War of Words Over Wikipedia Ads Continues

Willis W. writes "Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales reiterates his opposition to advertising in response to reports that Wikipedia needs a major cash infusion. Responding to Jason Calacanis' charges that he 'has a fringe, anti-corporate bent to him' that is 'holding Wikipedia back,' Wales says that running ads on Wikipedia is not his decision to make. Though he personally dislikes the idea of advertising on Wikipedia, any decision to utilize ads would have to come from the community. At the moment, he won't rule anything out. 'I can't say if I would ever support something like that,' he tells Ars, 'but I can say that I currently maintain the same position I always have: I am opposed to it.'" What do you think Wikimedia should do to shore up the financial situation of the Wikipedia?

Comments

Jimbo anti-corporate?

[stinerman]

The hell he is. He's an objectivist. Objectivists practically get sexually aroused at the thought of corporations.

Re:Wikipedia Meme - Topped Out Last Year

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's not worth people paying to keep it around, perhaps it shouldn't survive. I know that sounds harsh, but I'm referring to the Darwinnan nature of the internet. Better stuff gets adopted and propigates. Worse stuff dies out. But is there a better, current, alternative?

Where's all the money going?

[cperciva]

Can someone explain to me when the Wikimedia Foundation suddenly became poverty-stricken? The latest financial statement from the Wikimedia Foundation indicates that in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006, they received $1,508,039 and spent $791,907 (leaving them with net assets of $1,004,216); according to the Wikimedia fundraising website they received a further $1,096,299 in the second half of 2006 and have received $275,427 so far in 2007. In order for the Wikimedia Foundation to be in trouble, they must have gone from spending $791,907 last fiscal year to spending over $2,000,000 in the first 8 months of this fiscal year.

Personally, I'm not going to make any donations or support advertising on Wikipedia until someone explains where all the money is going.

Re:Where's all the money going?

[bawolff]

Can someone explain to me when the Wikimedia Foundation suddenly became poverty-stricken? The latest financial statement from the Wikimedia Foundation indicates that in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006, they received $1,508,039 and spent $791,907 (leaving them with net assets of $1,004,216); according to the Wikimedia fundraising website they received a further $1,096,299 in the second half of 2006 and have received $275,427 so far in 2007. In order for the Wikimedia Foundation to be in trouble, they must have gone from spending $791,907 last fiscal year to spending over $2,000,000 in the first 8 months of this fiscal year.

Personally, I'm not going to make any donations or support advertising on Wikipedia until someone explains where all the money is going. This link sort of answers your question.

Re:Where's all the money going?

[blank axolotl]

Um.. if you read the pages you link, they give the answer, especially the What we need the money for page on the finances page. In short, it is because they are buying over $1,200,000 of new servers, increases in other expenses by around $200,000, and aim to increase their cash reserves by $300,000.

In the 2006 financial statement you link, they say they had $1,508,039 of revenue, they spent $791,907 on expenses (eg internet hosting) and spent another $428,309 on buying new servers. This, combined with the $137,237 they started with and $67,253 of other factors (inflation etc), leaves them with $512,313 in cash.

On the 'What we need the money for' page they say that in 2007 they plan to spend $1,670,000 on new servers (and also increase expenses by ~ $200,000). Compare this to the $428,309 spent in 2006 on servers. So, that seems to be where the money is going: new servers.

(disclaimer: I have no experience dealing with large amounts of money or accounting)

Re:Where's all the money going?

[blank axolotl]

damn, typo, should be $1,600,000 of new servers, not $1,200,000.

Re:Wikipedia Meme - Topped Out Last Year

[orkysoft]

Of course you can use it, you just can't cite it, because it isn't a source. It's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles consist entirely of information that stems from other sources. This makes Wikipedia a useful tool to locate relevant sources of information on a subject you want to learn more about or write about.

Re:In touch with the people

[AmoHongos]

"BBC's best show, The Office, that came out like four years ago. I'll take corporate TV thanks."

Man, you don't know what you're missing. I'm an American, and I download so many BBC programs that I almost feel as if I should pay into the TV fund in Britain. Along with Doctor Who and several excellent Sci-Fi series, the BBC is also an endless source for fascinating documentaries: The Power of Nightmares, The Century of the Self, Tetris: From Russia With Love, Mortgaged to the Yanks, etc. Then there's excellent adaptions of classic novels and probably the best news programs in the English-speaking world.

Now compare that to crap like Will and Grace, Everyone Loves Raymond, and the typical garbage you find on network tv in America. I'll take the BBC any day.

Re:Just like the Highway Maintainance

[eln]

The problem with that idea is that with a corporate logo there, it gives the impression that that company has control over that page, or at least has influence over it. Even if that is not really true, the perception of bias would be very strong.

Re:Wikipedia Meme - Topped Out Last Year

[cultrhetor]

I've taught composition - I encourage students to use it to find topics. How many people have gone on Wikipedia and wasted hours chasing links and footnotes? Of course, I don't let them cite it, but if you can't go further in-depth than a wikipedia entry, your paper has more problems than just sources.

Re:it exsists

[bawolff]

http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia

Re:Jason Calacanis needs to go away.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, Here.

He was a jerk who always thought he was right (even when evidence or experience showed conclusively otherwise) before AOL made him a multi millionaire, it's sad to see that he hasn't changed.