Wikipedia Asks for Help

I have used it,

But how do they handle quality control issues such as the one volunteer that turn up about a year and a half ago, where how they handed an imposter posing as a professor posting opinions as facts?

As he had quite a few entries. And is near impossible to track it.

As I understand it, he's asking for money for computer hardware, software, and the people that are hired to manage the infrastructure. The professor you mention was a volunteer contributing author I think. but good point.. how do we know where the money goes. There is a link for feedback on the page, so maybe we can post to that as this thread grows, with everyone's input. I think some transparency would be a good idea.

after looking through some available links connected to this page, it is evident that there is a great deal of information given about the financial planning and transparency related issues.

I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a profitable organization that had made the founder quite wealthy. Is that incorrect?

wiki nonprofit organization.

maybe you'll see his picture. and

under his picture its say.....look under profit

I misspoke. Nevertheless, I believe the founder profited handsomely, even if that isn't the correct terminology.

From what I've read he isn't that wealthy. But who cares, aren't we supposed to reward people who have good ideas and implement them with money?

That is indeed how a free market system works. The better the service or product you provide, the more money you make. Ask Bill Gates. Okay, sometimes the market doesn't quite work the way you might expect, but even if not perfect, it is the most efficient allocation of resources.

Wikipedia must make some money somehow, because they have some staff. Don't know how their business is structured. But it seems that if it is as popular as people say, they could make a lot of money selling advertising. That's how the rest of the web-based services do it.

What's wrong with that?

You Wrote:" But it seems that if it is as popular as people say, they could make a lot of money selling advertising. That's how the rest of the web-based services do it. What's wrong with that?"

Then they aren't a nonprofit anymore and the quality would deteriorate. A good example is the difference between public radio and tv versus abc, cbs, nbc, etc. I think most would agree that public radio keeps things intelligent, but the downside is they have to ask for donations all the time. Same as Wikipedia.

You may be wondering, why should going for profit result in lower quality. Well, first off, all the altruistic people who are helping write the definitions might view there generous donation of time and knowledge differently if someone else is making money off of it. If you have advertising on a page it becomes much harder to take down if the content needs to be merged. Suddenly your motivation is no longer producing the best website possible but instead the best website possible while making money.

As for windows, it cracks me up when people complain about Bill Gates. Have you ever tried to operate a computer by command prompt? It's awful. Whether he stole the idea, or just parts of the idea and made it happen, who cares, the fact is that Gates and Microsoft made computers a lot easier to use. Sure, having a monopoly on OS for the last 20 years has been annoying, but that's the federal governments fault, not Gates. If the government doesn't want to enforce our antitrust laws, then do you really blame Microsoft for doing anything they can to make an extra buck?

Wikipedia is NON-PROFITABLE or NON-EARNING ORGANISATION.

It is doing a very great service to the society. it needs support from all of us and also from the Industry in different field.

The founder(s)/organiser(s) has started with a motto of SERVICE BEFORE SELF. A noble hearted person.

Almost every week some reference is given to wikipedia. We all have to support.

Some time back I saw an appeal for contribution and I sent some amout to wikipedia.

Our Professors have taught " You should contribute more to the Society than what you have recd. from the society"

No words to express the services maintained by wikipedia in supporting theeducation

Let us jointly support and consider it is our media and ensure smooth functioning.

DHAYANANDHAN.S

I love wikipedia and everything it stands for. I rarely donate to things but I made a donation to them. I just have gotten so much out of the website it seemed like a no brainer. I'd hate for them to have to turn to ads or ad words for revenue.

I agree. When I was 22, and a newlywed.. I agreed to buy a complete set of Colliers Encyclopedia.. for 1800$ Wikipedia is better, evolving, and freely available. Surely it deserves something.

I fear this is the year many of us will dig into shallow pockets for organizations we had come to simply count on.

To date not many want to discuss their losses, but at least three foundations have admitted to losing their shirts to Madoff, and foundation monies get spread around in amazing ways.

So my local public radio stations are screaming for funds and threatening to turn off the lights (in the USA public radio is funded by voluntary subscription), the ACLU sorry-(American Civil Liberties Union - the persistent bee in all government bonnets) is sending out emails of poverty, even the Salvation Army is hurting; and the list will no doubt grow as the year does.

So this is the year I will be clamping down on personal spending and maxing out my donations to organizations I probably didn't even know I needed.

Which is a pity, since toys I have lusted after for years are being given away on corners right now.

Since the '90s I have used my own informal system of deciding when the middle class is hurting. I look at advertising sites for unfinished projects for sale. Much more effective than price indicies, GPA indicators, inflation blah, blah, blah. When is Joe Blow (no relation to Joe the Plumber) hurting enough to sell take a dreadful loss on his -insert passion here- (backyard restoration of a 1950s Buick?) and simply sell off the parts. Of late I have spotted countless Cobra knockoffs, a variety of 60s muscle cars, and Carol Shelby recently auctioned off his owned-since-new signature 69 Mustang bringing not the millions that Barret-Jackson hoped for, but a measly 550,000US.

This is indeed going to be a world-changing event and I fear not for the better, so grab your wallet and prepare to fund that which you love. Like we don't all have problems of our own.

I'm giving you a GA, because your thinking is solid.

Dear Mr. chrisg288

I appreciate you for posting a thread "I think this is important for all of us" in support of Wikipedia, and drawing the attention of all of us.

Similarly CR4 SYSTEM/Admn., also deserves equal considerations and encouragement.

Of late I observe, daily there are only few threads are posted and if you see Who is on-Line, many threads are posted about 5 to 10 years back. This topic, few days before it came up.

I am of the opinion, New members keep on adding year after year and the involvement should be more than ever before. This needs attention from all of us.

Thanks,

DHAYANANDHAN.S