Wikipedia On the Brink? Or Crying Wolf?

netbuzz writes "Might Wikipedia 'disappear' three or four months from now absent a major infusion of cash donations? The suggestion has been made by Florence Devouard, chairwoman of the Wikimedia Foundation. And while her spokesperson has since backpedaled off that dire prediction, there can be little doubt that the encyclopedia anyone can edit could use a few more benefactors to go along with all those editors."

Comments

I really doubt it.

[suso]

Wikipedia is the "Great Library of Alexandria" of our time. And like open source, it will only die when enough people lose interest of it. And that flame is
far from going out or being stomped out by political or social interests.

Didn't the wikimedia foundation used to provide a way for anyone to download the entire 25GB+ database for wikipedia? So anyone could pick up with it. Even if
that's not still the case, the torch would likely be passed onto someone else.

After all, look how long defunct operating systems last.

Re:I really doubt it.

[Short Circuit]

Most open source software doesn't really require money to develop, just people time. Wikipedia requires not just people with time, but bandwidth. Oodles and oodles of bandwidth.

Perhaps it needs a P2P-based hosting system to serve up its content. That would be quite the task, though.

Re:I really doubt it.

[corky842]

You want them to save a redirect page?

Re:I really doubt it.

[ZachPruckowski]

Downloads of all the Wikimedia Projects. You need to do a lot of DB work (XML -> SQL conversion, importing, rebuilding tables, etc.)

The issue is simply that massive servers are not cheap. Wikimedia is already at 100+ servers, and they are barely getting by. They could spend half a million on servers and still have a wish-list. And bandwidth isn't cheap. They get a charity discount, and a bulk discount, but it's still gigabytes and gigabytes a day.

Re:I really doubt it.

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Noone RTFA. The foundation's not in trouble, that was taken out of context. They have four months of cash reserves, which is good for a project that uses that much bandwidth. Good for them. Next time they have a funding goal I'll donate, if I'm employed at the time.

Re:I really doubt it.

[truthsearch]

Bandwidth is cheap as dirt.

So you have experience with very popular web sites, do you? When you need high performance consistent bandwidth it is not cheap. I worked on a popular site whose bill was in the tens of thousands of dollars a month. Wikipedia is extremely fast so you can bet they're paying top dollar.

Re:I really doubt it.

[limecat4eva]

How can you consider it the "Great Library of Alexandria" when its administrators ban on sight (with no warning) anyone that happens to have a username in non-Western script? It happened to me last year and left me with a great feeling of disgust, not to mention I lost my edit history and couldn't even login thereafter for 48 hours. And a little research shows that even though it's not sanctioned policy (does such a thing exist?) on English Wikipedia, there are enough rogue admins who enforce it as if it were policy—again, without warning or explanation—to turn off a lot of would-be contributors.

If you want to force people to have usernames in English, TELL THEM instead of banning them and then forbidding logins from that IP like a common vandal. IMO, no website so hostile to the outside world can be considered a "Great Library" of any sort.

Re:I really doubt it.

[thestuckmud]

I refuse to donate to any organization whose board members use my blood, sweat, and misery to jet-set around the world, hobnobbing with celebrities.

I used to be on the board of a nonprofit, and I have a question for you: Would you volunteer to show up to tedious board meetings several times a year at your own expense (travel, lodging, lost time at work and with family), and then sit in a meeting room for a couple of days spending most of the time on tedious topics?

I did. At least I could afford it. Some of our board members didn't have much money, but they found ways to get there and a spot on a floor or couch to sleep on. What made it worthwhile was the good work the organization did, plus the opportunity to spend time with some very cool, like-minded people.

Now I don't know squat about how Wikimedia is run, but if it is like many small non-profits, board members are expected to contribute. Generously. Our board was accused of wasting donations on travel even though we paid our own way. Forgive me if I am sensitive to this issue, but you haven't come close to demonstrating that Wikimedia is using its funds improperly. My experience was that the people who argued as you do had no clue about the organization.

Ad

[in2mind]

If things were really that bad, wouild it hurt to have a tiny adsense ad?

Re:Ad

[bcrowell]

This has been discussed recently. Many, many wikipedians seem to feel that ads would violate their trust, because they'd been assured in the past that it would never happen. I can see how they feel. It's one thing to donate your efforts to something that's purely noncommercial, GFDL-licensed, and has no ads. But if the rules of the game changed, you could really feel that your labor had been used under false pretenses. Therefore, it sounds like putting in ads would definitely cause WP to be forked.

Personally, I don't think a fork would necessarily be a bad thing. WP built the perfect setup for the initial stages of creating a large, low-quality encyclopedia. What they're utterly failing to do at this point is to move beyond that. Moving beyond that stage and finding creative ways to make it into a high quality encyclopedia would require experimenting with the rules, and since nobody knows for sure what rules would work, it would probably require some competition. Right now, that competition can't happen, because WP is in a sort of metastable state, where it's not practical to start up an alternative. Look at the situation Citizendium is in: they haven't even been able to attract enough money and interest to make their fork available to the public for reading without signing up for an account. The problem is that everyone knows that if they edit the WP article on Harry Truman, the whole world will see it immediately; that was always the egoboo that made WP work, and any startup project that tries to compete will not have it. On the other hand, if WP itself was to fork, then people wouldn't be able to sit around in their current rut on WP, running every article through an endless cycle of edits that never lifts its quality beyond a certain level.

Fixed it

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I went and edited the "Wikimedia Bank Account" entry to say "The Wikimedia Foundation has a jillion gazillion dollars." That should take care of the problem.

Re:Almost All of Us

[pete6677]

Let us take a moment to shed a tear for Britannica, as they can no longer charge people $3000 for a set of general encyclopedias.

*sniffle*

There, I'm done.

Re:Google will fund them if nec.

[heroofhyr]

Why don't you save yourself some time and just get a Wikipedia search bar for your browser? I used to do the same thing, but got tired of going through a Google search just to wind up clicking on the Wikipedia entry link anyway. Might as well spare yourself the extra steps and have a direct Wikipedia search in the corner of your browser window.

For Firefox:
https://addons.mozilla.org/search-engines.php

For Opera:
http://widgets.opera.com/search/?search=wikipedia& x=0&y=0&scope=all

For Internet Explorer:
http://www.google.com/search?q=help+me+i'm+still+u sing+internet+explorer&btnG=Google+Search

Re:Google once offered to host Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the offer wasn't quite "no strings". It is not that I am 100% there were actually any strings - but rather google wouldn't or couldn't guarantee a few things.

Yahoo offered servers as part of the asia cluster and said "have them - you can use them as you wish" and the wikimedia foundation said thanks - and they are happily in use. So the precedent of using such help as been set - I presume that google weren't offering something quite as simple.

The wikimedia foundation were being wined and dined by a few tech suitors a year or so ago - but I think the heat has went out of any relationships due to the very uncompromising stance (e.g. china situation) that wikimedia takes (compared to all the $$ merchants who happily censor their Chinese content as the PRC desires) - no content compromises, no independence compromises and no advertising compromises - that is not what the tech companies want to hear.

Hardware, people, bandwidth.

[Short Circuit]

I found a copy of their 2005 Q4 budget. Multiply that by four, and you have a rough approximation of how much it costs to run Wikimedia.

It looks like hardware is their single largest expense, at $190,000. Personnel takes a distant second place at $33,000. Bandwidth (well, hosting) takes third, at $24,000.

Also, a note at the bottom:

So far this is little more than a minimal budget, meaning a budget designed to pretty much just keep the foundation going. What is not included are special projects (content and/or software). Please include ideas for that on the talk page. --Daniel Mayer 22:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Re:Google will fund them if nec.

[Falesh]

Alternativly for Opera you could go to Wikipedia, right click inside the search box then select "create search". Once you have done that if you want to search Wikipedia simply enter "w" then the search terms into the address bar.