Is Wikipedia going broke? - Play Things

Is Wikipedia going broke?

Sidin Vadukut - Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:44 PM

Perhaps I am over-reacting but is Wikipedia the next in line for a bailout?

Wiki-users on the site today may have noticed the large-fonted banner on top asking you to click through to read a message by founder Jimmy Wales:

 

 

 

 

 

And the message is below:

While the site always has a call for donations plastered on top, this letter from Wales is a recent development. Sign of the times? Wales has this to say:

Your donation helps us in several ways. Most importantly, you will help us cover the increasing cost of managing global traffic to one of the most popular websites on the Internet. Funds also help us improve the software that runs Wikipedia -- making it easier to search, easier to read, and easier to write for. We are committed to growing the free knowledge movement world-wide, by recruiting new volunteers, and building strategic partnerships with institutions of culture and learning.

As far as I am concerned life without Wikipedia is unimaginable. Where else can I find information about unusual deaths or the Icelandic Phallological Museum?

Not to mention the hordes of journalists who will now have to actually start reporting.

If you have a little dough lying around you will give it to Wikipedia won't you?

P.s. The banner doesn't appear all the time. There seems to be some for randomization / cookie based display at work here.

Share this post: email it! | del.icio.us! | digg it! | newsVine!
Tagged in: ,
12 Comment

From Ramanathan S

December 23, 2008 6:55 PM
I have been a dieheard wiki-er for the past several years. Even though the foundation is not for profit, it employs several people who keep the site ticking on. Costs are mounting (check their balance sheet that is public) Generally, the appeal for donations appear at the end of the year, appealling to the "sharing" spirit which is part of every christmas season. I agree Jimmy has kept away from any personal exhortations in the past, and considering the fact that large corporate donors are shying away from giving big money (that characterised last year fund raise), this year they would have changed tack and approached the common people. I have one point, if you go through the trends, a large part of the user community is indian, you would have thought the foundation would offer a facility for indians to directly contribute in Rs. instead of choosing the USD or other such foreign currency.

From dan grand

December 24, 2008 12:20 AM
Why does wikipedia stop being stupid and sell out to online advertising and IPO at $150/share of their stock?

From HAHAHAHAHAH!

December 24, 2008 3:11 AM
OH GOD I HOPE THIS SITE GOES BROKE!!!! IT IS RUN BY A BUNCH OF IGNORANT MODERATORS!!!

From Joe

December 24, 2008 9:15 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAH is right... Wikipeida has so many systemic flaws that the only solution is to let the project die. Some of the problems are outlined below: 1. Wikipedia contains incorrect, misleading, and biased information. Whether through vandalism, subtle disinformation, or the prolonged battling over biased accounts, many of Wikipedia’s articles are unsuitable for scholarly use. Because of poor standards of sourcing and citation, it is often difficult to determine the origin of statements made in Wikipedia in order to determine their correctness. Pursuit of biased points of view by powerful administrators is considered a particular problem, as opposing voices are often permanently banned from Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s culture of disrespect for expertise and scholarship (see below) make it difficult to trust anything there. 2. Wikipedia’s articles are used to spread gossip, abet character assassination, and invade the privacy of the general public. So-called “Biographies of Living Persons” are often the result of attempts by powerful but anonymous editors and administrators at humiliating or belittling those real-world people with whom they disagree. Wikipedia’s “anyone can edit” culture has allowed baseless defamation of various individuals to spread widely through the Internet. When the family, friends, associates, or subjects of these biographies attempt to correct errors or insert balance, they are often banned from Wikipedia for “Conflicts of Interest”. Subjects of these hatchet jobs usually must resort to legal action to get the articles removed or corrected, a course not available to all. 3. Wikipedia over-emphasizes popular culture and under-emphasizes scholarly disciplines. Wikipedia contains more articles, of greater depth, on television shows, toy and cartoon characters, and other ephemera of popular culture than on many prominent historical figures, events, and places. Massive effort is spent on documenting fictional places and characters rather than science, history, and literature. 4. Wikipedia violates copyrights, plagiarizes the work of others, and denies attribution to contributions. Wikipedia contains no provision to ensure that the content it hosts is not the work of another, or that content it hosts is properly attributed to its author. It contains thousands of photographs, drawings, pages of text and other content that is blatantly plagiarized from other authors without permission. 5. Wikipedia, frequently searched and prominently positioned among results, spreads misinformation, defamation, and bias far beyond its own site. Wikipedia is searched by Google and is usually one of the top results. Its database is scraped by spammers and other sites, so misinformation, even when corrected on Wikipedia, has a long life elsewhere on the network, as a result of Wikipedia’s lack of controls.

From Jasmeet Khurana

December 24, 2008 2:11 PM
The information might be biased and incorrect in certain respects but even google search results can be biased. Wikipedia is no doubt the single largest source of information on the internet. I am sure it will not die out, even if the promoters run out of cash, plenty will be sitting on sidelines waiting to acquire it given its reach and potential

From Arby K

December 24, 2008 4:18 PM
Say it ain't so. And just in case, how good is Knol or are there any other substitutes?

From Wikifan

December 25, 2008 2:05 AM
No, it's not going broke. It's just doing its annual fundraising and it already raised enough cash for 2009.

From Man

December 26, 2008 9:39 PM
I think Joe and HAHAHAHAHAHAH have got it completely wrong here. In response: First and foremost, MOST (I repeat, most) admins on Wikipedia are actually very helpful and constructive. True, a few of them might be biased or 'ignorant', but these are acceptable risks to take in an open organisation like Wikipedia. 1. A lot of information on Wikipedia is actually correct, accurate and informative. There are still several articles needing cleanup or other attention, but the quality of the material on the site keeps improving each year. There are several projects underway on Wikipedia at the moment to improve articles and bring up their standard, and there are also internal review mechanisms such as 'featuring' an article or grading iot as a 'good article', and so on. As to dissent, opposing voices are only banned if they indulge in vandalism, violate guidelines, or keep ranting about a particular point to the extent that it hampers constructive growth of Wikipedia. This is carried out only after a thorough and transparent process of arbitration, with the accused party being given full hearing of his side of the matter. Nor is Wikipedia boased - admins violating guidelines have been stripped of their privileges in the past. 2. Wikipedia has strong, well-implemented policies against character assassination and use of the site for personal purposes. Biographies of living persons are only permitted after a consensus has been reached, after healthy debate, as to the imporatnce of the person, ensuring that only genuine presons get tto have biographies. Conflicts of interest have occurred in the past, where ralatives of the person featured have tried to insert propagandist information, or bias the article in one direction, rather than providing a balanced view of things. In such cases, of course, such individuals have been barred from contributing. 3. Being an open encyclopedia, it is imperative that Wikipedia will have more articles pertaining to popular culture. However, this does not mean that it is devoid of scholarly research in any way. There are plenty of professionals on Wikipedia, and they ensure that Wikipedia has a healthy base of scholarly information that is both reliable and authenticated. 4. Wikipedia has a strong policy against copyright violations, and work that does not conform to Wikipedia's copyright standards is regularly deleted. There are daily reviews of submitted material, and anything that violates copyright laws is summarily deleted. As a result, most of the text and images on Wikipedia are either from work that is in the public domain, or creations of Wikipedia editors themselves(in case of images). Plagiarism on Wikipedia is stringently dealt with by an effective review mechanism and editors have been expelled from Wikipedia in the past for rampant plagiarism. Wikipedia lays great emphasis on citation of references, and in most cases these are extremely useful to researchers using Wikipedia for obtaining further information on the topic. 5. Wikipedia does not spread 'misinformation, defamation and bias' on its own website, as clearly illustrated above, and it is neither the responsibility of Wikipedia to ensure that it is accurately cited outside, nor is it possible for Wikipedia to monitor use of its work by external agents. Coming back to the original issue, Wikipedia is NOT going broke. It has already raised about 75% of the funds required for its maintainence expenses ($4.75 million of $6 million), and is only seeking donations for the remaining amount in order to ensure it to function freely. Finally, in response to dan grand, it is Wikipedia's policy to allow free and unhindered flows of information, unobstructed by advertisements, and that is why Wikipedia, despite drawing large numbers of hits, is not open for online advertising of any sort, as Jimbo Wales clearly states in his letter above.

From SunnyD

December 29, 2008 11:41 PM
If the author of this article is 'so' concerned about Wiki going down under, for starters, shouldn't he donate money to them, as taking on from what he has written, hasn't Wiki helped his job? Also under the pretext of promoting the donation plea, he clocked in his hours and must have happily accepted the money for his 'hard' labour of writing this delightful article. Well done, donation ka promotion bhi ho gaya aur meri roti bhi pak gayee; journalism at its intellectual best.

From YellowMonkey

January 9, 2009 10:21 AM
I would say that Indian articles on history and politics are one of the worse than the same topics from other countries, primarily due to a lack of regular contributors, excluding the troublemakers who are willing to do anything about. Most Indian regulars tend to steer of all disputes. YellowMonkey (Wikipedia admin)

From YellowMonkey

January 9, 2009 10:32 AM
"Not to mention the hordes of journalists who will now have to actually start reporting" Lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey/Times_of_India

From YellowMonkey

January 14, 2009 11:17 AM
Heh, they're trying to impeach an arbitrator at the moment.

POST YOUR COMMENT

:
(required)
 
Email Address
(required)
   
(optional)
(HTML not allowed)