Comments on: Wikipedia Needs 6 Million Dollars?

By: Laus

Laus — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:29:49 +0000

Cause Jimbo waste all on a orgie? xD

what with the Bomis babe – financing Wikipedia?

Despite the often repeated claim wikipedia has no ads but many detailed article on nosense. Nerd, any f*cking pornstar which nobody except her virgin fan know about

wikihistory
Next he opened Bomis, an ‘Adult Content’ website, which was followed by Nupedia, which morphed into Wikipedia.

By: Drew

Drew — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 04:23:56 +0000

Another appeal for money:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Letter/en?utm_source=2008_jimmy_letter_r&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=fundraiser2008#appeal

Pfffft!

By: Esther

Esther — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:03:03 +0000

All I read in their article is.

“we are free for everyone in the whole wide worlddddddd, but could you give me please some money. Pretty please? We are giving you “free” information.”

sounds like begging to me and asking for money for a so called “free” service. IF it were free they would have funded themself somehow and gotten money in a different way. They might as well just charge in stead of beg for donations, but that’s just meeeeeeee.

ps I need some donation for my ermmmmm beauty salon membership. yeah you can look at me for free, but I need to maintain it you see. So if you don’t mind donate some money to me please. I just need ermmm let’s say 1K. thank you ((i was kidding just mocking wikipedia))

By: Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:51:05 +0000

I don’t even use or trust Wikipedia, why the hell would I want to donate to them? None of their entries even make sense. Seems like a lot of dribble and nonsense. Why they need 6 million dollars is beyond me.

By: Al

Al — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:34:09 +0000

Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia of information anywhere. A study showed that the encyclopedia britanica and wikipedia in terms of accuracy are extreamly close. Just because people can edit it doesn’t mean that others can’t contest the new revisions and changes. Only information that people agree upon generally make it into mainstream articles. This may be a shocker but much of the “main stream” information you recieve is manipulated heavily.

By: Cambo

Cambo — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:21:06 +0000

If you want genuine reference materials, you should go to educational institution site. You’d be a fool to trust contents possibly put together by a bunch of ten-year-olds without proper research.

By: Liverfool

Liverfool — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:00:53 +0000

I’ve worked for a couple of high traffic sites before. Trust me, server infrastructure and bandwidth is not as expensive as you think. It may have been a couple of years ago, but not anymore.

By: easybullet

easybullet — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:45:29 +0000

the whole point of the article is that wikipedia is just asking for money and not bothering to let anyone know why.
i mean, its probably obviously for the running costs, but Wiki doesnt even give a link to the reasons why they need the money and also the breakdown of costs.

you it seems have searched and found this info, but not everyone can be expected to do that.

if youre gonna fork out cash to a company, you would like to know what they are gonna do with it.
a link to a simple breakdown of costs would do the job. but they didnt do that. I actually find it kind of rude to ask for money and not say why or where its going.

By: All Junk9

All Junk9 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:46:40 +0000

Have to agree with several others here. , I’m appalled at what appears to be a money grab.

Sadly, while I’m pro knowledge distribution I can’t help feeling that I’m reading nonsense when I “consult” wikipedia. Half the time there are more “citation needed” disclaimers than factual, and verifiable, evidence backing up a claim.

Regarding the pleas to support (organized mendicancy in reality) an outrageous “budget”. Since these guys don’t understand their own behavior here’s a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendicancy.

The “Board” should use video conferencing, the “all staff” meetings/travel should be eliminated as I’m sure they’re more boondoggle than anything else, the use of “FREE” should be removed from every description, and the salaries of all involved should be made public. Until these things are done, I can’t even consider donating a nickle.

PS – even at this late date, there is still no reference to confirmed, demonstrable, and verifiable facts such as linking Bush/Cheney to donkey shat, proving beyond a doubt that wikipedia is inaccurate, inadequate, and not to be trusted.

By: lespaul20

lespaul20 — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 01:31:27 +0000

But they did state it, at least as good as every other charitable org.

No one is forcing any one to donate so why does it matter what they are asking for? I haven’t seen any reference on what they should be spending just that they shouldn’t. While Rich didn’t condemn Wikipedia there was a slightly envious overtone that Wikipeida my actually get the 6 million that it apparently doesn’t need.

As to clearly defining where the money goes, to keep with my example, the Red Cross doesn’t itemized any more than Wikipedia does. At least in way that donors can easily get to them. Leaving any financial corruption just as much as a possibility as to Wikipedia execs driving nice cars. Red Cross isn’t a great example because they are not classified legally the same way.

PETA would have been a better example. They aren’t anymore specific on their site as Wikipedia is and there expensive are a lot more($30million) and I think the cause is about $40 million over budget.

The Wikimedia Foundation is who is actually asking for money, not just the encyclopedia. So there is more than one entity involved.

So Adam, if you can find a org classified the same as Wikimedia that itemizes expenses I happily reevaluate my position.