What is Digg?102 Comments
- Zaxcomp, on 11/09/2008, -1/+182I like it how no one discusses the fact that they are in the top 10 of web site traffic and that their operating cost of serving huge amounts of data is enormous. This hardly strips them of their non-profit status, and furthermore the comments thus far act like you have to pay money to view articles; you don't, there are no ads, no subscription fees, it is every bit a non-profit as it was from day one.
- jayhawk88, on 11/09/2008, -2/+106"They are selling knowledge at a price."
Really? So they're going to ask me for my credit card if I go to create an account? If I want to edit an article, I must first make a donation?
Wikipedia may or may not be badly managed, but let's not get overly dramatic here. It's still one of the best go-to sources of information on the web, despite what a lot of people claim. - atb12688, on 11/09/2008, -3/+99This article is *****. Do you really think it's free or inexpensive to serve Wikipedia? Well it's not. The world doesn't work that way.
- jhender, on 11/09/2008, -6/+82this article is drivel. not worth the time to read, same stuff the conspiracy theorists have been pushing for years about Wikipedia.
- atgmac, on 11/09/2008, -7/+75That's *****, I've learnt a lot from wikipedia. For example, did you know that Hitler went to war with Mexico in 1872?
- briangig, on 11/09/2008, -5/+62i have never seen a group of people whine and bitch as much as the wikipedia volunteers...change your tampons and get back to completing the list of postal codes in the Faroe Islands.
- inactive, on 11/09/2008, -2/+41It's an ad to help fund itself.. also it seems you can simply click a hide button.
So they fibbed a bit so maybe others would help toss on a few more bucks? Bleh. Wikipedia is pretty amazing. - atgmac, on 11/09/2008, -0/+33Yes learnt:
http://www.answers.com/learnt
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutsp ...
It means I went though the process of learning. Also, way to ruin the joke. - notepaddotexe, on 11/09/2008, -0/+33I've been using Wikipedia for random tidbits of info for as long as I can remember, and I haven't once had to pay for any of it. I should probably get around to donating, but you are still completely wrong.
- inactive, on 11/09/2008, -0/+28Most of Wikipedia's content isn't copied from other places unless you consider citations and references "places it was copied from," but in that case, you're a moron. Everything else you said was pretty much incorrect and pointless as well.
- leontes, on 11/09/2008, -5/+32Wikipedia, to cofounder Jimmy Wales's eternal dismay, is a nonprofit project rather than a lucrative private enterprise. [citation needed]
- ripple123, on 11/09/2008, -2/+28seriously. thats just nasty english.
- gcnaddict, on 11/09/2008, -0/+24"takamichinaku"
Aren't you that guy who said he'd quit Digg a while back when the submission and digging limits were enacted? Why are you still here? - facelesscoward, on 11/09/2008, -0/+24Wikia is a for-profit enterprise, AFAIK, a completely separate project from Wikipedia.
- Matt2k, on 11/09/2008, -3/+24"But that's not what has Wikipedia's volunteer editors up in arms. They're calling the donation banner "ugly." They're debating how to make it easier to hide. They're even questioning whether the foundation should be asking them for money at all, since they already contribute their labor."
You know, I listen to NPR a lot, and every few months they do a fund drive that is dramatically more annoying than a little bar across the top of my free research. They even ask volunteers to raise money and even donate themselves. Wow! I visit wikipedia literally, every single day. When I google for something, if it's not the first link, I scan down until I find it. That's worth something
And starting out with $2 million on the progress bar. Really? That gets people upset? Do you get upset when they prime the tip jar at the coffee shop? Would you prefer they didn't count that and raised $6 mil from scratch
If you don't want to donate, fine, but SHUT THE ***** UP and let them fundraise.
"Wool, a former Wikimedia Foundation employee, noted earlier this year Jimmy Wales's attempts to expense a $1,300 dinner with a venture capitalist"
Wining and dining wealthy donors, eh? LIke the ones that are giving them three million.
I swear to god I hate every one of you on the internet. It's like you put on a self entitled stupid-cap just to piss me off personally - tehknotte, on 11/09/2008, -0/+20um i think it's other sites that do the copypasta from wikipedia...
- localzuk, on 11/09/2008, -0/+18Did you know that most charity collections seed their collection tins with change before a drive? The initial change in the cans makes people think 'well if other people are donating, i'll donate too'. It is a well used, tried and trusted method - Wikimedia is doing nothing different here.
Anyone who is questioning Wikipedia's existence simply because the organisation is inefficient should wake up to the real world - Wikipedia is a resource unlike any other. All large non-profits have inefficiencies, that's the way of life in a capitalist society. It doesn't mean their goals and purposes are useless.
It comes down to this - is Wikipedia worth money to you? Is it a good resource? If you agree, donate. If not, don't. Simple. Don't complain about the banner ad's - that's just pathetic. - dzhastin, on 11/09/2008, -0/+16Actually I think Wikipedia is much better than the great library of Alexandria. It didn't have nearly as much arcane knowledge about Pokemons. Sure, it might have had more classical thought, but if you want to know about every Jedi knight in the Star Wars universe (both canonical and fan fiction), Wikipedia clearly has Alexandria beat.
- rivalius13, on 11/09/2008, -2/+16He's holding dollar bills in the picture, if he's running it as a for profit he's doing it wrong.
- brett1337, on 11/09/2008, -4/+15i was just wondering to myself what all this donating was about today
- Ovalteen, on 11/09/2008, -1/+11How does that in any way invalidate the point that Wikipedia is neither free nor inexpensive to operate?
- netneutrality, on 11/09/2008, -0/+10Not so unusual. People complain about the banner being ugly every year, so it gets redesigned a couple of times during the fundraising drive. Previous donors "not donating this year" is also not unusual, and there are always users who end up adding code to their monobook.css to make the banner go away. (For the record, it is pretty ugly.)
- oneoverzero, on 11/09/2008, -1/+11There's no real difference between .com and .org.
If I felt like it, this morning I could go out and register a .org domain and make it into a hardcore pornography website. - adiyo011, on 11/09/2008, -1/+10That is a really misleading title.
- Rothbardosaurus, on 11/09/2008, -0/+8If he really wants to make money he needs to go on speaking engagements where he prattles on in flowery language about the Internet and Knowledge. Academics eat that ***** right up.
$10k per speech easy. - diablo75, on 11/09/2008, -0/+8BURIED. I've never sent Wikipedia any money to gain access to their resources. Others can if they'd like, and I just might someday after we're out of this recession and I've got some walkin' around money to toss at valuable educational institutions like this. But the fact remains: It's not cheap to host a website that gets as many hits as they do per hour. If you wanna bitch and moan.... go build your own ***** Wikipedia.
- bduddy, on 11/09/2008, -1/+8I remember the difference between .com and .org: nothing. Seriously, .org hasn't meant anything for years.
- netneutrality, on 11/09/2008, -2/+8Not really. I think that applies to certain topics of articles, mostly pop culture crap and the articles about insignificant bands and schools and other groups no-one ever heard of (lousy topic = lousy article). But I use Wikipedia for the thousands of solid mathematics, science, history, articles, etc., written by people who are really very knowledgeable.
- runnerr0, on 11/09/2008, -0/+6one word ... "troll"
- MrSkills, on 11/09/2008, -0/+6So we should hate him because he does not fund the whole project out of his own pocket?
- Culyt, on 11/09/2008, -2/+8This isn't just for webserver costs, they participate in other things such as shipping CDs to areas without good Internet connection.
And there are also local Wikipedia chapters that could see this money.
☢ - luet, on 11/09/2008, -2/+8uncyclopedia? ed? surely you're joking
- steelersfan7roe, on 11/09/2008, -1/+7That's what you're supposed to do.
Wikipedia is not a primary source document, retard. - kestrel7e7, on 11/09/2008, -1/+7Vágur's postcode is 900
- psilanthropist, on 11/09/2008, -0/+5I'd like to see Brittanica give me information on the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Trall if it can. The point is, Wikipedia has always been brilliant because there is an article for almost everything on it. If you just wanted to research some straightforward history or science, sure Britannica, Encarta and the rest will do. But for everything else there's Wikipedia.
And this whole problem of spam and defaced articles is confined to some of the more active pages with controversial topics (George Bush's page, Iraq War, et al). They rarely ever spill over to the pages dealing with subjects like the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Trall and even when they do, they're cleared up pretty quick. - Texmurphy01, on 11/09/2008, -3/+8So a guy has to pay for his web traffic and servers. Next story please.
- dupek11, on 11/09/2008, -2/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_postal_codes_ ...
Looks completed to me. Anyways you sir are a dumb-ass. How about you practice what you preach and stop whining about wikipedia? - Nothlit, on 11/09/2008, -1/+5It's Valleywag, do you really expect the things they say to be true?
- scissorfiend, on 11/09/2008, -3/+7If wikipedia is non-profit shouldn't there already be transparency in how that money is spent? I don't think 6 million is a ludicrous amount for a website of such immensity and importance but I'm just curious about where it all goes. And at least the banner doesn't flash.
- Rothbardosaurus, on 11/09/2008, -6/+10Wikipedia is today's Hitchhiker's Guide. It's just as reliable, just as accurate, and edited more or less in the same way. There are countless articles that have facts stripped so the most persistent maintainer can keep it loyal to the groupthink. It's not the sum of human knowledge. It's the sum of what the majority *thinks* they know.
Once you stop taking Wikipedia seriously, it becomes less disappointing. - inactive, on 11/09/2008, -3/+7I'm sure Jimmy would have had no problem at ALL coming up with the six million if he hadn't been such a ***** to everyone for the past four years.
- scabbers, on 11/09/2008, -0/+4I don't like Wikipedia much, but I have to say $6m is a drop in the ocean compared to the crazy money that's been thrown down the drain recently.
- kestrel7e7, on 11/09/2008, -1/+5Click [collapse]
- joshua5, on 11/09/2008, -1/+5Since beginning to read these comments I have visited Wikipedia 3 times.
- inactive, on 11/09/2008, -1/+4The above post is an example of why you should never do drugs.
- Georgy, on 11/09/2008, -0/+3why the ***** do we care if jimmy wales expenses $1300 for dinner, are you getting charged for using wikipedia?
Then STFU.... - inactive, on 11/09/2008, -0/+3Dugg for ☢
- djholybolt, on 11/09/2008, -0/+3@salomejones-
Am I high, or did i just read you saying you are contradicting a point that you were making? I swore I just saw you post a comment saying 'For those of us who remember the difference between com and org, that's a very telling email address.' trying to distinguish that because he doesn't have a .org domain that he's a for-profit and if he did have a .org e-mail address he was aiming towards being non-profit?
Make up your ***** mind, sir! - potatolicious, on 11/09/2008, -0/+3I don't think anyone is disputing that Wikipedia takes a lot of money to run - I think the controversy is that seemingly very little of the donations are used for hosting, servers, bandwidth, etc., all the while Jimmy Wales is living it up like a playboy. There are certainly valid questions being raised about how Wikimedia spends its money.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is