What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Has anybody contributed to Wikipedia's shameless requests for (1 Viewer)

No, because the whole point of their existence was to provide information for free. If they can't do that, then they should admit failure and let someone else take over.

 
I don't mind a pledge drive. A got some nice stuff from PBS pledge drives back in the day. I got a mug and a nice scarf.

 
It makes no sense

Volunteers write all the articles

Volunteers fund the website

wtf are they doing?

I get mildly offended when I see the handout request on Wikipedia.

 
Hey, I've got a great idea for a website, let's get a bunch of people to work for us for free and to pay us to work there.

:kicksrock:

 
I dropped a fiver. The only time I have ever donated money because I use the site on a regular basis.

I almost never meet kids with cancer.

 
I've kicked in $10 each of the last 3 years. Wikipedia is in my top 5 sites used...much the same way I'll kick in $ for a FBG subscription, if I use it that much, it's the least I can do.

I hear what Joe T is saying, but nothing is "free." Somebody has to put the money up...in this case, they ask for donations. Even if the site is user-written, and we fund it, somebody's got to keep the servers up, proof-edit articles, etc.

 
Joe T said:
MC Gas Money said:
Joe T said:
Hey, I've got a great idea for a website, let's get a bunch of people to work for us for free and to pay us to work there.

:kicksrock:
Click to expand...
How much content do FB or twitter contribute to their own product?

They are a conduit of information.
Click to expand...
Let me know the next time FB or twitter posts a big banner at the top of every page asking for a donation.
Click to expand...
FB is borderline unusable b/c of all the ads these days, which is essentially the same thing...they're just getting funding from advertisers in exchange for showing you crap you don't want. At least Wiki keeps themselves ad-free outside of their fund drive. I'd probably throw FB $10 if they'd quit with the ads and be non-profit too.

 
Joe T said:
MC Gas Money said:
Joe T said:
Hey, I've got a great idea for a website, let's get a bunch of people to work for us for free and to pay us to work there.

:kicksrock:
Click to expand...
How much content do FB or twitter contribute to their own product?They are a conduit of information.
Click to expand...
Let me know the next time FB or twitter posts a big banner at the top of every page asking for a donation.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia doesnt make any profits from ads or the NSA like FB and twitter so how is running a donation drive being greedy? How much is wikipedia stock trading for?

 
Fat Nick said:
I've kicked in $10 each of the last 3 years. Wikipedia is in my top 5 sites used...much the same way I'll kick in $ for a FBG subscription, if I use it that much, it's the least I can do.

I hear what Joe T is saying, but nothing is "free." Somebody has to put the money up...in this case, they ask for donations. Even if the site is user-written, and we fund it, somebody's got to keep the servers up, proof-edit articles, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the site is worth billions of dollars which value was 99.9% created by volunteers. It seems insulting to then ask for donations when volunteers already created that much value.

"Hey, I know you guys have already created billions of dollars of value for us, but can you at least spare a little pocket change so we can keep this thing going?"

WTF

 
Joe T said:
Fat Nick said:
I've kicked in $10 each of the last 3 years. Wikipedia is in my top 5 sites used...much the same way I'll kick in $ for a FBG subscription, if I use it that much, it's the least I can do.

I hear what Joe T is saying, but nothing is "free." Somebody has to put the money up...in this case, they ask for donations. Even if the site is user-written, and we fund it, somebody's got to keep the servers up, proof-edit articles, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the site is worth billions of dollars which value was 99.9% created by volunteers. It seems insulting to then ask for donations when volunteers already created that much value.

"Hey, I know you guys have already created billions of dollars of value for us, but can you at least spare a little pocket change so we can keep this thing going?"

WTF
Click to expand...
How do you propose they pay the bills with that "value?" It's non-liquid value. It's not like they can "sell" the page on gastric bypass surgery to fund their bandwidth.

 
Fat Nick said:
Joe T said:
Fat Nick said:
I've kicked in $10 each of the last 3 years. Wikipedia is in my top 5 sites used...much the same way I'll kick in $ for a FBG subscription, if I use it that much, it's the least I can do.

I hear what Joe T is saying, but nothing is "free." Somebody has to put the money up...in this case, they ask for donations. Even if the site is user-written, and we fund it, somebody's got to keep the servers up, proof-edit articles, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the site is worth billions of dollars which value was 99.9% created by volunteers. It seems insulting to then ask for donations when volunteers already created that much value.

"Hey, I know you guys have already created billions of dollars of value for us, but can you at least spare a little pocket change so we can keep this thing going?"

WTF
Click to expand...
How do you propose they pay the bills with that "value?" It's non-liquid value. It's not like they can "sell" the page on gastric bypass surgery to fund their bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Selling a 1% stake in the business would keep them going for years it seems.

 
Fat Nick said:
Joe T said:
Fat Nick said:
I've kicked in $10 each of the last 3 years. Wikipedia is in my top 5 sites used...much the same way I'll kick in $ for a FBG subscription, if I use it that much, it's the least I can do.

I hear what Joe T is saying, but nothing is "free." Somebody has to put the money up...in this case, they ask for donations. Even if the site is user-written, and we fund it, somebody's got to keep the servers up, proof-edit articles, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the site is worth billions of dollars which value was 99.9% created by volunteers. It seems insulting to then ask for donations when volunteers already created that much value.

"Hey, I know you guys have already created billions of dollars of value for us, but can you at least spare a little pocket change so we can keep this thing going?"

WTF
Click to expand...
How do you propose they pay the bills with that "value?" It's non-liquid value. It's not like they can "sell" the page on gastric bypass surgery to fund their bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Its like saying we shouldnt pay for a pool membership because we are the ones filling it with our own pee.

 
Joe T said:
It makes no sense

Volunteers write all the articles

Volunteers fund the website

wtf are they doing?

I get mildly offended when I see the handout request on Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
So you're ok with volunteers funding the website.

But against them asking for volunteers to fund the website.

 
Joe T said:
Fat Nick said:
Joe T said:
Fat Nick said:
I've kicked in $10 each of the last 3 years. Wikipedia is in my top 5 sites used...much the same way I'll kick in $ for a FBG subscription, if I use it that much, it's the least I can do.

I hear what Joe T is saying, but nothing is "free." Somebody has to put the money up...in this case, they ask for donations. Even if the site is user-written, and we fund it, somebody's got to keep the servers up, proof-edit articles, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the site is worth billions of dollars which value was 99.9% created by volunteers. It seems insulting to then ask for donations when volunteers already created that much value.

"Hey, I know you guys have already created billions of dollars of value for us, but can you at least spare a little pocket change so we can keep this thing going?"

WTF
Click to expand...
How do you propose they pay the bills with that "value?" It's non-liquid value. It's not like they can "sell" the page on gastric bypass surgery to fund their bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Selling a 1% stake in the business would keep them going for years it seems.
Click to expand...
What business?

They are PBS of the internet.

 
Joe T said:
Fat Nick said:
Joe T said:
Fat Nick said:
I've kicked in $10 each of the last 3 years. Wikipedia is in my top 5 sites used...much the same way I'll kick in $ for a FBG subscription, if I use it that much, it's the least I can do.

I hear what Joe T is saying, but nothing is "free." Somebody has to put the money up...in this case, they ask for donations. Even if the site is user-written, and we fund it, somebody's got to keep the servers up, proof-edit articles, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the site is worth billions of dollars which value was 99.9% created by volunteers. It seems insulting to then ask for donations when volunteers already created that much value.

"Hey, I know you guys have already created billions of dollars of value for us, but can you at least spare a little pocket change so we can keep this thing going?"

WTF
Click to expand...
How do you propose they pay the bills with that "value?" It's non-liquid value. It's not like they can "sell" the page on gastric bypass surgery to fund their bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Selling a 1% stake in the business would keep them going for years it seems.
Click to expand...
Which I think goes back to your initial point of valuation...This "value" of "billions of dollars," came from where? I'm not sure how you value a company with $0 in earnings. As per the Wiki foundation plan, they project $58.5M in revenue, and $58.5M in expenses. There is no plan (because it's not their business model) to monetize this "value."

Valuations for investors are typically based on discounted cash flow, which is essentially zero to them. They are essentially worthless given their current business model....the information is invalueable, but it's worthless unless they somehow find a way to monetize it.

 
Fat Nick said:
Valuations for investors are typically based on discounted cash flow, which is essentially zero to them. They are essentially worthless given their current business model....the information is invalueable, but it's worthless unless they somehow find a way to monetize it.
Click to expand...
Not for websites.

 
Fat Nick said:
Joe T said:
Fat Nick said:
Joe T said:
Fat Nick said:
I've kicked in $10 each of the last 3 years. Wikipedia is in my top 5 sites used...much the same way I'll kick in $ for a FBG subscription, if I use it that much, it's the least I can do.

I hear what Joe T is saying, but nothing is "free." Somebody has to put the money up...in this case, they ask for donations. Even if the site is user-written, and we fund it, somebody's got to keep the servers up, proof-edit articles, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the site is worth billions of dollars which value was 99.9% created by volunteers. It seems insulting to then ask for donations when volunteers already created that much value.

"Hey, I know you guys have already created billions of dollars of value for us, but can you at least spare a little pocket change so we can keep this thing going?"

WTF
Click to expand...
How do you propose they pay the bills with that "value?" It's non-liquid value. It's not like they can "sell" the page on gastric bypass surgery to fund their bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Selling a 1% stake in the business would keep them going for years it seems.
Click to expand...
Which I think goes back to your initial point of valuation...This "value" of "billions of dollars," came from where? I'm not sure how you value a company with $0 in earnings. As per the Wiki foundation plan, they project $58.5M in revenue, and $58.5M in expenses. There is no plan (because it's not their business model) to monetize this "value."

Valuations for investors are typically based on discounted cash flow, which is essentially zero to them. They are essentially worthless given their current business model....the information is invalueable, but it's worthless unless they somehow find a way to monetize it.
Click to expand...
Agreed, Wikipedia is pretty much the last place on the innerwebs without ads and it would be great to keep it that way.

 
Joe T said:
Fat Nick said:
Valuations for investors are typically based on discounted cash flow, which is essentially zero to them. They are essentially worthless given their current business model....the information is invalueable, but it's worthless unless they somehow find a way to monetize it.
Click to expand...
Not for websites.
Click to expand...
OK...not for websites with plans to monetize their information in the future...of which Wiki has none because it is a non-profit. There is a reason why there aren't publically traded non-profits.

I just thought about this...no...All valuation driven investments are based on some expectation of future earnings unless someone is being altrusitc or just wants to throw money around to own something. Without earnings, there is no way to earn a return on investment. I'm guessing you're thinking of Facebook and some of the other early .coms that either went public or at a minimum were "valued" before they turned any kind of a profit. Their value was based on the projected future cash flow. Facebook was valued based on how they would monetize a user, whether it was via ad money or the market research value of the data they could gain.

If Wikipedia ever said, "We plan to sell ads," or "we plan to start charging for access to our information," then you could value them...if anything the fact that they have to ask for donations should show that these aren't options they are considering.

From Wikimedia's Foundation Plan:

The Wikimedia Foundation is a global non-profit that provides free, uncensored knowledge for people

all over the world in hundreds of languages, operating in the context of an international network of

volunteer writers and editors. Technology is the primary means by which we achieve our mission: our

product is a set of websites.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe T said:
Fat Nick said:
Joe T said:
Fat Nick said:
I've kicked in $10 each of the last 3 years. Wikipedia is in my top 5 sites used...much the same way I'll kick in $ for a FBG subscription, if I use it that much, it's the least I can do.

I hear what Joe T is saying, but nothing is "free." Somebody has to put the money up...in this case, they ask for donations. Even if the site is user-written, and we fund it, somebody's got to keep the servers up, proof-edit articles, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the site is worth billions of dollars which value was 99.9% created by volunteers. It seems insulting to then ask for donations when volunteers already created that much value.

"Hey, I know you guys have already created billions of dollars of value for us, but can you at least spare a little pocket change so we can keep this thing going?"

WTF
Click to expand...
How do you propose they pay the bills with that "value?" It's non-liquid value. It's not like they can "sell" the page on gastric bypass surgery to fund their bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Selling a 1% stake in the business would keep them going for years it seems.
Click to expand...
It's a non-profit organization. They are not a business. They do not generate profit. How do you sell a share in a non-profit organization? Who would "invest" in an organization that by it's very nature can never generate a return on that investment?

 
This_Guy said:
It's a non-profit organization. They are not a business. They do not generate profit. How do you sell a share in a non-profit organization? Who would "invest" in an organization that by it's very nature can never generate a return on that investment?
Click to expand...
Easy.

HTH

 
Joe T said:
This_Guy said:
It's a non-profit organization. They are not a business. They do not generate profit. How do you sell a share in a non-profit organization? Who would "invest" in an organization that by it's very nature can never generate a return on that investment?
Click to expand...
Easy.

HTH
Click to expand...
I can google old articles too.

You should read this and tell me if there's anything in there that makes you think Wikimedia ever intends to make Wikipedia for-profit...Sure, you can make a non-profit profitable by changing goals and objectives and corporate structure, but I could say the same thing about the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, and every other non-profit out there.

 
Fat Nick said:
Joe T said:
This_Guy said:
It's a non-profit organization. They are not a business. They do not generate profit. How do you sell a share in a non-profit organization? Who would "invest" in an organization that by it's very nature can never generate a return on that investment?
Click to expand...
Easy.

HTH
Click to expand...
I can google old articles too.

You should read this and tell me if there's anything in there that makes you think Wikimedia ever intends to make Wikipedia for-profit...Sure, you can make a non-profit profitable by changing goals and objectives and corporate structure, but I could say the same thing about the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, and every other non-profit out there.
Click to expand...
Could you say the same thing about the NFL?

 
If Wikipedia wanted to structure their business in a way that could take on investors, it could. That is really the bottom line. It is in the realm of possibilities that they built this website with no intent of ever earning a penny from it, but I am pretty skeptical.

 
Joe T said:
If Wikipedia wanted to structure their business in a way that could take on investors, it could. That is really the bottom line. It is in the realm of possibilities that they built this website with no intent of ever earning a penny from it, but I am pretty skeptical.
Click to expand...
If they got investors, the investors would ruin it. That's the best reason to donate to the cause.

 
DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS: This week we ask our readers to help us. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We survive on donations averaging about $15. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. Yep, that’s about the price of buying a programmer a coffee. We’re a small non-profit with costs of a top website: servers, staff and programs. Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park where we can all go to think and learn. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online and ad-free another year.Thank you.
Click to expand...
 
Joe T said:
This_Guy said:
It's a non-profit organization. They are not a business. They do not generate profit. How do you sell a share in a non-profit organization? Who would "invest" in an organization that by it's very nature can never generate a return on that investment?
Click to expand...
Easy.

HTH
Click to expand...
That's just the thing though. Their mission vision and value are in direct conflict conflict with those of a for profit business. Of course they could be a for profit business, but that isn't what they are.

Additionally it seems strange to make the argument "These guys shouldn't place advertisements asking for donations in a very rare and limited capacity, they should be charging for advertisements that run frequently on their highly visited website."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This_Guy said:
Joe T said:
This_Guy said:
It's a non-profit organization. They are not a business. They do not generate profit. How do you sell a share in a non-profit organization? Who would "invest" in an organization that by it's very nature can never generate a return on that investment?
Click to expand...
Easy.

HTH
Click to expand...
That's just the thing though. Their mission vision and value are in direct conflict conflict with those of a for profit business. Of course they could be a for profit business, but that isn't what they are.

Additionally it seems strange to make the argument "These guys shouldn't place advertisements asking for donations in a very rare and limited capacity, they should be charging for advertisements that run frequently on their highly visited website."
Click to expand...
Agree, good thing no one recommended this.

 
I've donated many gigabytes of my wisdom to their site over the years, never any cash though. Most of their pages about the Far East were written by me.

 
SacramentoBob said:
Joe T said:
It makes no sense

Volunteers write all the articles

Volunteers fund the website

wtf are they doing?

I get mildly offended when I see the handout request on Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
The hosting costs money.
Click to expand...
If you look at the wikimedia 2013 financial statement, salaries and wages were the biggest component of their expenses (about 20M), followed by "Other operating expenses" (about 12.5M). Hosting costs were about 2.5M. It's widely rumored that they're spending a ton of their money on development of software, and the bulk of the salaries are going to developers for that software.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
McGarnicle said:
I've donated many gigabytes of my wisdom to their site over the years, never any cash though. Most of their pages about the Far East were written by me.
Click to expand...
I've donated a few gigabytes of misinformation, mostly about people I know IRL who are listed in there. :lol:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

STEADYMOBBIN 22
Stoicism - anybody else?
Replies
33
Views
784
Terminalxylem
Terminalxylem
timschochet
Taking requests for another music list countdown
Replies
35
Views
707
krista4
krista4
playin4beer
Any real estate experts in the house?
Replies
11
Views
444
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top