Comments on: Wikimedia = $192,000/day in donations?

By: seo

seo — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:24:38 +0000

thank you this is nice blog

By: SEO

SEO — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:28:37 +0000

Wow, now that’s a lot of donations. They will reach their target and even bit it. It’s only a matter of time.

By: Handy finden

Handy finden — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:41:16 +0000

I’m not very good in math but with this money thing it would be fun… I think the Wikipedia Org is a necessary project if it can stay free and independent. Knowledge is power.

By: Studenten

Studenten — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:39:00 +0000

“192k a day in donations is really big for such a media. The model of this donation plan has to be flawless.”

I am wondering about this high figures. But the informatione that wikipedia is brought to us is very huge.

By: Buy PSP Go

Buy PSP Go — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:00:21 +0000

If wikipedia was created solely by experts giving up their time for the greater spread of knowledge then I would fully support it. What I won’t support is the views of mis-informed individuals writing about subjects they know little about.

By: Love Poems & Love Quotes

Love Poems & Love Quotes — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:22:00 +0000

192k a day in donations is really big for such a media. The model of this donation plan has to be flawless.

By: Cash Back Rewards

Cash Back Rewards — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:49:23 +0000

Agreed, anyone who uses the internet is undoubtedly used to ads. I think it just comes down to wikipedia not being willing to risk their credibility by using ads. Regardless of the logic of using ads, there would be countless people bashing this decision. The fear is that an advertiser would edit information on that page just to suit their own needs. What if Adidas decided to advertise on the sneakers page and remove all references to other brands? It would put their whole database at risk of becoming very unreliable.

By: Gry dla Dzieci

Gry dla Dzieci — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:55:23 +0000

I don’t agree. As long as the community is willing to support it and make it ad-free it’s all good. The last thing we need is wikipedia cluttered with ads and eventualy sponsored articles. Sure it’s a business but if it’s model (donations) is working why change it?

By: Goran Web

Goran Web — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:22:01 +0000

Agreed. One would have to analyze the data over a longer period of time to get the average.

How they do it on $6m per annum is beyond me!

By: MDillenbeck

MDillenbeck — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:56:51 +0000

What is so wrong about creating a community created system of sharing knowledge that is free for the public, and thus using a not-for-profit donation based business model?

Wikipedia is an altruistic endeavor and not a money making scheme, especially when one considers knowledge is power. Although it has its own unique set of vulnerabilities, it democratizes information that use to be limited to those who could travel to libraries, buy their own library, or consult with experts - all which take money.

Why do I oppose ads? It IS an issue of integrity, whether real or perceived. If several companies are the major advertisers on Wikipedia, do you trust their pages to be completely unbiased? What if a major advertiser threatens to pull out due to “objectionable content” on their page?

Furthermore, pop-up and in-line adds are annoying. I visit Tom’s Hardware a lot, and over the past couple of years I’ve seen adds take over the top, left, right, and bottom of my screen. Heck, these ads even block my view of content, and one of these types of adds required so much power that it totally choked up my netbook and made the site useless to me.

Micro-charging would also turn people away. Would you want to buy a community built article for even 5 cents before seeing it? Would you want to take the time to put your credit card or electronic bank transfer information in for a 5 cent purchase? Considering transactions fees are often percentage plus flat rate, you would also be required to charge in bulk to stay profitable (buy 400 page vies for $20). How would you measure page views - if you accidentally backpage, is that a charge? Then you go forward to the new page because you didn’t finish it, is that a charge? Does the microcharge allow you to always view that page? What if it is updated, do you get charged again?

Personally, I like donation based system. Like PBS, you can still use the service but don’t have to pay - but if you like the service and want to keep it around, altruism will keep you donating.

Maybe what Wikipedia should do for those who want to be spammed with more advertising is to create an “opt-in” parallel site so you can see ads when you visit. Myself, I’d rather donate.