What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
202 Comments
- jamesmcm, on 12/30/2008, -9/+243They shouldn't have advertisements as it would hit the neutrality of wikipedia.
I.E. If they have hundreds of Coca-Cola ads then Coca-Cola are going to expect the Coca-Cola page to be devoid of any criticsm. If there was any, they could threaten to remove the support. Governments could support it but there would be a similar issue. - svivian, on 12/31/2008, -1/+166Given that Wikipedia is on the first page of Google results for 90% of every search you make, their bandwidth must be phenomenal.
- NicoNicoNico, on 12/30/2008, -4/+121Wikipedia shouldn't have ads. It would seem unprofessional and would lower its credibility even more. They should instead do what was mentioned in the article; cut down on costs, and let people donate as little as they want. I personally would love to donate to them, but I honestly don't have $30 to spare. $1, yes; $5, yes; $30, no.
- msaleem, on 12/30/2008, -11/+110No one trusts Jimbo Willy anymore because of the lavish lifestyle he lives himself on the company's dime. No wonder no one wants to support the site anymore because it seems they're supporting him and not the venture.
http://valleywag.gawker.com/5071640/why-jimmy-wale ... - JamesBondJr, on 12/30/2008, -5/+82think about the insane amounts of bandwith used
- Morticae, on 12/31/2008, -4/+63Just ask Congress for it. They probably can't even be bothered to carry that kind of chump change around anymore.
- lendrick, on 12/31/2008, -4/+52Wikipedia won't be worth my donation until they get rid of the "deletionist" clique that currently run the damn thing.
Here's an experiment: Search for something cool but relatively obscure (for example, a character in a video game). When you hit something that redirects to a different page, follow the redirect back and check the article history. There will often be a larger, more interesting, and more extensive article that someone spent time and effort to write, that the wikipedia powers that be "voted" (of course, they'll remind you that it's not actually a vote, since usually they don't listen to people who disagree) to delete and turn into a redirect.
Here's a perfect example:
The article on Proto Man from the Mega Man series ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto_Man#Proto_Man ) currently redirects to a tiny section in "List of characters in the Mega Man series". Follow the redirect back and look at the page history, and you can find this article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proto_Ma ...
I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who type "Proto Man" in the search box would rather see the deleted one than the little blurb -- and most of the people who don't know or care who Proto Man is would never see the article in the first place. - cdawzrd, on 12/31/2008, -2/+44Their ISPs.
- mac888, on 12/30/2008, -16/+52Jimmy Wales begging for money. Or is that Walin' Jimmy? Perhaps jail time for Jimmy...
- cowsgonemadd3, on 12/31/2008, -0/+35Everybody knows they use a godaddy unlimited hosting plan for 15 bucks a month.
- sladde, on 12/31/2008, -5/+39It might be a bit lengthy but here is a link to their financial sheet for the period between 2007 and 2008 which covers all their expenses and sources of income. Hopefully this will answer all of your questions.
(Direct Link to the PDF) -248 K
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4 ...
-sladde - nullcodes, on 12/31/2008, -2/+34The $6 million is to be spent on hiring top quality fund raisers who can get folks like the Google founders etc. to fork over serious cash to wikipedia so that we can finally have some good quality wikibooks completed by hiring top name authors for books on key subjects like math, sciences, the arts. Also we need an easy to download and use offline version of wikipedia on Blu Ray or USB drive maybe next year every donor will get a Blu Ray or USB drive copy of wikipedia sent to them as a thank you.
Wikipedia does need the money.
However I noticed in their budget plan for 2009 they wish to hire 4 software developers, a sysadmin, and contract work for a total of only $375,000.
That means each of those 5 new hires only gets paid around $60K including benefits?? That seems like too low for the san francisco area if they plan on getting quality hires. - Spoomeister, on 12/31/2008, -1/+31I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you wrote the deleted article about Proto Man.
- Bartboy919, on 12/31/2008, -2/+31I remember hearing that digg cost a ton of money to run due to the sheer ammount of traffic they receive. 6 million seems about right from a website that serves up as much content as wikipedia.
- bakkouz, on 12/30/2008, -2/+29Apparently and according to this very interesting and rather frightening quote from the Wikimedia Foundation's Annual Plan 2008-2009 Presentation, they don't (or didn't) even know how their budget is actually spent:
"The 07-08 budget was the first in the history of the Wikimedia Foundation. it was a rough exercise, very little historical information existed, and much of what did exist was inaccurate" !!
the full report is here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4 ... - freakstyle571, on 12/31/2008, -2/+28I would say that yes 95% of the internet is NOT credible.
- Rolcol, on 12/31/2008, -1/+23Why is Linux free when it can profit? Because it drives development and contribution. If people are grateful for the product, then they will give back and make it better. Wikimedia wouldn't be as well known as it is if it charged people to access the information.
- RedStateRetard, on 12/31/2008, -3/+25He lost last years donations to the Madoff hedge fund.
Or was it hooker and blow? - cdawzrd, on 12/31/2008, -1/+21I, and most of the people I know, choose to visit Wikipedia INSTEAD of all of the for-profit encyclopedia sites out there that no one visits, because being non-profit means they don't think about the layout of their site in terms of how much money it will make, but rather how easy it will be to use! (among other reasons, of course)
- PimpWilly, on 12/31/2008, -1/+21Wikipedia isn't worth saving until their nazi userbase is put back in their place. Whats the point in contributing when it seems to be a contest to see who can get the most stuff deleted?
- hackiavelli, on 12/31/2008, -0/+20I wouldn't mind something based on how PBS does it. Maybe you solicit a company to cover operating costs for a day and in return put a small "Sponsored by" with a corporate logo (that links back to wherever) off to the side. No spastic flashing ads or screaming "You won an Ipod!" garbage.
- nullcodes, on 12/31/2008, -1/+17By helping the spread of knowledge worldwide, Wikipedia accomplishes a lot more than many charities with much larger funding and endowments. 257 million hits a day. As for financial management, consider that digg which is not a top 200 site, yet burns through more cash than Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a top 10 site, sometimes top 5.
Wikipedia needs big name donors so that it can have a decent endowment (tiny colleges have larger endowments), and that is only possible by hiring a team of fundraisers and financial management experts. Who's going to donate millions to an organization without a professional staff to manage it?
Please don't allow hit pieces like this article dissuade you from helping Wikipedia.
If you haven't donated yet .. please do so. - tetsuo29, on 12/31/2008, -2/+17I can't believe you're being dugg down. I thought your comment was wicked funny, but that might just be because I'm also an ***** who doesn't care about the feelings of others.
- Awspire, on 12/31/2008, -1/+16Soon to be Wikipedia's most popular page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail - xptoast, on 12/31/2008, -0/+15Most definitely just have the ability to submit w/e someone wants. Possibly allow them to make a reaccuring contribution similar to a bill and can discontinue that support when they wish. I mean couldn't you write that contribution off at the end of the year anyhow?
Yea I contributed $180 to wikipedia this year. Nice writeoff.
You know...or do something similar to what svivian says below you. - zimz, on 12/31/2008, -20/+35Look everybody, it's sladde! I thought it was someone else for a second! Everyone should sign their posts so people can know who wrote them!
-zimz - sekhui, on 12/31/2008, -0/+14deletionism destroyed a lot of my love for wikipedia. theres an article somewhere on ED telling you how to become an admin on wikipedia -- one of the steps is to "go to AfD and vote delete on ***** everything." so i went to AfD and the amount of douchebaggery is ***** sickening. things like deleting that article on proto man just cuz some ***** hasn't heard of mega man and assumes it's not notable.
it's sad really. - TheSpore, on 12/31/2008, -0/+13As part of the internet, I think we need a precondition before we donate to Wikipedia: get rid of Jimmy Wales. Replace him with a board of competent people, or something similar.
Honestly, he's been resistant to any kind of meaningful change to the site, and has frequently been accused of misusing his power to manipulate the site.
I remember a Slashdot comment thread which had a large number of really good ideas for the site (a thread which unfortunately I can't find at the moment, given the large number of references Slashdot has to Wikipedia). But none of these ideas have any chance of getting implemented as long as there isn't any change in leadership.
Yes, Wikipedia is a cool site, but once people see that Wikipedia is implementing real changes again to become a really kickass site, I think the donations will come flowing back. - kkeut, on 12/31/2008, -8/+21wales is a scumbag. anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the clouds.
he's done his damnedest to whitewash or re-define his past (and current) actions. but the information is still out there, you just have to do a bit of research on your own. the guy has left quite a trail! - MrNonchalant, on 12/31/2008, -1/+14According to their own graph $2.7 million of the $5.9 million will go to technology. The rest goes to programs, administration, advocacy and such.
See: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:08-09budg ... - minoss, on 12/31/2008, -2/+13The choice isn't ads or no ads. It is ads to get money, something else to get money, or going away entirely. Hoping donations is enough isn't going to cut it apparently.
- Soave, on 12/31/2008, -0/+11Definitely agree. One of my favorite bands, the Arrogant Sons of Bitches, had a complete article about them, but it eventually got deleted because they didn't have enough of the traits required to get an article, even though they were a popular band across the nation. I don't understand why they need to delete so much stuff.
- lendrick, on 12/31/2008, -0/+11I did not, for the record, have anything to do with the deleted article about Proto Man. I did, however, write an article on bubble eye goldfish, which ended up being completely gutted because it "wasn't cited correctly". Not, I might add, because it wasn't cited, but because I didn't follow the citation format. Someone apparently figured that, rather than take the time to reformat the citations, it would be better to just delete most of the article.
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -0/+10wikipedia is amazing
back in the old days i had to use paper encyclopedias or encarta which got outdated in a week - sulf, on 12/31/2008, -1/+11Do you want to know why it was deleted? Go ahead and scroll down and see how many external sources you can find in "References", "Notes", and "External links" sections. Oh wait, there are exactly zero sources (the single one links to a 404 page). While it may be acceptable for a stub article, it is not acceptable for an article of that size. I'm not a fan of deletionism either, but hey, if Wikipedia has a policy that all articles need to be verifiable, you gotta follow it. If you want to include this kind of stuff on Wikipedia, please rename it from "encyclopedia" to "knowledge base" or something like that.
- frieddonuts, on 12/31/2008, -2/+12I don't really trust Valleywag or Gawker in general...but Wales's public profile speaks for itself. The fact that he refers to Wikipedia in such hyperbolic language shows his level of arrogance.
- icejust, on 12/31/2008, -0/+10Wales' message was followed by immediate and sustained increase in donations : http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Fundra ...
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -3/+13Wikipedia is like PBS 2.0 constantly asking for donations, what's next free tote bags?
- JFitzpatrick, on 12/31/2008, -0/+9Fascinating.
I had no idea. - jmptexas, on 12/31/2008, -2/+11Oh sure, how on earth could the U.N. ***** anything up?!
- mstrebe, on 12/31/2008, -3/+12I'd rather pay $1000 for a print copy of the encyclopedia's top 250,000 articles bound in the in finest pleather than donate a penny to the carpetbagger named Jimmy Wales.
- werries, on 12/31/2008, -2/+10@Lith25
And digg is a failing company that uses millions too. - inactive, on 12/31/2008, -0/+8scroll? adblock you fool
- asdffdas1234, on 12/31/2008, -1/+9I did look at it. It killed my donation interest at best. It's sloppy and vague at best. The hosting cost is just a small portion, even the legal cost isn't that high. Then there is all this misc travel and salary cost. I don't know a single wiki related person that gets paid and that's tad too high for just administration.
Until there is a more detailed break down on this huge, but somewhat irrelevant cost I don't feel like donating (once beyond the hosting cost at least). - TheSpore, on 12/31/2008, -2/+10I disagree. I think as long as users, and not editors, are ultimately in charge on content, they will pretty much self-regulate themselves and not give any special privileges to big donors.
Just look at Digg. The website has had ads as long as I can remember, but I've never seen big advertisers get better treatment in stories and comments than anyone else.
Also, Wikipedia almost always keeps mentions of any criticism very civilized. Usually articles will briefly mention any criticism of a company, but also give counter-arguments and don't take sides in any controversy. Any respectable advertiser shouldn't have a problem with the brief mention of criticisms in a typical Wikipedia article. - iMattK, on 12/30/2008, -9/+17With a staff of just 23 people that is a lot of money needed to be raised. I wonder where it is all going... (or to whom).
- slicedoranges, on 12/31/2008, -0/+8Happened to me and the article I wrote on a Kirby boss. It was sliced into about a fifth of its original size and crammed into a list page.
- p4r4d0x, on 12/31/2008, -0/+8Since your post it appears the article has been reinstated. Clearly they aren't all douchebags (or maybe that's what they want us to think.)
- sevenalive, on 12/31/2008, -3/+10So i guess 95% of the internet is not a credible source because they have ads? What about all of the news and tech sites, and even digg.
- Chupinator, on 12/31/2008, -2/+9Given the amount of users I don't think they would mind what wikipedia says about their company and if they do wikipedia could easily find another sponsor.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 207 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 