What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
248 Comments
- gldfshnpcklejar, on 10/12/2007, -33/+601Google should buy it.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -6/+401Yes, Google should just donate the chump change (compared to their bottom line) needed to keep Wikipedia going. Wikipedia keeps the non profit status (and no ads), Google earns back one of the "do no evil" gold stars they've lost recently (ahem), and they get a huge PR bonus and a nice tax write-off. I'd call that a win-win-win for everyone, wouldn't you?
- Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -63/+349If they put adds up, they would lose not-for-profit status and would become subject to taxes. They'll probably explore other options before putting banners up.
- Bleeblaow, on 10/12/2007, -32/+291I concur, google to the rescue.
- Bean945, on 10/12/2007, -5/+187The internet should buy it.
- spleenventer, on 10/12/2007, -12/+190Guess I'd better do the altruistic thing and put my hand in my pocket...
- appletalk, on 10/12/2007, -14/+174"Alright, so what did they do with the $1,000,000+ they just got from their very, very recent donation drive?"
They can run for 3-4 months with that. Did you read the article ? - Rodalli, on 10/12/2007, -6/+155Jesus Christ. Do you people have any idea how much it must cost to purchase the kind of bandwidth a site like Wikipedia uses?
And that's only a part of the total cost to operate. That site doesn't maintain itself, you know. Just because it's a non-profit doesn't mean the people working there are volunteers. People have to be paid - jspegele, on 10/12/2007, -23/+169@Lixie
Yes, they would lose not-for-profit status, but they would become a multi-billion dollar company. If YouTube and Facebook are worth $1.5billion+, Wikipedia certainly would be. - illegalchuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+134Non-profits need revenue too. Ads don't jeopardize their status. It is what you do with the profits. Hell, the Red Cross is non-profit and the CEO makes $1M/year.
- baltimoretim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+121I work for a nonprofit (...so I'm really getting a kick out of some of these replies).
Ads on wikipedia would NOT effect their nonprofit status AT ALL. Nonprofits are totally allowed to earn income. The difference between nonprofit and for-profit corporation has everything to do with how the "ownership" is structured and what the mission of the corporation is. Code 501(c)(3) of the IRS guidelines lay this all out. - Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -52/+164Alright, so what did they do with the $1,000,000+ they just got from their very, very recent donation drive?
- greatblackowl, on 10/12/2007, -7/+102So what happened to all the money they just made during their fund drive? I thought they had met their goal.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -10/+103@Lixie
They would only lose their non-profit status when they start actually MAKING money. If they find a way to pay out money that equals their income, they are still non-profit. - spacebar14, on 10/12/2007, -0/+80/downloads wikipedia
- Mewchu11, on 10/12/2007, -2/+81@greatblackowl
Yes, and that will keep them going for 3-4 months - themoose, on 10/12/2007, -7/+87Havn't Google offered to host it before anyway? Just ask them.
- TomP, on 10/12/2007, -4/+63Oh come on I only just donated :(
- curios, on 10/12/2007, -31/+88Googles adsense is automatically related to the content, improves the usefullnes of the web page.
- maledin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+62I just did my part and donated 10 bucks...
Save Wikipedia (the source of all my knowledge)! - DietMountainDew, on 10/12/2007, -2/+53@mercurysquad
Not quite, my site which is only ranked 758,401 on Alexa uses 2TB of bandwidth per month, I can't even begin to imagine the about of bandwidth the Wiki project uses. (Don't forget, there are tons of more websites other than wikipedia in the wiki project!) - elhaf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+49It costs $75000 per month for the whole kit and kaboodle, at least according to Wikipedia. But who trusts that source?
- Arkavus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+49I'm sure they'd make a killing by putting small ads at the top and bottom of every page.
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+36@Retral
They do. They take the best, most important and most researched articles and include them on a disc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download
More importantly, the related projects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_0.5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team - littleguru1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37Not true. I find the articles very illustrating and interesting. It's cool to browse it and read the articles. :)
- aydoubleyou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36God no. Im going to fail every research project Im assigned now.
- worthawholebean, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36Mozilla is making FAR more than their expenses and is still non-profit. They just put the extra away in an investment account for future necessities.
I'd disable Adblock for Wikipedia as I do for Youtube and Digg; sites that I know eat up large amounts of money and sites that I cannot live without I disable it for. - Lasker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Some of you seem to be inviting Google's takeover. Why? If Google wants Wikipedia it can make its own version.
The real deal should stay non-profit. Wikipedia got where it is because of dedicated volunteers. You can't compare the commitment of a Wikipedia writer/editor to a Google employee . Also, I'm not sure what all the Google lust is all about. Google is a great company, but companies are in the business of maximizing profits. The Wikimedia foundation is dedicated to disseminating unbiased information. Who would you rather have in charge of the world's largest information source? - Basketb926, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26I donated $5 to wikipedia and they sent me a card in an envelope that cost them 39 cents to send PLUS the price of the card+ envelope themselves. If they had emailed all these instead of using regular mail, i reckon they could have saved thousands of dollars(maybe even tens of thousands)
- HyperZiper, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29I just donated $10 :D
Alright, so let's do the digg effect but on donations on Wikipedia. Just give $1 and digg this story up. - Hyperboly, on 10/12/2007, -9/+34Dear Wikipedia, don't scare us into donating.
- abid786, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24@skyfire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AntiVandalBot
That is the bot :) - DietMountainDew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24I hope not!
- SimonDonkers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22To support the $75 000/month claim
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for
These are day to day expenses however and exclude hardware cost. Wikipedia plans to buy 300 servers this month ($834 000) and another 300 in June. This is there biggest cost this year according to there site. - WhereAmI, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23@jadacyrus
alot. - cr4ft, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25I agree, Google WILL buy it, mark my words!
- jorgenmz, on 10/12/2007, -28/+48I think the UN should buy it
- judsond, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19All but about 3 of them are volunteers, not that I agree with the conclusion the poster has though. If there is enough money for 3-4 months, there will probably be another fundraiser in 3 months, that's how it works.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24googlepedia ftw.
- skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Probably. Everytime I make an edit to article about 60 other people have edited a article. I'm wondering how the hell they can even keep up with the vandalism. Probably a robot or something.
- jus1haz2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17As long as they dont put ***** flash banners on it im fine, some text ads are alright but stay the hell away from flash banners and pop ups.
- bar10dr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Ah crap I cant image the internet without wikipedia, I use it more and more.
Ill donate some cash, but in the long run I hope google could adopt it, it would fit beutifully in with their search engine. - TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18It seems a lot of you are confused about what a not-for-profit status means. As I understand, it simply means the individuals involved will never take home any profits, dividends, etc., related to the money that is brought into the organization. In other words, all monies obtained are put immediately back into the organization, whether it be to pay operating expenses, purchase equipment, or even placed into the organization's bank account. Yes, non-profit groups can have phat bank accounts. (And many do.) And as far as "operating expenses," non-profit groups can pay wages and salaries related to operating the organization. (Yes--many people working for non-profit organizations are paid instead of being volunteers.) Non-profit groups can do all sorts of things to raise money, as long as all of the money finally received by the non-profit goes directly into running the organization.
In other words-- a non-profit can raise money, can pay salaries, and can even have lots of cash in the bank. But as soon as they take any of that money, and start paying out to the people who run the organization (aside from any salary those people may make), they can no longer be considered a non-profit group.
And of course there's the limitations on political activities by non-profits, but that's another topic for another discussion. - zephc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Wikipedia crying wolf? http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/11376
- LiveFastDieOld, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18@ Lixie
It bothers me sometimes that you can't tag an individual Digg comment for being inaccurate. This would be one of those times. - maexus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Wikipedia is like the hitchhikers guide of the internet, sure there are some inaccurate facts and whole articles but they have a giant resource of information that is constantly updating it with correct information. You.
I wouldn't use it as my main source of information, esp without cited sourced but it's an amazingly useful tool for getting information. - Blandyman, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23The bandwidth is outrageous. There's the bandwidth required for images to appear on Wikipedia, as well as the text being uploaded, the actual servers have to be damn good (and they are) and there's lots of times when a person won't just look at one article and give up... I remember, one time, starting out looking at ONE article about Rocco's Modern Life (the show that used to be on Nickelodeon) and I ended up reading EIGHTY-FOUR (84!) articles.
- ericnmu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17So they plan on not taking any donations for the next 3-4 months?
That's like saying: "If I don't get a paycheck in the next 3-4 months, I have to move out". Well no *****... thats why we continue working, and that's why they'll continue accepting the inevitable donations that will continue to stream in at the regular pace. - muffins, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Google's got it.
- yevkasem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16there's no way wikipedia can just shut down, someone would most definitely buy it, it's a fortune to be made for whomever does.
i remember reading about the setup at wikipedia though (servers and such) and it seemed really poor. maybe if google were to buy it they could use some of their google magic to help out in that way.
i still find it wrong that such huge (important) resources can just disappear thanks to the god damned money hungry telcos. google needs to buy the internet. -
Show 51 - 100 of 249 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is