Wikipedia is looking desperate for no reason

I agree. And have you looked at their financial statements? (Available on the site). It seems they have millions in the bank.

Well they have to make money from somewhere. Personally
I don't mind that ad, it's better than an adsense ad or something
else.

Would you rather them plaster ads on the site?

The REQUEST for money is ONLY during their fundraising period. It also stops when their goal is met.

As for them having millions, it takes millions to pay for servers, rent, electricity, programers, etc.

Garrie

If you use it enough for the ads to be annoying enough to come in here and complain, you use it enough to throw a few bucks their way.

Those fund-raising appeals are what come up with the cash to keep that resource available for you. And you think it's useful to complain to us? Even if anyone here wanted to do anything about it, what do you believe we could do?

This is not The Internet Gripe Center, no matter what impression you might get from the front page some days.


Paul

Wikipedia wants to keep their website free of advertisements from commercial companies. The website tries hard to look like a legitimate source of informative, education oriented, content.

Would you rather have a Coca Cola or Sony advertisement on the website? I think that would look weird.

They have a donation system in tact to help them monetize their website. It is a technique, a way to make money.

Get over it. It isn't pathetic and it isn't desperate. If it gets you to donate, then its working. It it doesn't get you to donate, then just use Wikipedia when you need it like everyone else and move on. The last people this marketing campaign aims to target is internet marketers and people trying to make money online. Wikipedia is very similar to a lot of what we internet marketers are trying to achieve. An authority website that gets so much traffic it can make money on its own by simply asking for donations :rolleyes:

I think Wikipedia has a very clean interface with no B.S (until the donation request came up). It would be a real pity to see the page turning into an adsense or Coca-cola advert page. Without sponsors, they can stay focused and not get muddied by the consumerism that usually surrounds information online.

me too. i wouldn't mind the publicity

so you speak for everyone in the world huh?

go to dictionary.com its quite educational, and guess how they make money..

Wouldn't notice unless it interested me, which would make it enjoyable, contrary to the popular belief that ads are ALWAYS annoying.

I'm over it.. I just think it makes them look like less authoritative and somewhat lacking as a corporation.

The point of the post was to talk about whether it would make there company look more legitimate to have normal ads rather than the "personal appeals," which gives off the impression that they, like many businesses in this economy are struggling, and possibly even desperate.


You are right, it is an internet marketing forum where people go to share and discuss various ways to make money online, and to discuss other ways that websites are already making money.. seems to me like that is what I was doing.

thanks, that was my point. I figured there were a lot of people that would be thinking the same thing. They would probably make WAY more money with just one adsense block at the top.

Plus Google might even throw even more love their way because of the amount of revenue increase they would receive.

Idc personally, I am just discussing how it makes the company look to their users.

Interesting, seems to be a long period though... what if they just put up adsense for a few weeks? That would probably get the job done.


Just curious about why you think that.

thanks, I thought I wouldn't be the only one that felt that way.

I guess I did sort of give off the tone of a rant though. My apologies for that.

They are a non-profit website, and like the local United Way, they run fund-raising during only part of the year.

I only noticed the fund-raising request about one month ago.

On its website, on the call-to-action page, it clearly says:

Give em $20 so that they can stop -- "begging for money" as you put it -- a little sooner than they expected...

It really is that simple... If you want to shut them up, send them a few bucks.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

I don't see how the OP or anyone else deems it desperate. It just stands out more because Wikipedia is a huge organization.

Wikipedia would have to worry about the advertisers. Adsense is a very big system. One that is used by many different advertisers, through Adwords. It would look bad if Wikipedia, using Adsense, had ads placed about scam supplements like **** Berry on the same page it talks about diet supplements or weight loss.

They would have to weed out advertisers and risk their image.

Again I re-iterate, they try hard to look like a legitimate source of informative, education oriented, content. Why would they risk that? Why is it so hard for you to see that.

Of course, my opinion is merely an opinion, as is yours.

It does not matter if "the likelihood of that happening is quite low". Organizations like Wikipedia don't step into something with that mentality in mind. If it is a possibility, they should avoid doing it.

You can assume the same thing about their donation system :rolleyes: and Google does not operate in that way... Increase of revenue does not mean better "organic" search engine rankings.

Yeah. You can just about make out the sound of no one besides you giving a hoot. You can hardly count a single forum thread started by yourself as "bad publicity".

What about it? If you think it's a good idea, send it directly to Wikipedia themselves. At any rate, it's likely far more people would mind an adsense ad than a donation request. To most people, asking for donations is not commercial intent. It is simply asking for finical aid to keep the site running. Running an ad, however, is commercial intent. I can see Wikipedia getting some bad publicity from that.

People expect them to have ads, and lots of them. That's how they make money, and always have. And who says that people trust the news as much as Wikipedia? If they were to switch their advertising model to resemble that of a newspaper, how many of their users do you think would protest? Do you really think Wikipedia wants people to view them in the same light as a sensationalist news outlet, as opposed to an unbiased source of information?

No corporation is going to want a temporary ad. If they fund Wikipedia, they'll want that ad up 24/7/365.

Actually, I think Paul summed up your post very accurately. You're complaining about Wikipedia's "begathon", and are insisting that it's creating bad publicity for them, and that they'd be better off running ads from corporate sponsors. All so that you don't have to be bothered with a guilt trip of knowing you can't be bothered to shell out a couple of bucks.

That's your opinion, and it doesn't seem to be shared by too many other people.

That's because most other companies are for-profit, and sell products and services to make their money. Wikipedia doesn't fall into that category. The only service they provide (high quality information on almost every topic under the sun) is completely free.

No he isn't. He's presenting a valid and constructive counter-argument, and pointing out the logical fallacies in your posts.

Sorry, but it's obvious that your post is little more than a rant. The fact is, most people don't mind the "begathons", and actually will gladly donate a few dollars to keep Wikipedia going. And frankly, with all the years they have provided their excellent service, I think they are entitled to ask for donations to keep their site running for as long as they feel is needed.

It's far more likely that most people would hate ads, and would ask why Wikipedia has stopped running their "begathons".

But that's beside the point. The way I see it, you're upset that hardly anyone agrees with you, and now you're reduced to accusing Paul of "griping". Those are dangerous waters you're treading in there.

You'd be well advised to simply step back and learn from what Paul is saying. You'll be a better person for it. I'd know.

To me it's sort of like PBS TV. In our area stations like KCET. They take donations from sponsors and mention them briefly from time to time and then have BIG fund raising events once or twice a year (maybe more) where they ask (Beg to some) for funds to keep up quality content.

No problem Donate or not.

By the way, I'm going to make one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more this year (actually next year) because of this thread and Paul Myers.

Thanks Paul.

George Wright

This is the second time Wikipedia has asked for financial help. They did so about a year ago.

I get a lot of answers from reading Wikipedia, so I sent them a few dollars the last time, and again this time.

Their asking for money is the same thing as the National Public Radio or public television here in The States having fund raisers.

:-Don

I don't believe it takes millions to maintain wikipedia. All the writing on their site is made from the users and now they ask for money from those users? ...

Google is funding them more than enough.

Cheers,
Yoangov

I do not see "request for fund raising" as begging. And I would rather see it asking for funds then plastering ads everywhere on the website.

I understand whyt some IMers want that to happen simply because they can get quality cheap traffic from WikiPedia, if they use Google Adsense.

I would urge everyone reading this post to donate $5 or $10 to wikipedia. I, like many others, want it to remain functional, and run by public money, and not by greedy blood-drenched corporate capital.

Wikipedia asking for donations? Thats a new one for me. I just use Wikipor... err I mean Wikimedia.

Nevermind.

mhmm, I'm not sure if having targeted, high quality advertising would affect an image of "neutrality".

The writers typically have no financial stake in wikipedia, and hence no motivation to keyword stuff an article to 'trigger' particular Adsense ads.

The Adsense is hence there 'after the fact' (after the content was written) and if Google do their job properly, it should be very targeted, read: useful.

just my $0.02

Veit

I just don't get this "anti-ad" attitude. It seems to me that ads can actually add usefulness to a site if they are targeted to the interests of the visitor. In addition, all you have to do is ignore them if you're not interested.

For decades PBS had this same attitude. They were too uppity to run ads. Then the government cut their funding and they started doing the announcements at the beginning of a show to give credit to the companies that funded that show. Then they started offering the incentive "gifts" in return for donations. When you say "Send us $100 and you'll receive this "gift", that's really an ad. They might be asking for a larger donation than the value of the "gift" but it's still advertising for money.

Does anyone think that the quality of programming has diminished on PBS since they started those things? I don't see it. And I don't see where ads on a site have any relationship whatsoever to the quality of the content on that site. There's plenty of garbage out there with no ads and plenty of great sites with ads.

I'm going to send them money so they can continue to out-rank me for 80% of my target keywords? I don't think so.
And it takes "millions to pay for servers and programmers?" huh?

And they're a "not for profit organization?" - huh? I wonder what they're paying their directors?
As you can see I've got the Holiday spirit this year!

I don't mind them asking for money at all. I gave 5 bucks just to help a little. I would much rather donate a few dollars a couple times a year then see Adsense on the site.

Wiki has helped me out a lot over the years and I always respected the fact that they do not slam their pages full of Adsense (or any other ads for that matter). When I came across their request for donations it seemed appropriate. Some people seem to think Wiki (amongst other things) are an entitlement ...

Just slap on one or two CPM ads.... and call it a day. No need to 'beg' people to donate in this bad economy...

The only thing I really mind about the "Personal Donation Requests" is the creepy looking people that are often asking for the donations..

I don't see a reason why should we be annoyed when Wikipedia is asking for donations. Anyone can ask for donation if they really need to and you don't have to donate if you don't want to anyway. Wikipedia has been providing free information for people ever since so it ill be just right no give whatever amount to them for the life of the website.

Ryuchi

Yes, why being annoyed if someone asks for donation?

I think donations should be used for preventing hunger, sex slavery, women abuse/killings etc.

When there are so many serious issues in the world, then in my eyes it looks a bit ridiculous when Wikipedia asks for donations for its encyclopedia.

If I owned Wikipedia, I would not ask for donations, and instead I would just put AdSense ads or other ads and fund all the costs with that. And I think it wouldn't hurt the quality of the Wikipedia at all, nor its neutrality.

I personally don't use Wikipedia. My English teachers in high school banned it from any research papers, claiming anyone could post anything on the site, whether it was factual or not. By the time someone finds the error, (if they ever find it) who knows how long it's been since it was posted? Wikipedia is good for finding other sources though.

"Wikipedia is a FREE service. You don't have to pay a dime for it and you get information, much of it, that you can't find anywhere else...certainly not in that depth."

I disagree. I once wrote a medical article for a site and went to Wikipedia out of desperation. I found that much of the info was copied from other sources I had already used.

"Do you really expect to outrank the world's fifth largest website?"
Their undeserved Google authority is astounding to me. But that's another entire issue in itself.

Why don't they put up a few ads for a few months, reach their target revenue then take down the ads?

That would solve the issue.

Maybe they are worried that their links could be devalued as looking for the money if they were to place Adsense ads