. It's when people aren't allowed to decline to participate in the commune without being arrested or shot that there's problems.
    - lupin_sansei 17y ago
      Yes what makes socialism/communism authoritarian is that it's almost always non-voluntary (ie they make you join the collective or else). Exceptions to this are Kubbitzes (sp?) and small voluntary communes, which have their own problems but at least you can leave them!

fallentimes 17y ago

I am proposing finding a non-compromising way to make just enough revenue to keep it going sustainably while remaining neutral. Monetization, non-compromosing and neutral have trouble playing nice with each other.

spydez 17y ago
I knew of one non-profit that lived off interest, basically. For every million dollars they raise, they can afford to hire one more worker or do X more things, based off the interest that money makes sitting in a bank. It seems like a good way to go, if you can just raise the millions needed. Maybe some billionaire can set Wikipedia up with a trust fund...
- fallentimes 17y ago
  How do they deal with interest rate fluctuations?
  - ars 17y ago
    You buy long term (5-10 years) CD's. You know your expenses pretty well, so it's easy to plan it that far ahead. Or coupon bonds, which pay interest regularly with a fixed amount and on a fixed schedule (set at purchase time for as long as 30 years). Slightly more risky since they are not FDIC insured, but if you hold to maturity you have zero risk due to market fluctuations, only a risk of the firm going bankrupt totally.
- ddemchuk 17y ago
  That would be a pretty massive trust fund to pay for all of the server space + bandwidth they need in addition to their staff
ars 17y ago
Google offered to host them for free, without ads. They turned them down. I guess that's where the non-compromising comes in - despite google offering to be totally hands off, just free hosting.

jasongullickson 17y ago

"I'm not proposing a for-profit company, but I am proposing finding a non-compromising way to make just enough revenue to keep it going sustainably while remaining neutral." If you're proposing, let's hear the proposal...

brfox 17y ago
Clearly labeled sponsored links (text ads) at the bottom of a few heavily used pages.

JesseAldridge 17y ago

It's a public good and should therefore be funded by the government. Note that government funded does not mean government run.

mhansen 17y ago
Neutrality will suffer under that small conflict of interest
- JesseAldridge 17y ago
  Yes, just like neutrality has suffered for PBS. http://www.pbs.org/roperpoll2009/ http://www.pbs.org/roperpoll2009/ Oh, wait... "PBS remains the network with the most trusted news and public affairs programs, with 43% trusting its programs a “great deal.” CNN came in second with 28% and FOX News third at 27%."

tptacek 17y ago

It works for NPR. Why not for WP?

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

teeja 17y ago

Wikipedia can never work, it's a socialist experiment. ;->

lupin_sansei 17y ago
It would only be socialist if the state ran it.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  Quite right - that's one of the biggest mistakes people make thinking politically. Socialism and Communism aren't bad because they're ostensibly about sharing, cooperation, or being nice. They're bad because they're run by the government, who arrests or executes its citizens if they decline to participate in the government-run activity. If you've ever shared a refridgerator with multiple people pitching in to fill it with groceries, you've been part of a "commune" (lower case), which can be fine and great thing. It's when people aren't allowed to decline to participate in the commune without being arrested or shot that there's problems.
  - lupin_sansei 17y ago
    Yes what makes socialism/communism authoritarian is that it's almost always non-voluntary (ie they make you join the collective or else). Exceptions to this are Kubbitzes (sp?) and small voluntary communes, which have their own problems but at least you can leave them!