Wikipedia is looking desperate for no reason

66 replies
They keep begging everyone to give them money and I find it a little ridiculous. I mean don't get me wrong, I like Wikipedia, but I just don't see why it would hurt so much to put up a single Google Adsense ad at the top of every page, in place of the ad (as much as they seem to think that it is not an ad) where they are practically begging people who don't have extra cash to just give it to them.

My thoughts are that I would MUCH rather have some large corporation pay to keep wikipedia alive, rather than have to see them beg (it looks bad) or me have to keep donating to keep them alive.

Just one ad at the top in place of their donation begging ad would completely solve their money issue..

just sayin.
#desperate #reason #wikipedia
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5306805].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Atkins
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5306816].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author LegitIncomes
      I have to agree with the OP.

      It looks tacky, and appears to be "begging" for money, imo.

      "Please read a personal appeal from:"

      Pathetic. Just put an ad up and take down the tacky ads that you keep saying aren't ads. Yes they are. They are ads begging for money.
      Signature
      100% Unique Sales Page Website +100% Unique Internet Marketing Product
      + Support! All of this, just $397! (PM Me For Details!)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5306853].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author eskimoto
        Originally Posted by LegitIncomes View Post

        I have to agree with the OP.

        It looks tacky, and appears to be "begging" for money, imo.

        "Please read a personal appeal from:"

        Pathetic. Just put an ad up and take down the tacky ads that you keep saying aren't ads. Yes they are. They are ads begging for money.

        do you think a 720x90 adsense ad would look less tacky?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308701].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
    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
    Signature
    Screw You, NameCheap!
    $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

    SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5306848].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    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
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5306895].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

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

      Anyways, I actually like the personal appeals. To all those suggesting just a simple adsense ad, how many of you are actually going to click it?

      Didn't think so.

      I donated because of the personal appeal. At least it gave me an idea that I'm contributing to something for a good reason. It doesn't come off as some "desperate money grab", at least from my point of view. I guess I'm just not cynical enough yet.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5306915].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Eddie Titan
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      This is not The Internet Gripe Center,
      Paul, I would like to nominate the line above as a sticky in the Main Internet Marketing Forum here at WF
      Signature
      New Members Challenge! Join me in 2012. Set an income goal for the New Year and achieve it!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5306955].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Eddie,
        Paul, I would like to nominate the line above as a sticky in the Main Internet Marketing Forum here at WF
        The problem with that suggestion is that the people who read the stickies aren't generally the ones who post stuff like this...

        Note: No smiley. 'Struth!


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5306983].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mrjosco
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      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
      Then why are you griping?
      Signature

      Vintage and Retro Shirts from Vinretro

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307114].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author WakondaMarketing
        It's way better that flooding their site with ads. And besides giving back a little to the Wikipedia ain't that bad. Afterall, they helped a lot of people. They got lots of expenses to meet and they don't have that much resources to get income. And besides, it's not compulsory.
        Signature

        Wakonda Marketing Inc
        Want to crush it with Media Buying ?
        Needs hordes of traffic ?
        Call us now 514-688-2576
        or visit http://www.wakondamarketing.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307149].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by mrjosco View Post

        Then why are you griping?
        He's a mod ... he gets to "gripe" at the gripers. lol.

        And he raises good points all round. Wikipedia is a non-commercial site and ads, other than the fundraising appeals would put it at risk of being tarnished by the appearance that their "facts and opinions" could be bought for the right price from supporting sponsors.

        Suppose Bank of America wanted to pay for an ad on Wikipedia. Would Wikipedia be obliged to leave out the information about lawsuits and settlements, TARP and other unflattering information?

        Bank of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308439].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kenmichaels
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post


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


      Paul

      Are you sure about that ????
      Signature

      Selling Ain't for Sissies
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307711].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Eddie Titan
    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:
    Signature
    New Members Challenge! Join me in 2012. Set an income goal for the New Year and achieve it!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5306914].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author princecapri
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5306989].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Sleinad
      Originally Posted by princecapri View Post

      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.
      I agree with this post. However, I don't see why everyone hates ads so much? A simple, clean, link unit like adsense horizontal ones would fit in perfectly.
      Signature
      Learn How To Day Trade With Clever Day Trading
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307002].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Eddie Titan
        Originally Posted by Sleinad View Post

        I agree with this post. However, I don't see why everyone hates ads so much? A simple, clean, link unit like adsense horizontal ones would fit in perfectly.
        Just because it can fit, doesn't mean it is right for the website. I don't think it would be a good move by Wikipedia. Just think about the Adsense system and how it operates and you should come to the same conclusion.
        Signature
        New Members Challenge! Join me in 2012. Set an income goal for the New Year and achieve it!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307036].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        A simple, clean, link unit like adsense horizontal ones would fit in perfectly.
        Perhaps. While I don't really have any strong opinions on that myself, I can tell you it would create more problems than the perceived "begathons."

        With any contextual advertising system, the accusations of pandering to advertisers would damage Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality. Doesn't matter that the allegations would very likely have zero foundation. They'd be out there, and a compelling argument could be made for their truth. Yes, even if they're completely untrue. Posit a reasonable sounding set of assumptions and you can make almost anyone believe almost anything. If they don't check the assumptions, they'll swallow the argument whole.

        And then there's the problem of conflicts between ads and content. If a page talks about the myths of SEO, for example, the keywords could pull up ads for SEO firms. No-one would be happy about that outcome.

        Corporate sponsorships bring in even larger issues. Like, what happens if the company decides they don't like something in Wikipedia's database and pulls a significant chunk of funding?


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307059].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          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.
          Really? It seemed like this was the main focus of your post:
          My thoughts are that I would MUCH rather have some large corporation pay to keep wikipedia alive, rather than have to see them beg (it looks bad) or me have to keep donating to keep them alive.
          Translation: "Why can't someone else pay for it so I can benefit without having to make any effort?"

          If the focus was on more effective ways to raise money for a crowd-sourced site, you'd have asked that. Not griped about how inconvenient those horrible ads are.

          This is "Getting hit on the head" lessons. "Complaints" are down the hall.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307081].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author igorGriffiths
            Having just visited Wikipedia and read their request for funding, my thoughts turned to the quality of the site and how they are actually ever going to become sustainable whilst matching their vision of becoming a unique portal of non commercial information.

            i did a search for other great portals and came across, Great Libraries of the World this I think has the better business model, why not sell years in review on wikipedia. I would gladly give them some money if they could provide organised relevant and validated information in return.

            As marketers we do not create products without knowing there is a demand for them so why should wikipedia be any different, let them create year reviews, these will surely cover their costs as the 5th world website.

            Of course they will have to address the concerns of many that this site is really just a site for plagiarised and comical content which I agree is true.

            Until the site actually becomes a trusted source of information and learns how to market this then its current vision is doomed to failure.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5317968].message }}
        • Originally Posted by Eddie Titan View Post

          Just because it can fit, doesn't mean it is right for the website. I don't think it would be a good move by Wikipedia. Just think about the Adsense system and how it operates and you should come to the same conclusion.
          The adsense system operates by displaying ads that are related to the topic on the page, meaning that the ads would be relevant to the content, and not appear as a nuisance. What problem were you alluding to?

          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          Perhaps. While I don't really have any strong opinions on that myself, I can tell you it would create more problems than the perceived "begathons."
          In my opinion the problem is that they are being perceived as a "begathon," that is bad publicity in my opinion.

          there probably are unforseen problems that could come up though.

          what about my suggestion of just displaying one adsense unit until their needs are met, then taking it down again?

          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          With any contextual advertising system, the accusations of pandering to advertisers would damage Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality. Doesn't matter that the allegations would very likely have zero foundation. They'd be out there, and a compelling argument could be made for their truth. Yes, even if they're completely untrue. Posit a reasonable sounding set of assumptions and you can make almost anyone believe almost anything. If they don't check the assumptions, they'll swallow the argument whole.
          I just dont think that would be enough to not trust the legitimacy of their content.. People still read newspapers, and watch the news, and those types of allegations are made towards them almost daily.


          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          Corporate sponsorships bring in even larger issues. Like, what happens if the company decides they don't like something in Wikipedia's database and pulls a significant chunk of funding?
          Interesting point.. but if it was temporary like their donation requests, the likelihood of that happening is quite low.
          Signature




          Have a Wonderful Day!

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307088].message }}
          • Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            This is not The Internet Gripe Center,
            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            Really? It seemed like this was the main focus of your post:Translation: "Why can't someone else pay for it so I can benefit without having to make any effort?"
            Sounds like you are griping a bit to me my friend..

            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            If the focus was on more effective ways to raise money for a crowd-sourced site, you'd have asked that. Not griped about how inconvenient those horrible ads are.
            You may have read my post in a griping tone, for whatever reason, which I don't know. The fact is, I am suggesting that the asking for money gives off the perception of a "begathon."

            I can't remember seeing any good companies, until now, that have had to beg for money for months on end. (its has been up for a while now)

            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            This is "Getting hit on the head" lessons. "Complaints" are down the hall.
            are you trying to re-label the sections of the warriorforum? lol

            you are complaining about my post, so I guess I will just follow you down the hall into the complaint section.
            Signature




            Have a Wonderful Day!

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307127].message }}
  • Originally Posted by Eddie Titan View Post

    Paul, I would like to nominate the line above as a sticky in the Main Internet Marketing Forum here at WF
    me too. i wouldn't mind the publicity

    Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post

    ...damn.

    Anyways, I actually like the personal appeals. To all those suggesting just a simple adsense ad, how many of you are actually going to click it?

    Didn't think so.
    so you speak for everyone in the world huh?

    Originally Posted by Eddie Titan View Post

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

    Originally Posted by Eddie Titan View Post

    Would you rather have a Coca Cola or Sony advertisement on the website? I think that would look weird.
    Wouldn't notice unless it interested me, which would make it enjoyable, contrary to the popular belief that ads are ALWAYS annoying.

    Originally Posted by Eddie Titan View Post

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

    Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

    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.
    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.


    Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

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

    Originally Posted by LegitIncomes View Post

    I have to agree with the OP.

    It looks tacky, and appears to be "begging" for money, imo.

    "Please read a personal appeal from:"

    Pathetic. Just put an ad up and take down the tacky ads that you keep saying aren't ads. Yes they are. They are ads begging for money.
    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.

    Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

    Would you rather them plaster ads on the site?
    Idc personally, I am just discussing how it makes the company look to their users.

    Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

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


    Originally Posted by IM Headlines View Post

    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.
    Just curious about why you think that.

    Originally Posted by anders3397 View Post

    I agree.
    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.
    Signature




    Have a Wonderful Day!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307056].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    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:

    We only raise what we need. When we've raised our budget, we stop fundraising for the year.
    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.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307080].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Eddie Titan
    Originally Posted by tpw View Post

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

    Originally Posted by Backtrack Linkback View Post

    The adsense system operates by displaying ads that are related to the topic on the page, meaning that the ads would be relevant to the content, and not appear as a nuisance. What problem were you alluding to?
    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.
    Signature
    New Members Challenge! Join me in 2012. Set an income goal for the New Year and achieve it!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307210].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Eddie Titan
    Originally Posted by Backtrack Linkback View Post

    Interesting point.. but if it was temporary like their donation requests, the likelihood of that happening is quite low.
    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.

    Originally Posted by Backtrack Linkback View Post

    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.
    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.
    Signature
    New Members Challenge! Join me in 2012. Set an income goal for the New Year and achieve it!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307238].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joshua Rigley
    Banned
    In my opinion the problem is that they are being perceived as a "begathon," that is bad publicity in my opinion.
    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 my suggestion of just displaying one adsense unit until their needs are met, then taking it down again?
    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.

    I just dont think that would be enough to not trust the legitimacy of their content.. People still read newspapers, and watch the news, and those types of allegations are made towards them almost daily.
    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?

    Interesting point.. but if it was temporary like their donation requests, the likelihood of that happening is quite low.
    No corporation is going to want a temporary ad. If they fund Wikipedia, they'll want that ad up 24/7/365.

    Sounds like you are griping a bit to me my friend..
    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.

    The fact is, I am suggesting that the asking for money gives off the perception of a "begathon."
    That's your opinion, and it doesn't seem to be shared by too many other people.

    I can't remember seeing any good companies, until now, that have had to beg for money for months on end. (its has been up for a while now)
    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.

    you are complaining about my post,
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307266].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author George Wright
    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
    Signature
    "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307579].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BIG Mike
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5307878].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DGFletcher
      I think there's somewhere on the internet where you can find something to just cover up their 'begging' ads...

      I don't notice, but I'm really glad that they don't have ads.

      Begging is self contained. It's them, asking us for money. Ads are connected. Them connected to other people--meaning that the 'other people' might also affect their neutrality.
      Signature
      Don't let a messed up computer mess up your business!

      Fix it with a Free Computer Security and Identity Protection Scan
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308637].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Don Schenk
    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
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308421].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yoangov
    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
    Signature

    I will run profitable ad campaigns for money.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308515].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by yoangov View Post

      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
      That's interesting. Please cite your sources for both little gems of information. Please give me the rundown on their costs for servers for such a massive site, plus costs for programmers and whatever other costs they may have and also, I'd like to know more about this Google funding. Is Google sending them a check?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308624].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author bikramksingh
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        That's interesting. Please cite your sources for both little gems of information. Please give me the rundown on their costs for servers for such a massive site, plus costs for programmers and whatever other costs they may have and also, I'd like to know more about this Google funding. Is Google sending them a check?
        LOL

        I liked your little gems of information bit....

        and Google checks is slightly outrageous... lol
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308745].message }}
      • Really, Suzanne, you might try using a search engine occasionally. Wikimedia Foundation, the organization behind Wikipedia, has received grant money from both Google and Sergey Brin.

        fLufF
        --
        Signature
        Fiverr is looking for freelance writers for its blog. Details here.
        Love microjobs? Work when you want and get paid in cash the same day!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5310952].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat View Post

          Really, Suzanne, you might try using a search engine occasionally. Wikimedia Foundation, the organization behind Wikipedia, has received grant money from both Google and Sergey Brin.

          fLufF
          --
          Well really Fluffy ... I did use Google.
          His quote was Google is funding them more than enough.

          Google donated $2M (which I Google here: Wikimedia blog » Google), which is not more than enough, as indicated by their expenses that I Googled here
          Wikipedia Money Problems | Wikipedia's tin-cup approach wears thin - Los Angeles Times

          But being catty is charming.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5311801].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author nm5419
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            Google donated $2M (which I Google here: Wikimedia blog » Google), which is not more than enough, as indicated by their expenses that I Googled here
            Wikipedia Money Problems | Wikipedia's tin-cup approach wears thin - Los Angeles Times
            I think that page exemplifies the very reason why Wikipedia opposes onsite advertisements. Just ad after ad after ad. Yuck! Does it really take that many for the LA Times to make money? Jeez!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5311864].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author tpw
              Originally Posted by nm5419 View Post

              I think that page exemplifies the very reason why Wikipedia opposes onsite advertisements. Just ad after ad after ad. Yuck! Does it really take that many for the LA Times to make money? Jeez!

              You forgot the tongue in cheek... :p
              Signature
              Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
              Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5311887].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            Have to think about it.

            Is it any of my business how the owners of Wiki fund their site?
            Do I think a time limited request for donations is begging?
            Do I miss pages plastered with the same old ads I see everywhere else?
            Does this issue have any ramifications for my own business online?

            One answer....NO

            That solved it for me.
            Signature
            Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

            Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5311884].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              Have to think about it.

              Is it any of my business how the owners of Wiki fund their site?
              Do I think a time limited request for donations is begging?
              Do I miss pages plastered with the same old ads I see everywhere else?
              Does this issue have any ramifications for my own business online?

              One answer....NO

              That solved it for me.
              I got to line one ... Is it anyone's business how Wiki funds their site ... and that is it in a nutshell. Don't like requests for donations? Don't read Wikipedia if it bothers you that much. I enjoy Wikipedia and could care less how or where they get money, and I don't expect them to tell me how to run my businesses.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5311899].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                BL,
                Sounds like you are griping a bit to me my friend..
                Clean your ears.

                I am starting to warn people about this stuff. If it doesn't at least slow down some, I'm going to start deleting all of it. This [mis|ab]use of the main discussion area is affecting the tone of the entire forum. And it's completely pointless.

                We can't do a thing about Wikipedia's choice of fundraising methods. Wouldn't if we could. THIS, however, we can do something about.
                are you trying to re-label the sections of the warriorforum?
                That was a joking reference to a Monty Python routine.

                kenmichaels,
                Are you sure about that ????
                Fair point. Some days, not so much.

                Perhaps I should have said, "It's not going to be the Internet Gripe Center."


                Paul
                Signature
                .
                Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5312151].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author eskimoto
                Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                I got to line one ... Is it anyone's business how Wiki funds their site ... and that is it in a nutshell. Don't like requests for donations? Don't read Wikipedia if it bothers you that much. I enjoy Wikipedia and could care less how or where they get money, and I don't expect them to tell me how to run my businesses.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5312370].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bikramksingh
    Originally Posted by Backtrack Linkback View Post

    They keep begging everyone to give them money and I find it a little ridiculous. I mean don't get me wrong, I like Wikipedia, but I just don't see why it would hurt so much to put up a single Google Adsense ad at the top of every page, in place of the ad (as much as they seem to think that it is not an ad) where they are practically begging people who don't have extra cash to just give it to them.

    My thoughts are that I would MUCH rather have some large corporation pay to keep wikipedia alive, rather than have to see them beg (it looks bad) or me have to keep donating to keep them alive.

    Just one ad at the top in place of their donation begging ad would completely solve their money issue..

    just sayin.
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308734].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    Wikipedia asking for donations? Thats a new one for me. I just use Wikipor... err I mean Wikimedia.

    Nevermind.
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308743].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author VeitSchenk
    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
    Signature

    Connect with me on FB: https://www.facebook.com/veitschenk

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308761].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      This is directly to the OP.

      I guess you're too young to remember the days of PBS and their begathons.

      I remember them well. PBS (channel 13 here) had the greatest programming of any station. You could see things that you couldn't see anywhere else and ALL commercial free.

      So a couple of times a year, they would beg for money so that they could keep giving you these great programs that you didn't have to be annoyed by commercials for.

      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.

      And you're bitching that they're asking for money?

      Seriously?

      You think it makes them look unprofessional?

      To me, it makes them look more like the kind of company that I wish we had
      more of in this world.

      Imagine...being able to go to a site, read a review about something and not
      have to worry about being slammed with an affiliate link and wondering just
      how unbiased that review REALLY is.

      Hey, guess what?

      You don't like Wiki's begging?

      DON'T GO TO THE SITE!

      Problem solved.

      /rant

      PS - I have donated to Wiki myself...GLADLY.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308924].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rick B
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308876].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BIG Mike
      Banned
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5310880].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Rick B
        Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

        I doubt anyone commenting is anti-ad....it's more a case of a lot of those posting comments recognizing and being supportive of the model Wikipedia chooses to follow.

        Wikipedia is not a marketing venture and as such has different goals than those of us here do.
        I understand why people are commenting. My point was that I don't get why advertising has any negative connotations for any site. The whole idea that Wikipedia is somehow "wholesome" or more valid because they are ad free makes no sense to me.

        Their content is either worthwhile or it isn't. If their goals are to benefit the public with good, free information and donations won't support those goals I don't understand why anyone would mind a content or interest targeted ad or two.

        Perhaps it's a side effect of our spoiled culture. People want everything perfect, for free and with nothing that annoys them (although I don't get why ads that can simply be ignored are all that annoying).

        Oh well!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5317817].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rooze
    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!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5309223].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by rooze View Post

      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!
      Since when do the staff and executives of non-profits work for free?

      Executive Compensation In Non-Profit Organizations - Blogcritics Politics
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5309600].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author rooze
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Since when do the staff and executives of non-profits work for free?

        Executive Compensation In Non-Profit Organizations - Blogcritics Politics
        I don't expect them to work for free. Someone earlier pointed to the fact that they're a non-profit, I'm merely pointing out that people in non-profits get paid, even if the corp does not.

        Originally Posted by Istvan Horvath View Post

        Unfortunately, you didn't get into the "learn before you speak" spirit... :rolleyes:
        otherwise you would know the difference between "volunteer" and "not for profit".

        Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
        (yes, you can look it up in Wikipedia...)
        Oh what a load of bollocks. I'm a volunteer for Wiki in 3 different categories, I know what the difference is.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5309645].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Istvan Horvath
      Originally Posted by rooze View Post

      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!
      Unfortunately, you didn't get into the "learn before you speak" spirit... :rolleyes:
      otherwise you would know the difference between "volunteer" and "not for profit".

      Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
      (yes, you can look it up in Wikipedia...)
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5309611].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by rooze View Post

      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?
      Do you really expect to outrank the world's fifth largest website? :p

      As for their server expenses:

      Looking at it one way, it's cheap to run Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation's other endeavors, which include an online compendium of quotations and a multilingual dictionary and thesaurus. The annual budget is $4.6 million, more than half of it dedicated to 300 computer servers and other equipment. On the other hand, the foundation has a tough time raising a few million dollars. The last fundraising campaign featured a video of co-founder Jimmy Wales literally wringing his hands in desperation.

      The 45,000 or so individuals who contribute annually give an average of $33 each, so campaigns, which are conducted online, raise only about one-third of what's needed.

      For the rest, foundation directors have to hit up outside donors, such as Stephen J. Luczo of Seagate Technology and U2's Bono.

      Recent money-making proposals include a Wikipedia television game show, a Wikipedia board game and Wikipedia T-shirts. Gardner said that a board game might by OK but that a game show would be problematic, because game shows are competitive and Wikipedia is collaborative.

      How about selling advertising space like most big-time websites do? Don't go there unless you want to start a Wikipedian riot. Some members of the foundation's board of trustees and most of the site's editors and contributing writers zealously oppose advertising.
      Wikipedia Money Problems | Wikipedia's tin-cup approach wears thin - Los Angeles Times
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5309785].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author rooze
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Do you really expect to outrank the world's fifth largest website? :p
        Yes, absolutely. :rolleyes:
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5310018].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      Originally Posted by rooze View Post

      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!
      ^^^ Favorite movie is "Scrooge"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5310260].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mmfromh
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5309344].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Marhelper
    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 ...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5310784].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kret0s
    Just slap on one or two CPM ads.... and call it a day. No need to 'beg' people to donate in this bad economy...
    Signature
    The Green Magazine Blog Community
    An Eco Friendly Blog by KnowYourEarth
    Spreading Global Green Awareness & Education
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5311158].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author robp12
    The only thing I really mind about the "Personal Donation Requests" is the creepy looking people that are often asking for the donations..
    Signature

    My name is Rob and I'm the founder of Career Dreaming, where I help job candidates leverage the power of recruiters to find a new job.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5312282].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
      Banned
      Originally Posted by robp12 View Post

      The only thing I really mind about the "Personal Donation Requests" is the creepy looking people that are often asking for the donations..
      They're not the best looking bunch, lol.

      I forget his name now, so I will sadly have to refer to him as "the blind one". He looked like a total badass (I'm not sure why but he reminded me of James Earl Jones in the Sandlot); and his appeal was very well written to boot. I donated when I read that one.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5312331].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ryuchi
    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
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5312677].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AbdullahKaragoz
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5313186].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Peru101
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5315750].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jacksonlin
    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.
    Signature
    Want a 13 Part FREE Internet Marketing Course - Taught By A PREMIER CLICKBANK SUPPER AFFILIATE? Did I mention taught through VIDEOS?
    Yup, I'm not hyping things up for you. Click here to check it out!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5320408].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author chrislangley
    Maybe they are worried that their links could be devalued as looking for the money if they were to place Adsense ads
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5320449].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      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.
      There is no "issue" to solve.

      Wiki is running just as it wants - using the funding method it has chosen. A few marketers don't like being asked for donations - thus this thread.

      Of course, if they weren't using the free Wiki site - they wouldn't see the donation requests.:p
      Signature
      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5321568].message }}

Trending Topics