Google Donates $2 Million To the Wikimedia Foundation

k33l0r writes "Yesterday, the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia and other projects, announced that it has received a $2 million donation from Google. This is the first time that Google has supported Wikipedia, and it has many wondering why. Anyone remember Knol, Google's answer to Wikipedia?"

Comments

Giving back

[srussia]

Google must get huge revenue from searches like $WHATEVER wikipedia

Re:No. No one remembers

[TheNinjaroach]

The impact of the Gates' money is immediate, but in the long run a well-funded knowledge base is much more effective at raising the standard of living worldwide. Again, Google upstages Microsoft. Is there anything they can't fail at?

No, Google donating $2 million to Wikipedia doesn't even come close to upstaging the enormous philanthropy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Re:No. No one remembers

[Helios1182]

Wow. Trolling this took talent. Both are good causes, and I would say vaccinating a population so they can survive will do wonders for raising their standard of living. It is hard to build knowledge when you are dead.

Re:No. No one remembers

[eldavojohn]

Again, Google upstages Microsoft.

Well, to be fair, that wasn't Microsoft, it was Bill Gates. Yes, he built his money from Microsoft but we need to wait and see what Larry and Sergey do with their cash when they hit Gates' age.

The impact of the Gates' money is immediate, but in the long run a well-funded knowledge base is much more effective at raising the standard of living worldwide.

Now you've gone and done it. Now you've put me in the very awkward position of defending William Gates. Recently the foundation committed $10 billion to Malaria Research and Development . Not distribution and deployment but R&D. Technically this has no immediate effect but instead contributes to our "well-funded knowledge base" of vaccine development. It's entirely probable that the first world will benefit from $10 billion being dumped into any medical R&D. I'm not even going to get into the number of zeros that ten billion has compared to two million but I trust you to be able to discern between the significance.

I got my own problem with the Gates Foundation ... like who gets the money, where the money is spent and how American companies keep building their infrastructure off of it when you should probably be dumping it into the countries that you pledged to help.

Is there anything they [Google] can't fail at?

The summary lists Knol. Recently I watched Wave flounder. You're being disingenuous to claim that all Google touches is gold. Their advertising revenues support a lot of their endeavors similar to how Microsoft operating system stranglehold allowed them to elbow their way into hardware and gaming. Impressive? Yes. King Midas? No. Infallible? No.

I scratched my balls, people are wondering why...

[bigsexyjoe]

I mean this just isn't that much to them.

They probably mostly did it for publicity. And this article on Slashdot was probably $2 million worth of good press to them.

Remember, a lot of people on this site are avid technologists who are becoming suspicious of Google now over privacy and such things. But they are all going to have a geekgasm over this donation to Wikipedia.

Re:First Time Supported with *Cash*

[Rogerborg]

How is Google sending Wikimedia traffic keeping them "afloat"? Every unpaid-for GET is an anchor, not a lifebelt.

Probably a Waste

[afabbro]

The problem with giving to Wikimedia is that they have been so wasteful of the money they've been given. The move to the Bay Area is chief exhibit #1 - why move an organization whose whole purpose, mission, and asset is a web page to one of the most expensive real estate locations on earth?

I'm not the only one who thinks Wikimedia has more than enough money.

Re:Probably a Waste

[Angst Badger]

The move to the Bay Area is chief exhibit #1 - why move an organization whose whole purpose, mission, and asset is a web page to one of the most expensive real estate locations on earth?

Easy -- close proximity and easy access to well-heeled donors.

Re:No. No one remembers

[theIsovist]

It's not the view. One could have said that "The gates foundation may not be as noble as they seem, as they have patents for the vaccines and financial stake in the selling of these drugs" and then provided links of proof. But when you start off your post with

"Yeah right, because Gates does it out of their hearts... you're an idiot if you think that."

you are effectively trolling. Common notes to look for - Lack of supporting information for the claims, calling other people names.

Re:No. No one remembers

[phantomfive]

What on earth makes you think Billy G. wants lots of press? I mean come on, he's losing out to Paris Hilton. As far as I can tell, he is kind of shy around the limelight.

To paraphrase Anthony Burgess, "It's not good deeds that makes one good, but good intent."

And so what if he is doing it for the press? If he cures malaria, the people who are cured will not care why he did it. Viewpoints like yours tend to come from people who don't actually spend much time helping other people and haven't really thought things through.