Looks like the most recent donation drive just ended. I’m still thinking about it, though.
On one hand, it’s the most complete general database in the world, and it’s been invaluable to me on numerous subjects. On the other hand…a lot of it is inaccurate. And the idea of giving money to a site anyone can edit is tough to justify.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m 100% in favor of paying websites that deserve to get paid. But a website run by one person is a much simpler matter than a massive global database. (Then there’s the issue of, shall we say, underpaid contributors, raised by Ted Rall, someone’s who’s been right on a lot of things.)
It boils down to do you use it or not? If you are using it, even with it’s obvious flaws, you must be getting some value from it. Even if it’s just entertainment value.
So if you can afford it, and you use it regularly, you should donate. It’s costing someone something to keep it going…
If you can’t afford it, or rarely use it, then I would say no.
You’re not paying for the content, you’re paying for the hosting.
Wikipedia is run by a non-profit and their revenue goes towards keeping the site available for people (without advertisement), overhead, etc.
You’re basically donating to a cause, and that is “free, high-quality information for everyone”. I challenge you to find a better general-purpose reference source than Wikipedia, and if you do, please let me know so I can switch to it too.
Until then, it’s a very useful part of the internet and no doubt expensive to run, so if you have money to spare, why not?
Personally, I wish they’d just accept ads and stop begging, but I still donate once in a while.
I assume you’re talking about Jimbo, and why would anyone give a crap what he thinks anyway? Wouldn’t the central question be about support for the project, not Jimbo’s personal beliefs?
This. I was feeling sorry for the puppy-eyed personal appeals that were showing up at the top of every article. I thought they were on the brink of bankruptcy. Then I heard that this recent fund raiser was a record-breaker.
On one hand, if you use it it seems fair to pay for it. However, in the interest of making sure the truth is known:
Their fundraising pitch, which implies that they’re strapped for cash, is dishonest. They are not short of funds and have not been for a long time; they’re swimming in money.
The money you donate is not going to Wikipedia, it is going to the Wikimedia Project, which spends it on a lot of stuff besides Wikipedia. Scroll to the bottom of the Wikipedia front page.
Is this true? I’m interested because last I looked them up it seemed like their staff was quite small and I can only assume hosting for something like this costs quite a few pennies.
Uh . . . you mean my money is also going to Wiktionary and Wikiquote and the Wikimedia Commons?! I’m outraged! OUTRAGED.
Jimmy Wales is a Randian. One of the basics of Randian philosophy is that altruism is evil. You can give money to causes, but only if it personally benefits you to do so. Seeing as Wikipedia will exist even though I don’t contribute to it, it would be evil for me to deny my own self interest and pay.
And, no, when they start showing “ads” about how great the founder is, it no longer is just about the project. And, anyways, the project is not without problems. While I want Wikipedia to stick around, I would also like there to be some impetus to shake things up. The project is rather stagnated, and long term rulebreakers are often coddled to the point that they are allowed to make the place hostile to new editors.
As of June 30, 2011, Wikipedia had $12 million in cash on hand thanks, in part, to donations of $23 million in fiscal year 2011. Wikipedia’s hosting costs were just shy of $2 million. The salaries of their employees came out to $7.3 million in fiscal year 2011 (they currently employ 103 people along with a ten person Board of Trustees).
They’re swimming in money. Any fundraising they do this year is just fattening the pot. They haven’t “needed” your money for a long time.
Here’s there complete financial report for the year:
Wikipedia is a message board–an entertaining and sometimes informative message board, but that’s all it is. I have gotten more useful information right here than I have on Wikipedia, and I can ask people *here *to cite their sources.
I don’t think you understand what a message board is if you think Wikipedia is one. You also seem unaware that the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are extensively cited.
There is no general purpose reference source better than Wikipedia.
I don’t quite understand those reports enough. Am I wrong in believing that their reserves would allow them to run their projects 1-2 more years without additional funding?
I thought the majority of their revenue comes from fundraising (whether it’s to individual donors or organizations). They can’t exactly sit around and have their revenue increase through, say, product sales, can they?
That is, not until they start accepting ads.
Using that definition, it’s just a bigger SDMB with more curating and summarizing. Neither is primary source, but both are useful. I’d say Wikipedia is more general-purpose resource, whereas the SDMB gives you better answers… but only when the threads are participated in enough. The same is true of Wikipedia to some extent, but there’s just far more people there (qualified or not).
Indeed. Whenever I create a Wikipedia article from scratch, I always make sure to have at least six references in the very first version to meet the “notability” requirements. I’m working on an article right now that I intend to take to Featured Article status, and the first of three books that I have bought so far as reference works arrived this morning.
Indeed. For a cite, here is a news report from 2005 about Nature surveying a panel of experts on a wide range of topics and found fewer errors in Wikipedia than in Britannica.
Uh, I doubt he is. A lot of Wikipedia articles have a lot of print citations. Obviously there are a fair few editors who spend a lot of effort on finding reliable sources.
Why do you think he would be? I’ve created a few articles and I always try to find good published cites for them. I usually go to a library or use my own books, but I do seek good reputable sources.