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

[This_Guy]

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?

Easy.

HTH

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."

Agree, good thing no one recommended this.

How are you suggesting they generate revenue?

 

[jhib]

We’ll get right to it: This week we ask you to help Wikipedia.

I've got nothing against them asking, but it's been a long week.

 

[rockaction]

Where did pittstown go? I liked that dude.

 

[Joe Summer]

Wikipedia is a paradox and a miracle a crowdsourced encyclopedia that has become the default destination for nonessential information. That it has survived almost 15 years and remained the top Google result for a vast number of searches is a testament to the impressive vision of founder Jimmy Wales and the devotion of its tens of thousands of volunteer editors. But beneath its reasonably serene surface, the website can be as ugly and bitter as 4chan and as mind-numbingly bureaucratic as a Kafka story. And it can be particularly unwelcoming to women.

link

 

[jhib]

Wikipedia is a paradox and a miracle a crowdsourced encyclopedia that has become the default destination for nonessential information. That it has survived almost 15 years and remained the top Google result for a vast number of searches is a testament to the impressive vision of founder Jimmy Wales and the devotion of its tens of thousands of volunteer editors. But beneath its reasonably serene surface, the website can be as ugly and bitter as 4chan and as mind-numbingly bureaucratic as a Kafka story. And it can be particularly unwelcoming to women.

link

I worked with this teen with Asperger's for a little bit a year or so ago, and one of the things he found great pleasure in doing was editing (vandalizing) Wikipedia pages in ways he found hilarious. Things like wiping out the entry for 'Death' and replacing it with something like, "We regret to inform you that this article died on November 12, 2013." He would get a kick out of telling me what he did and I would discourage him but laugh inside at some of the clever things he wrote. I think the articles would automatically revert back pretty quickly.

Anyway, the serious business related in that article made me think of him and laugh.

 

[rockaction]

Wikipedia is a paradox and a miracle a crowdsourced encyclopedia that has become the default destination for nonessential information. That it has survived almost 15 years and remained the top Google result for a vast number of searches is a testament to the impressive vision of founder Jimmy Wales and the devotion of its tens of thousands of volunteer editors. But beneath its reasonably serene surface, the website can be as ugly and bitter as 4chan and as mind-numbingly bureaucratic as a Kafka story. And it can be particularly unwelcoming to women.

link

I worked with this teen with Asperger's for a little bit a year or so ago, and one of the things he found great pleasure in doing was editing (vandalizing) Wikipedia pages in ways he found hilarious. Things like wiping out the entry for 'Death' and replacing it with something like, "We regret to inform you that this article died on November 12, 2013." He would get a kick out of telling me what he did and I would discourage him but laugh inside at some of the clever things he wrote. I think the articles would automatically revert back pretty quickly.

Anyway, the serious business related in that article made me think of him and laugh.

 

[Fat Nick]

We’ll get right to it: This week we ask you to help Wikipedia.

I've got nothing against them asking, but it's been a long week.

If we all just gave the first week they asked, they'd be done by now...sheesh.

 

[parasaurolophus]

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.

Love the site. Kick in ten bucks a year. Figure if I can spend over 240 bucks for you to get your cousin to ship me some beer I can spend ten on a site I us a couple times a week.

 

[Fat Nick]

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.

Love the site. Kick in ten bucks a year. Figure if I can spend over 240 bucks for you to get your cousin to ship me some beer I can spend ten on a site I us a couple times a week.

Try not to think of the cost...think of the level of enjoyment.

Applicable to both wiki and beer.

 

[Mr. Ected]

Non-profit is a bad term. Tax-Exempt is better. They are allowed to make profits.

The basic principle is that they do not pay taxes on profits like a normal organization because they are required to roll any profit back into the organization rather than returning them to their investors.

 

[SacramentoBob]

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.

The hosting costs money.

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.

Yeah, the type of stuff sites like Netflix, Facebook and Wikipedia are doing on the back end aren't cheap.