Wikipedia Almost Reaches $6 Million Target

An anonymous reader noted a story discussing the aftermath of the Wikipedia fundraiser and says "The writer suggests that Wikipedia can earn $50-100 million a month by a simple text ad. He also suggests that contributors should be financially rewarded and that the lack of financial reward is the reason why 98.3% of registered Wikipedia users are inactive. What do you think? Should Wikimedia Foundation put ads on Wikipedia? Should contributors be financially rewarded? What compensation structure would be best?" Personally I think the independence of Wikipedia is great, and any advertising would not only compromise that integrity, but give contributors a sense of entitlement that the site is better off without.

Comments

98.3% of registered users inactive

[DragonTHC]

Probably because they don't know anything.

I'm glad they're inactive. who would keep up with all of those crap changes?

Re:98.3% of registered users inactive

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nothing of the sort. They're like me, drive-by fixers. There's no need to actively seek to make changes or be part of the wiki community. We just making minor corrections or additions, and maybe fix some spelling mistakes or typos when we're looking something up. After which, we get on with our lives elsewhere.

Thank gawd they're not like you, with your sanctimonious attitude to everyone else. There would be less wiki users than openbsd developers.

Re:Doesn't really matter what *WE* think, does it?

[Rutefoot]

The owner of a website I frequented was once added to Wikipedia. Moderators started debating whether him and his (albeit popular) website were notable enough for an entry. They pretty unanimously agreed that he was not.

Which was great, because the owner most definitely did not want the article on the site. He signed up and politely requested the article removed (Something along the lines of:"I'd rather have a cactus shoved up my ass then see an article about me and my website on wikipedia. Did I mention the cactus would be on fire and covered in bees?")

Almost immediately many of the moderators started rethinking their original decision and decided the topic was notable enough after all.

So, I don't really see how it's arbitrary. It's clearly a spite based system.

Re:Doesn't really matter what *WE* think, does it?

[kippers]

Yet without them everyone and their dog would have an article.

Re:*I* stopped contributing to Wikipedia,

[solios]

nearly every article to which I tried to contribute had a band of "campers" hanging around it, who were much more interested in maintaining their own version of the truth via the preferential enforcement of technicalities in Wikipedia's rules, than they were in the truth content of said articles

Clearly Wikipedia is an MMO for people who lack the hardware for World of Warcraft.