I think there's a tendency toward cynicism with Wikipedia precisely because it's an amazing idea that, in many ways, has been beautifully delivered on – but that where it falls short, it can be maddeningly frustrating.
It's not all that different from other bureaucracies. Like the bureaucracies responsible for administration in other spheres, the practical result is more than serviceable. Your city council, despite its backroom deals, manages to keep your town livable. Your insurance company, despite its shrewd actuarial restrictions, generally has your back. Wikipedia, despite its policy of deletionism, is a great first resource for a vast variety of subjects.
Every bureaucracy could do with a lot of improvement, and Wikipedia's no different. But we're still much better off with it and its imperfections than we'd be without it.
I don't trust Wales to run the organization effectively. I think that things are just going to get worse for Wikimedia as they get more money. My opinion on Wales is not high generally and Wikipedia has implemented some policies that I find rather undesirable in the recent years. Wikipedia has also done little to really actively improve the encyclopedia; they make all the wrong organizational changes, which in general tend to further stupid political bickering and turf wars, and these are the biggest problems to successful Wikipedia editing. Good governance would move to minimize these so that editing remains (or now, becomes) reasonable for people who don't have time to sit around for six hours a day and justify every change they make over and over again until the other guys get sick of it.
What it comes down to is that Wikipedia is really one great big edit war, though they'll never admit it.
Wikipedia is amazing, but deletionism policy is bad.
BTW, anyone wants to make a service, which hosts base content from wikipedia, but allows to fork and merge articles a la git? By default you see main article (if it exists), but if you want to see alternative opinions - they are just several clicks away.
It was much more intrusive than it could have been. Also, the claim of 'Urgent' was not credible. Maybe they've managed to engage with their 500,000 sponsors. They've also shown they're willing to degrade the quality of the site to raise funds. That's no different to advertising for the casual user.
There are tens of great arguments you could have made against deletionism, why make a bullshit one? You know it's not about the disk space --- though presumably not all of the 16 people who modded you up know that as well.
I wasn't aware that not meeting that goal would result in slapping ads on articles.
Also, Wikipedia itself was fully funded a while ago through next year, the foundation was trying to raise money for other projects and programs that aren't the encyclopedia itself.
> I wasn't aware that not meeting that goal would result in slapping ads on articles.
Yeah, RWW says that in a couple of places, but I don't know why. I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation has ever implied that. (Disclaimer: I work there.) The slogan/hashtag was #keepitfree, but I don't think that implies a number.
Anyway, if there had been a shortfall in community donations, the WMF would just have readjusted its budget, or sought more big-donor money. Ads on Wikipedia are not even a remote possibility.
But we prefer to get everything from the readership in small donations. Big donations expose the projects to charges of bias, or require us to jump through various hoops that don't directly benefit the community. We'd rather be working for the community 100% of the time, rather than balancing the concerns of the community and people with deep pockets.
If someone was asked, "Would your rather use a website that has ads or one that has no ads?", they would most likely choose the latter. However, Wikipedia has shown the world something that no one would have expected; it seems as if most people would rather have the ads given the circumstances.
I think the problem for a lot of people is that "the website" doesn't seem to be where the majority of the money is going. There are grants, "External contractors", salaries, ...
I personally think that most people would be happy if they just concentrated on keeping the site up and running. While they DO need a bit of workforce for that, they should stick to the "core" that is the website.
p.s.
I'm perfectly happy with another non-profit trying to make workshops, grants and other things, but I'd prefer there to be a "we're just the website" one too...
I've always thought Google should just buy them. If you're going to index the worlds information, this is a good start. Google has the resources and power to make sure it remains alive and well.
I don't think you deserved the many downvotes you received. It's not like you were trolling. People here just downvote things they disagree with. Personally, I think Google should donate a decent amount to WP because Freebase relies on it. Without WP, Freebase would have been useless. (Disclaimer: I have no idea if Google actually donated.)
I tend to disagree due to future uncertainties. While Google may seem like the ultimate do-no-evil company at this moment, what will happen in 15, or even 30 years? If Google eventually "turns", it may lead to fragmentation of the Wikipedia project, and consequently a lack of focus. To me, Wikimedia (the foundation) seems like the type of foundation that will always keep a clear focus and maintain the core values of Wikipedia.
I don't understand why they are so adamant about ads... A small adsense block (with 2 text ads) will cover all their expenses and more. It will not be intrusive and useful to visitors in most situations (as their content is well suited for a contextual ad system like adsense)...Also there is precedence in non-profits doing this like firefox with their google search deal (which makes them $100 million or so a year)
[+] [-] clemesha|15 years ago|reply
Just looking at the top comments here, and other places around the internet - I think it's far too common.
Let's be more positive. Wikipedia is amazing - congrats to them for successfully achieving their fund-raising goals.
[+] [-] mortenjorck|15 years ago|reply
It's not all that different from other bureaucracies. Like the bureaucracies responsible for administration in other spheres, the practical result is more than serviceable. Your city council, despite its backroom deals, manages to keep your town livable. Your insurance company, despite its shrewd actuarial restrictions, generally has your back. Wikipedia, despite its policy of deletionism, is a great first resource for a vast variety of subjects.
Every bureaucracy could do with a lot of improvement, and Wikipedia's no different. But we're still much better off with it and its imperfections than we'd be without it.
[+] [-] cookiecaper|15 years ago|reply
What it comes down to is that Wikipedia is really one great big edit war, though they'll never admit it.
[+] [-] Untitled|15 years ago|reply
I am not negative about Wikipedia, but about its management. The add campaign was distasteful and I suspect just an ego trip for Jimmy Wales.
The real Wikipedia is the thousands of faceless people who write the articles.
[+] [-] mike_esspe|15 years ago|reply
BTW, anyone wants to make a service, which hosts base content from wikipedia, but allows to fork and merge articles a la git? By default you see main article (if it exists), but if you want to see alternative opinions - they are just several clicks away.
[+] [-] Ryan_IRL|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chaosmachine|15 years ago|reply
Instead, we get places like Answers.com mass-duplicating Wikipedia content and slapping big image ads on it.
[+] [-] steveklabnik|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w1ntermute|15 years ago|reply
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/91712
If you're using HTTPS-Everywhere (Firefox) or KB SSL Enforcer (Chrome), add
as an @include statement.[+] [-] jiganti|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thailandstartup|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jeffclark|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StavrosK|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slig|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kprobst|15 years ago|reply
Also, Wikipedia itself was fully funded a while ago through next year, the foundation was trying to raise money for other projects and programs that aren't the encyclopedia itself.
[+] [-] neilk|15 years ago|reply
Yeah, RWW says that in a couple of places, but I don't know why. I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation has ever implied that. (Disclaimer: I work there.) The slogan/hashtag was #keepitfree, but I don't think that implies a number.
Anyway, if there had been a shortfall in community donations, the WMF would just have readjusted its budget, or sought more big-donor money. Ads on Wikipedia are not even a remote possibility.
But we prefer to get everything from the readership in small donations. Big donations expose the projects to charges of bias, or require us to jump through various hoops that don't directly benefit the community. We'd rather be working for the community 100% of the time, rather than balancing the concerns of the community and people with deep pockets.
[+] [-] checoivan|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rospaya|15 years ago|reply
Any info on that?
[+] [-] ck2|15 years ago|reply
Is there actually paid staff/benefits? Because $16M is more hardware/bandwidth than I can fathom.
[+] [-] citricsquid|15 years ago|reply
PDF for 2011: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-1... (Page 24 for pie chart comparison)
Summary: They want to expand, a lot, almost every sector has more than doubled in allocated budget from 09-10s budget
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] solipsist|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rb2k_|15 years ago|reply
I personally think that most people would be happy if they just concentrated on keeping the site up and running. While they DO need a bit of workforce for that, they should stick to the "core" that is the website.
p.s. I'm perfectly happy with another non-profit trying to make workshops, grants and other things, but I'd prefer there to be a "we're just the website" one too...
[+] [-] philipn|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d2viant|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelchisari|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coderdude|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgt|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmfrk|15 years ago|reply
This allows Wikipedia to be truly free.
[+] [-] gopi|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corin_|15 years ago|reply
If they've already hit the target, presumably they must have already set a new target in order to make that statement?
[+] [-] known|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carussell|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdghjtykty|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]