Wikipedia Raises $16M to Remain Ad-Free
Jimmy Wales
/ CBSIn his online appeal, the organization's founder Jimmy Wales wrote that Wikipedia needed the funds to remain ad-free.
The foundation, which is the non-profit parent of Wikipedia, said that more than 500,000 donated in 2010, compared to the 230,000 people who contributed money in 2009.
The average donation was $22.
"This fundraiser had all the ingredients of what we love about Wikimedia projects: people come together, contribute what they have, and together we do something amazing ... and the result is that we're able to sustain and support this joint endeavor for another year," Wales said in his post. "So now, we'll celebrate."
Popular in SciTech
- Weird pirate ant comes with an "eye patch"
- Watch: NASA captures Okla. tornado from space Play Video
- Amazon proposes a colossal biospherelike Seattle campus
- The 7 weirdest things made by 3D printing
- Microsoft announces Xbox One
- Xbox One Press Conference
- Microsoft announces Xbox One 16 Photos
- NASA funds 3D pizza printer
I wonder when the news media will figure out that the Wikimedia Foundation spends on program services only 41 cents of every dollar they scam from donors, which earns them ONE STAR (out of four!) from Charity Navigator in organizational efficiency. The WMF's own KPMG audit showed that it only costs about $2.5 million to keep the servers running, provide ample bandwidth, and even employ a few excellent code developers to keep the site software running efficiently. So, if it only costs $2.5 million, why the need to ask for $16 million from donors?
I also wonder why the news media never thought to cover the 2009 story of how the Wikimedia Foundation needed extra office space, and as if by magic, they hand-picked Jimmy Wales' for-profit corporation to be their landlord, THEN obtained competitive bids, THEN asked Wales' for-profit company to match the average of the competitive bids.
I too wonder why the media don't seem to care that the 2010 market research study of past Wikimedia Foundation donors was awarded to the former employer of the WMF staffer running the project, without any competitive bidding whatsoever. And when the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation was asked how much the project cost, the guy asking the question was banned from the online discussion.
Please.
At the same time, I agree with ILolaLane. I once tried adding relevant, factual, referenced CBS news poll data which had showed Sarah Palin's recent (falling) approval ratings- only to be confronted with an entire team of conservative "editors" that took it upon themselves to delete my entries. In the process of fighting the deletion in the discussion section I learned I was not alone, as many other would be contributors had complained of politically motivated edits.
What I discovered is that the same people you see constantly posting political rhetoric in such places as Yahoo comments, were at work full time doing whatever they could to influence Wikipedia towards their political agenda.
Also, my 2 cents is they should accept one or two (non-animated, non-flash) ads a page. Wikipedia could easily generate more than 10 times the $16 million they recently raised- and then perhaps pay for additional staff to help police against such politically motivated "editors".
I think the annoyance of this ad shows how much Wikipedia benefits from being ad-free.
lLolaLane said, "My experience with Wikipedia hasn't been so great... is fast becoming dominated by politcal agendas. Spanish Wikipedia has a definite slant against the United States ..."
---
If you are looking on Wikipedia for a USIA-style paean to American foreign policy, you won't find it anywhere but Faux News-- and that, limited to the usual Archie Bunker fodder.
Overall-- and that is saying quite a bit-- Wikipedia grandly realizes the ambition of a free encyclopedia for every man, woman and child-- a resource instantly available, with information (1) clearly expressed (2) accurate and (3) updated quickly.
Countless Wikipedia articles demonstrate a high quality of writing and information, and most provide sources and other forms of attribution in the style of an encyclopedia. In the few instances where someone has injected opinion (inadvertently or by intention), it has been flagged rather quickly.
As you note, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but no publication the breadth and depth of Wikipedia can operate coherently without editorial board oversight. The board and thousands of readers are quick to address deficiencies in writing style, as well as content.
Wikipedia never ceases to amaze readers with the huge amount of informed writing on even highly technical subjects. Those who like Google, and know how to use it to find authoritative, accurate information, also place a high value on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a major gift to the world, and all who benefit from it should send a contribution to keep it free of advertiser bias. Wikipedia is a favorite resource of anybody who needs information with authoritative attribution, from students to writers and educators.
In a pointed sense, Wikipedia plays a major role in elevating the level of public discourse on most topics, which easily explains why it threatens those who no longer can publish propaganda with abandon.
Once you have an account, you can edit any article that you think contains errors.
If you think an article displays bias, you can flag it.
That's the beauty of the whole concept behind Wikipedia.
And yes, that's why Wikipedia itself isn't usually considered a "reliable source" for serious research. But the sources in the footnotes and those links at the bottom often are. So I often start researching something by looking it up on Wikipedia, and then following the footnotes/external links for outside corroboration/verification.
At the same time, I agree with ILolaLane. I once tried adding relevant, factual, referenced CBS news poll data which had showed Sarah Palin's recent approval ratings (which were falling)- only to be confronted with an entire team of conservative "editors" that took it upon themselves to delete my entries. In the process of fighting the deletion, I discovered I was not alone as many other would be contributors had been complaining of politically motivated deletions.
What I discovered is that the same people you see constantly posting political rhetoric in such places as Yahoo comments, were at work full time doing whatever they could to influence Wikipedia towards their political agenda.