What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
325 Comments
- allocate, on 01/02/2009, -28/+573Does this mean that stupid banner can come down now?
- fretslide, on 01/02/2009, -10/+466No matter what people say about Wikipedia's staff.The fact is that credibility of site is really good and I'm happy for them .keep up the good work.
- DeathfireD, on 01/02/2009, -5/+300No, it means a new one for Wikipedia's 2010 fundraiser will go up.
- Totz83, on 01/02/2009, -14/+207Jimmy Wales can have all the hookers he wants now.
- ileftfark, on 01/02/2009, -8/+162Oh *****, just to ready myself, I've already begun using Uncyclopedia in all my academic papers I've been submitting. Is this bad?
- inactive, on 01/02/2009, -9/+161If it wasn't for wikipedia, I would be failing all my classes right now. Thank god they have the proper funding.
- Smokeydabear, on 01/02/2009, -5/+151Now I'll be able to spend the next year reading about anime characters and 1980s Wrestling personalities.
- abbathdoom, on 01/02/2009, -13/+151It costs $1.619 million just to do the accounting for the rest of $5.974 million? Thats ***** crazy.
- inactive, on 01/02/2009, -4/+118Because Wikipedia is not a porn search engine.
- franklymister, on 01/02/2009, -36/+126Great, now Jimmy Wales can expense all the $1300 dinners he wants now.
I'm so disappointed in the gullibility of people. Really? $6 million in donations to a "non-profit" that gets all its content from unpaid volunteers?
I'd really like to see 60 Minutes, 20/20, or some other investigative report done on these guys. - inactive, on 01/02/2009, -0/+90Wikipedia might just be the single largest source of organized information that humans have ever assembled. I really cant think of anything else that would rival it.
- insinuate, on 01/02/2009, -0/+79Well I've been using Encyclopedia Dramatica, imagine how I feel!
- bblande, on 01/02/2009, -7/+85Michael Scott breathes a sigh of relief.
- inactive, on 01/02/2009, -7/+83It's ***** suspicious, that's what it ***** is.
- DanThe1Man, on 01/02/2009, -2/+72Not if your paper is about Oscar Wilde.
- Murdats, on 01/02/2009, -2/+61why would you use books, no search function, no copy/paste, no links to referencing materials or sources, large cumbersome storage medium.
an example, I will look up thorium in wiki and you look it up in a book, then you also find a few items it references and look those up too. who will be done quicker? who will have more up to date information, who will have a thicker wallet? - joegibes, on 01/02/2009, -1/+52Only a dollar? I single-handedly DOUBLED the amount Wikipedia made by editing the donation page.
- dawpa2000, on 01/02/2009, -2/+53Google is a search engine.
Google is not a source. - svivian, on 01/02/2009, -7/+57Props to Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia that you need to pay for to keep it running.
- veriix, on 01/02/2009, -1/+49Thats odd, the wikipedia entry that I just posted shows that they only made about $3.50
- NerveBand, on 01/02/2009, -0/+45The hell are you searching? I have found the most obscure things on wikipedia to the most general. It's really great.
- sirhomer, on 01/02/2009, -0/+44Wikipedia has like 20 staff members to pay salary to. A lot of that staff is is paid by that $1.6 million.
Really $6 million to run the 7th most visited website on the Internet is a real feat in itself. Most companies would spend hundreds of millions to do the same thing. - OtterStratton, on 01/02/2009, -2/+43And my axe.
- Nosferotu, on 01/02/2009, -3/+41And my $20,000!
What? You can't prove otherwise! - meachen, on 01/02/2009, -5/+43wonder what kind of Ferrari he will buy?
- papavb, on 01/02/2009, -0/+37what in the world are you searching for? 2008 Cat Rapist Convention?
- douce2, on 01/02/2009, -6/+43Somewhere in that pool of money is my dollar.
- inactive, on 01/02/2009, -3/+40I read books, just I don't read them as sources because the internet is more convenient.
- MalarkeyPN, on 01/02/2009, -1/+34I don't mind the banner. It's a small price to pay for public, open, transparent media with a natural check on its own biases. Plus it's the only ad on the whole site. Any website that doesn't ask me to throw bananas at a monkey in a barrel is a-ok with me.
It's just like I don't mind the pledge drives on NPR. I mean, yes, they suck, but I understand why they are necessary for public radio to work. And I can't stand commercial radio, so it's all good. - DirtyVicar, on 01/02/2009, -3/+35It would have sucked to put all those highly-decorated edit war warriors out on the streets. I wonder what they would do with their lives.
- wontstoptalking, on 01/02/2009, -2/+34Cue triumphant music, a medal ceremony, streamers, and basically the last few minutes of the original Star Wars.
- EagleRufio, on 01/02/2009, -1/+32No don't worry I've been using 4chan in all of my papers; my paper "Over 9000, achievable power level or sayian myth?" went over really well. F's are for Fantastic right?
- Murdats, on 01/02/2009, -0/+28$6mill a year to run one of the biggest websites around is actually pretty small, I am surprised they can afford staff, development, maintenance, hardware, bandwidth and all the rest on top of that for a whole year on just 6mill
- scburns123, on 01/02/2009, -0/+28[citation needed]
- Murdats, on 01/02/2009, -2/+30what do you like then? TV? Books? traditional encyclopaedias? research papers? published papers? the first hand account directly of a person who has studied the topic?
oh wait, none of those should be fully trusted, but unless you want to spend your life researching everything there is to know on the topic yourself you have to say "I only need this amount of certainty" and use a trusted source.
if I am looking up something casually I will use wiki because I don't want to dig through and corroborate 5 different research papers, however if I need more information or for some reason have to write a report on the topic I will spend longer.
but no, according to you no one should know anything because it cant be fully trusted, and apparently no one should bother writing news/books/papers/encyclopaedias/websites because people might believe them without putting in a months work to verify the information - Chairboy, on 01/02/2009, -3/+29WikipediaReview has a nice history of making legal threats against people who criticize it (me included) and has had members harass Wiki-admins at their work and more.
Will someone start another thread there about me because of this post saying that I should be sued? Maybe. That's just the type of bully tactics they use, and their credibility is consequently pretty low. - inactive, on 01/02/2009, -2/+27It's 6 Million dollars. Yeah, we're all poor middle class but when it comes to something as big as Wikipedia, 6 mil is nothing.
America just threw 700 Billion away, let that be a good ruler of how much 6 mil is worth. - TheSpook, on 01/02/2009, -0/+24Which language are you searching in? The English edition is quite comprehensive.
- iborobotosis23, on 01/02/2009, -0/+24One might say it; but they'd be wrong.
- akaakc, on 01/02/2009, -1/+24That's probably on there, too.
- drgmdp, on 01/02/2009, -4/+27great, now my edits can be deleted by paid moderators
- nullcodes, on 01/02/2009, -2/+25I am disappointed in you and the people who dugg you's lack of ability to comprehend costs and acute unawareness of all the things the wikimedia foundation does. Have you ever run a business yourself? Do you think bandwidth is free and servers are free? Do you think people should be upkeep the servers for free so you can diss it on digg? Wikipedia and the wikimedia organization needs full time systems administrators and full time software developers so the site can be highly reliable with redundant backups. A decent sys admin is expensive, and so are good software developers. Their time is valuable. Wikipedia also needs a fund raising team so that they can get big donations from multi millionaires in Silicon Valley etc. They also need to manage their finances properly so that idiots like you won't be credible when you spread negativity (did you bother looking at their budget?). They also need good financial management or top donors would give money.
Wikipedia is in the top 10 sites on the interenet. Sometimes. it's in the top 5.
Digg, which is not in the top 200 has over 70 staff (according to Kevin Rose). Digg also spends far more than $6 million a year. Again I remind you, digg's content is entirely from users and spends more .. unlike wikipedia which is in the top 5 with only 23 staff.
And what's digg besides user driven content?
I won't even bring up other user content driven sites like Myspace, Facebook etc.
I would like to point out that most open source software is not developed for free either. For example IBM, red hat, intel etc. pays developers to contribute code to Linux. Open Office? Sun funds some of the development. Apache? IBM contributes. This isn't happening with Wikimedia so it needs some foundation paid programmers so that new features can be added quicker, also for customization of the software. - TheSpook, on 01/02/2009, -0/+22Payroll is the largest expense at pretty much every business/organization.
- franklymister, on 01/02/2009, -2/+24The fact that about half a million dollars is going just for two people and their "expenses" (Office of the Executive Director) seems really sketchy.
And why do they even have a Head of Business Development at this non-profit?
These guys basically want to live like '90s dotcom millionaires while getting donations as if they were a charity. - jayhawk88, on 01/02/2009, -16/+38You know they have these things, they're called books, repositories of information in paper format. Think of them as one-time writable PDA's. Typically they keep them in a place called a library, you might have heard of it, it's usually on campus near that place where they hand out the free condoms in the spring. You should maybe look into it.
- wedoDigg, on 01/02/2009, -6/+27Wikipedia wants to streamline its operations, setup a system like a cloud where we can all host its content.
$1.619 million for finance and administration is just damn stupid, they have a IT system manageing their donations. So their should be no additional income, so thats all logged. Other than that its simple costs such as hardware, bandwith.
So why so much to pay for them? ... I love wikipedia but they need better management, especialy to survive recent times. - gumballer, on 01/02/2009, -0/+21unless he goes to Norway
- inactive, on 01/02/2009, -0/+21If not, it will be by the time this hits the homepage.
- chadsmith729, on 01/02/2009, -3/+23You and me both man, you and me both. It just seems very interesting how a non-profit can bank that much money. I mean I understand how the non-profits work like the Red Cross and such, but it just seems very odd why they are based in FL but HQ is in CA. Which correct me if I am wrong ... both those states the cost of living is sky high.
Move to Montana or something and set-up shop there. No offense is meant to the fine Montana people (all 12 of you) that stumbled upon this posting. I have a a few friends in Montana and the cost of living is really low compared to CA and FL. - greenlight2001, on 01/02/2009, -4/+24Is there a break down somewhere of how they spend their money? $1.619 million for finance and administration seems fishy.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 331 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is