Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Donates $2 Million To the Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the citation-needed dept.

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?"

181 comments

  1. No. No one remembers by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: -1, Troll

    Google does so many things. It's hard to keep track of every little project they are involved in.

    The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donates money to causes like vaccination and school building in third world countries.

    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?

    1. Re:No. No one remembers by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    2. Re:No. No one remembers by calibre-not-output · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation isn't Microsoft. It just belongs to Bill Gates.

      --
      Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
    3. Re:No. No one remembers by Helios1182 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donates money to .. school building in third world countries.

      ... a well-funded knowledge base is much more effective at raising the standard of living worldwide.

      Do you really think that Wikipedia is more essential to a well-funded knowledge base than schools? Oh I forgot, everything Google does is better than anything Bill Gates does.

    5. Re:No. No one remembers by mariushm · · Score: -1, Troll

      Yeah right, because Gates does it out of their hearts... you're an idiot if you think that. They're just investing their money in vaccines and patenting everything.

      Of course, Google donates because it has interest in Wikipedia to, they don't do it because they woke up the wrong way today.

    6. Re:No. No one remembers by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      Do you mean, giving poor countries some drugs but only if they agree to not produce any more domestically?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    7. Re:No. No one remembers by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    8. Re:No. No one remembers by robinstar1574 · · Score: 0

      <quote>

      <quote><p>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?</p></quote>

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

      Its a simple case of evil verses evil.

    9. Re:No. No one remembers by V!NCENT · · Score: -1, Troll

      You too also miss the entire point.

      The Bill Gates foundation only gives the bare minimum of money required to be a charity and thus kill of taxes.

      That bare minimum only goes to the people that have health concerns because they work for/live close at the companies that polute, in which the Bill Gates foundation holds stock, so it's buying off the guilt.

      In the end when Billy is dead, all the money is supposed to go to charity, which is good, althought you can ask yourself of what use the money still is to a dead person; after your deatch you can't use it anyway...

      And the charity only goes to plans people make to develop solutions. Any patent aquired that relates to whatever is being developped will come into Gates his hands because he paid for the investment.

      Wost form of charity ever...

      --
      Here be signatures
    10. Re:No. No one remembers by Enderandrew · · Score: -1

      The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is sitting on billions, but only spends 3% of their endowment in a given year. If you looked at actual dollars handed out in a given year, I wouldn't be shocked if Google (and Google.org) hands out more cash than the Gates Foundation.

      Here is the real kicker. Google is giving away their own money. The Gates Foundation has been asking others to give to them to hand out. The largest contributer to the Gates Foundation is Warren Buffet. The Gates are a very rich couple who want to steward other people's money, because their own isn't good enough.

      There have been many well-researched in-depth pieces that suggest The Gates Foundation is doing more harm than good right now. When The Gates Foundation was pressed about it, they said they can't be bothered to research the firms they invest it.

      Wait. They want to serve as stewards for BILLIONS of dollars, but can't be bothered to research where the money goes. Do they understand what it means to steward over money?

      I don't say this as a conspiracy theorist, or someone who just wants to hate Bill Gates. But there are people who've linked Gates Foundation investments to Microsoft contracts and strong-armed deals. They're investing in firms that exploit poor workers in Africa, and pollute with heavy carcinogens in Africa.

      Is it good that The Gates Foundation wants to send drugs and vaccinations to Africa? Yes. But note that they're doing so as they invest in those drug companies, and the same drug companies reciprocate with Microsoft-exclusive contracts. And many of those drug companies are being hit with ethics charges.

      The LA Times ran piece after piece on this. Until it is clear that The Gates Foundation is doing more good than harm, I'm not sure we should be so quick to praise them, let alone donate money to them.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    11. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymusing · · Score: 4, Informative

      That bare minimum only goes to the people that have health concerns because they work for/live close at the companies that polute, in which the Bill Gates foundation holds stock, so it's buying off the guilt.

      [citation needed]

      As someone who works with a variety of nonprofits which receive funding from the Gates Foundation, I must say: you are either an idiot, a troll, or a person with remarkably bad skills at satire. Hard to tell. GF funds work all over the world in ways that have nothing to do with corporate proximity or pollution.

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    12. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more like Google that gave the money, not one or two of their stockholders, when Microsoft gives money it's usually to "smooth" a little some deal, so keep Bill Gates out of this.

    13. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      [Citation Needed] :D

    14. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      but only spends 3% of their endowment in a given year
      Do you suggest they spend it all in 1 year?

      If you want a foundation that does good for a long time you find ways to invest the money so it continues to do good for a long time. They just started a couple of years ago. So they are feeling around how to spend money. Who are the real players etc....

      They have struck me as people who find others who are capable of doing something then back them up. However, it is also semi pragmatic. If you go buy a database server you do not go buy MSSQL and Oracle. You buy one or the other.

      At this point they are kind of floundering around without a proper goal. Do they need to better follow thru? Sounds like it. But I am sure they will learn that lesson the hard way.

    15. Re:No. No one remembers by Aeros · · Score: 1

      I think its a combination of several or all of those. Hard time reading his message, he is way off as Gates does not give the base minimum (100's of millions is a minimum)? Plus the fact that this idiot has to point out that someone 'misses' the point. Get over yourself and take some basic english classes to learn how to spell and form a complete sentence (and a complete thought woudl be nice as well).

    16. Re:No. No one remembers by Joe+Decker · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is sitting on billions, but only spends 3% of their endowment in a given year.

      The correct number is more like twice that, and is typical of foundations that spend money based on endowments, the point of an endowment is to allow an organization to do work over an extended period of time, something impossible to do if you spend 50% of your money every year.

      If you looked at actual dollars handed out in a given year, I wouldn't be shocked if Google (and Google.org) hands out more cash than the Gates Foundation.

      2009 Gates Foundation: $3.8B: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2632188420090126

      Google.org's entire charitable endowment is less than a third of that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google.org.

      It ain't even close, you're off by at least two orders of magnitude.

      The Gates Foundation has been asking others to give to them to hand out. The largest contributer to the Gates Foundation is Warren Buffet.

      [citation needed]

      Gates' donation to the foundation is of a similar size to Buffet's, the tho had known each other for many years (play bridge together, I'm told). The Gates Foundation survived for many years with no other contributions, and I'm unaware of a single dollar that's come from any other source.

      There have been many well-researched in-depth pieces that suggest The Gates Foundation is doing more harm than good right now.

      [citation needed]

      The LA Times 2007 piece questioning the Foundations never made that particular claim, it did raise a signficant issue in that direction though. Because endowments must invest the money they hope to use for work in the future, conflicts arise when those investments do harm. It's entirely fair to say that it's irreponsible not to look those costs.

      Of course, if you read, say, the articles in the Times that discussed this, you almost certainly saw the article in the Times a few days later saying that the Gates Foundation had decided to reassess its investments for social responsiblity.

      (I'd admit, by the way, that those questions can still be pretty complex. A few obvious corporations aside, most corporations do quite a number of things, many of them bad, many of them good. "How much?" can be a very challenging thing to quantify.

      When The Gates Foundation was pressed about it, they said they can't be bothered to research the firms they invest it.

      [citation needed]

      But there are people who've linked Gates Foundation investments to Microsoft contracts and strong-armed deals.

      [citation needed]

      Until it is clear that The Gates Foundation is doing more good than harm, I'm not sure we should be so quick to praise them, let alone donate money to them.

      Nobody is asking you to, in fact, can you point me at a place where it is possible to donate to the Gates Foundation? No, you can't, because they don't accept external donations in general. Show me the donate button on this page, and we'll talk:
      http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx

      --
      I'm a nature photographer.
    17. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Google has their core cash cow but everything else seems half assed. Not everything, but knol, wave, buzz, base, orkut, etc. I understand, it's more fun to design and build new stuff, but epic failure. MS is similar, of course, but they are seem willing to dump money and resources into some of their half assed shit (zune, xbox)

    18. Re:No. No one remembers by cheftw · · Score: 1, Troll

      I came here to post what parent said, and subsequently got modded troll for.

      Could someone please link the the list of views that qualify as troll?

      --
      Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
    19. Re:No. No one remembers by theIsovist · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    20. Re:No. No one remembers by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Funny

      As someone who works with a variety of nonprofits which receive funding from the Gates Foundation, I must say: you are either an idiot, a troll, or a person with remarkably bad skills at satire. Hard to tell. GF funds work all over the world in ways that have nothing to do with corporate proximity or pollution.

      This is slashdot. Bill Gates could sacrifice himself saving a toddler from a burning building and most of the comments on the story would likely be to the effect that the reason the building burned down in the firstplace was the firehall down the street had a computer in it running Windows.

    21. Re:No. No one remembers by theIsovist · · Score: 1

      Please take the plunge and get added informative points by providing supporting information to this claim. Otherwise, your argument is non-existant.

    22. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

      Congratulations! You win the "Dumbass of the Day" award.

    23. Re:No. No one remembers by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between philanthropy and asset protection and avoiding taxes.

      When you give $1 to a bum, that's philanthropy.

      When you put billions into a charitable foundation, it's a simple scheme to avoid paying taxes.

    24. Re:No. No one remembers by paiute · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nobody is asking you to, in fact, can you point me at a place where it is possible to donate to the Gates Foundation? No, you can't, because they don't accept external donations in general.

      Were one to advocate for the devil one might point out that every purchase of a PC which has ever come preinstalled with Windows due to Microsoft's per-processor licenses was and is an involuntary donation to the Gates Foundation.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    25. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I forgot, everything Google does is better than anything Bill Gates does.

      Bingo!

    26. Re:No. No one remembers by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the result when you have people who have a reputation for saying they are going to stop doing some bad thing only to be caught doing it time and again. It's the same as crying wolf. After a while, people who recall the reputation (embrace, extend, extinguish for just one example) will suspect the future motives for everything they do, even if it really is noble this time (and I'm not saying that it is, but I haven't found anything particularly damning). It really shouldn't be that surprising when people become suspicious of people who have shown such a history of underhanded tactics. Maybe they've really changed, but maybe we just haven't seen the full plan yet? It wouldn't be the first time, and that's the really sad part.

    27. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your entire post is FUD and garbage.

      Take your hate elsewhere.

    28. Re:No. No one remembers by Kagato · · Score: 1

      I agree with the overall statements, and the OP obviously doesn't understand the purpose of an endowment, but what's the deal with all the [citation needed] stuff. This is /., not Wikipedia. People are allowed to wear tin-foil hats with out backing up their facts.

    29. Re:No. No one remembers by Joe+Decker · · Score: 1

      People are allowed to wear tin-foil hats with out backing up their facts.

      You're right, I should have just said "you're full of $#$!."

      See also: http://xkcd.com/285/

      --
      I'm a nature photographer.
    30. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

      Soo true, lol. Mod parent up!

    31. Re:No. No one remembers by garaged · · Score: 0, Troll

      I would be impressed if they delivered the whole 3.8B to ALL the people not getting any help on yearly basis, if they managed to get 3.8B, they can accomplish to get similar figures on a few years, there is way more good on puting the money where needed that "economizing it" to "be able to help for more years".

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    32. Re:No. No one remembers by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      However trolling this is easy. Vaccinating a population so that they survive actually lowers their standard of living because now there are more mouths to feed and less resources to take care of them. Technically speaking, i.e. just running the numbers it would have been better to just let them die so that the survivors could have a better standard of living. See now that wasn't so hard to Troll.

    33. Re:No. No one remembers by RazorSharp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It should also be noted that placing your money in a charity foundation makes it becomes untaxable. Whatever good the foundation does, it comes at the expense of the American government. This is an old trick. Rockefeller pulled as well. When Bill dies the foundation can be passed down to his children without any inheritance taxes.

      Hell, the idea was satirized before Bill Gates was a billionaire. Read God Bless you Mr. Rosewater, by Kurt Vonnegut. Using a charity foundation to store your funds is like keeping it in a Swiss bank but it buys good PR. Then consider that a lot of the "good deeds" the Bill & Melinda Foundation does includes giving Windows PCs to developing countries in hopes that Microsoft will monopolize the region.

      While I agree that guy was trolling (unintentionally), I also agree with his point. They say the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist. Well the greatest trick that Bill Gates ever pulled was convincing the world that he's a philanthropist. Ever notice how whenever MS does something particularly evil Gates makes sure to do something with the foundation that will get media buzz?

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    34. Re:No. No one remembers by Joe+Decker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You misunderstand. 3.8 billion is what they spent in 2009, they spent all of that figure. They have significantly more money than that.

      I do not agree with your main point, though. Depending on the specific project involved, "blowing every penny you have" the first year can be madness. Vaccine research takes years to get from first investment to results, delivering vaccines or mosquito nets involves not only dropping the money but putting together an organization that can get those to the people who need them.

      Spending at the "slow" rate of "only" four billion dollars a year doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. *shrug*

      --
      I'm a nature photographer.
    35. Re:No. No one remembers by neogeographer · · Score: 1

      Who is 'they'- Google or Microsoft? I ask because your question "Is there anything they can't fail at?" implies that 'they' have never done anything right. So it must be Microsoft....right?

    36. Re:No. No one remembers by RazorSharp · · Score: 0, Troll

      Does it really matter whether Google or Gates has spent MORE on things which can be listed on one's taxes as "charity?" Of course Bill Gates outspends every other charity. It's no different than how Microsoft is run. Outspend everyone else because glory is more important than efficiency, market dominance is more important than shareholders. How would Bill get all the press he's so desperate for if someone else had a better charity organization. Perhaps if he didn't feel the need to call the press and be an interview whore every time his foundation spend a penny I would suspect that he may be sincere but I really don't buy it. It's not like his foundation needs press, as you pointed out, it's not funded by donations.

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

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    37. Re:No. No one remembers by neogeographer · · Score: 1

      And I don't mean this as a troll on MS- I am just confused about the wording. What the hell did that mean?

    38. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's hard to sell them Windows 7 if their dead too.

    39. Re:No. No one remembers by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Qxe4
    40. Re:No. No one remembers by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are insane. Really, get help.

      I was going to explain how philanthropy really works, and then explain Gates' tax liability and the position that both he and Warren Buffet have about income taxes (that they both believe that marginal rates are too low) but you are in a bubble of irrational hatred.

    41. Re:No. No one remembers by dangitman · · Score: 1

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

      But the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is not Microsoft, it's the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    42. Re:No. No one remembers by Joe+Decker · · Score: 1

      When Bill dies the foundation can be passed down to his children without any inheritance taxes.

      In other words, the Foundation continues to exist, and would still be subject to the same legal requirements about what happens with the money as already exists. If you mean to suggest that the children could drop the cash on hookers and blow, you simply don't understand the legalities involved.

      --
      I'm a nature photographer.
    43. Re:No. No one remembers by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      Understanding is not a prerequisite of one's Internet voice. ;)

      Unfortunately...

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    44. Re:No. No one remembers by Old+Man+Kensey · · Score: 1

      Although it wouldn't work as a straight tax shelter, I vaguely recall speculation when he first announced the foundation that it was intended to provide him cover to liquidate his stake in Microsoft. If I recall correctly, the foundation's initial endowment was a ginormous grant of Microsoft stock from one Mr. W. Gates. The intent was for them to liquidate it and use the proceeds. Now, the market would panic if Bill himself dumped billions of Microsoft stock all at once, but if a charitable foundation does it, the price is more likely to maintain since it's not a sign of trouble at the top. Then while the Foundation is liquidating billions, that would provide cover (and price support) for Bill to dump a few hundred mill' of his own here and there.

      For this to make any sense financially, we have to posit that Gates would suffer more loss in price collapse from directly dumping his stock than giving away a huge chunk of it to cover liquidating the rest. I don't know if that's true, but it didn't seem like a completely-out-to-lunch idea.

      --
      -- Old Man Kensey
    45. Re:No. No one remembers by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      They just started a couple of years ago. So they are feeling around how to spend money. Who are the real players etc....

      They have annual reports dating back to 1998 on their website. Last time I researched this, that equates to a bit more than a couple years.

      Do I need a citation for this logic?

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    46. Re:No. No one remembers by pclminion · · Score: 1

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

      I care far more about the good deeds then about whether the person doing them somehow becomes "good." Whether Bill Gates is a good person hardly seems relevant.

    47. Re:No. No one remembers by Joe+Decker · · Score: 1

      I know, I know, but .. but http://xkcd.com/386/ :p

      --
      I'm a nature photographer.
    48. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, the maker of Windows, Gates, plays Bridge?

    49. Re:No. No one remembers by Joe+Decker · · Score: 1

      Contract Bridge. It's not hard to google up references to it, e.g., http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-12-19-bridge-schools_x.htm

      --
      I'm a nature photographer.
    50. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Zune and Xbox aren't half-assed, but they are defective by design.

    51. Re:No. No one remembers by anyGould · · Score: 1

      The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is sitting on billions, but only spends 3% of their endowment in a given year.

      This is actually a smart move - it ensures that it's unlikely that the endowment loses value (it only needs to make a 3% return to maintain value). If you're playing for long-term gain (read: make your legacy "philanthropist and nice guy"), you want to keep handing out money as long as possible. It's easier to increase the payouts later than to decrease them.

      Note that this doesn't mean anything in terms of what they're using the money for.

    52. Re:No. No one remembers by magnusrex1280 · · Score: 1

      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.

      He's asking if there's anything Google succeeds at, and you're giving examples of things they've failed at. Did he mean to ask what he asked, or was he trying to ask "Is there anything Google fails at?" If he meant to ask exactly what he said, then your answer is completely wrong. The things you list are all failures, not successes.

    53. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, anonymusing, YOU are the complete idiot...

      Start with:

      latimes.com/gates

      There is much more, if you care to be informed and educated.
      You are little more than an ignorant, uneducated shill, evidentally.

    54. Re:No. No one remembers by simoncpu+was+here · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Could someone please link the the list of views that qualify as troll?

      Here you go.

    55. Re:No. No one remembers by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      Charitable foundations are a very well known trick for the super rich to avoid paying taxes. Instead they pay money to some entity they themselves control, to implement plans that they are in charge of.

      Your name calling makes you out to be the one who needs a little help. I could out you further but I think you know what's wrong with yourself, or you have the chutzpah to think it's virtue and not vice.

    56. Re:No. No one remembers by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      "You could out me further?"

      What, you think I'm on some corporate payroll? That is the most freaking hysterical thing I've heard in ages.

      I reiterate: get help.

    57. Re:No. No one remembers by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I could out you further, Rob.

    58. Re:No. No one remembers by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Nope, my name's not Rob. Out me to your heart's content. And then take your meds.

    59. Re:No. No one remembers by johny42 · · Score: 1

      Also, Bill Gates is not Microsoft. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Bill Gates supports these projects from his own sallary, while Google used their shareholders money. I'm not saying either is good or bad, just that it is kind of an important difference.

    60. Re:No. No one remembers by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      No they can't but there is only so much money you can spend on luxuries for yourself.

      Afaict for the really rich money is about buying influence. If you buy a significant proportion of a companies stock or provide a significant proportion of a charities revenue that gives you influence over how they behave. And afaict you can still do this with money that is locked up in a foundation.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    61. Re:No. No one remembers by Anonymusing · · Score: 1

      Actually, anonymusing, YOU are the complete idiot...

      Start with:

      latimes.com/gates

      There is much more, if you care to be informed and educated.

      You are little more than an ignorant, uneducated shill, evidentally.

      That's me. Mr. Ignorant Shill, Ph.D. Darnit, AC, you blew my cover!

      I did not say GF was flawless. I said, "GF funds work all over the world in ways that have nothing to do with corporate proximity or pollution." If you are going to level criticism at Gates over its investments or its myopia on specific issues, then you need to widen your lens: many foundations have these problems. Hate them all equally, then. Don't let your distaste for Microsoft color your view. I've personally witnessed and worked with great projects funded by GF. Could they do better in their methods of business? Of course. But... is GF's billion dollars a year in grants helping people in serious, positive ways? Absolutely.

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    62. Re:No. No one remembers by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/07/nation/na-gatesx07

      --
      Here be signatures
  2. Giving back by srussia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google must get huge revenue from searches like $WHATEVER wikipedia

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Giving back by Jeng · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yep, their results are usually within the top ten and usually what I'm looking for.

      Then again.

      I don't see them donating to any of the free porn pages.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Giving back by buruonbrails · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Google ranks Wikipedia very high in its search results, which bring enormous amount of traffic. Scaling and maintaining the infrastructure to deal with this traffic is the major part of Wikimedia Foundation's expenses. So, Google is in fact responsible for a huge chunk of Wikipedia's expenses, and it probably feels obligated to give Wikipedia some compensation for this.

    3. Re:Giving back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Without doubt Google is making more money of off Wikipedia than Wikipedia is. 2 million dollar is pocket change.

    4. Re:Giving back by zappepcs · · Score: 0, Troll

      Probably not. Imagine trying to reinvent the wheel, every time someone changes a tread pattern? MS did a lot of that, and with the do no evil mantra, supporting Wikipedia while collecting revenue from searches is donoevil+catchrevenue = ftw

      By supporting Wikipedia Google continues to catalog and index the world's information. When you add it up, it is just Google doing what Google said it would do, making alliances along the way to make it profitable.

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    5. Re:Giving back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Yeah right.

      1. Search for "$WHATEVER wikipedia" in google.
      2. First result probably is wikipedia. You click on it
      3. You are now on totally ads free site.
      4. Profit?????

    6. Re:Giving back by buruonbrails · · Score: 1

      Google is responsible to "keep Wikipedia running", so it won't collapse under Google's massive traffic. It's a symbiosis: Wikipedia needs Google for traffic and (to lesser extent) money, Google needs Wikipedia for the world's information. Besides, Google's engineers won't be happy tweaking their core ranking algorithms should Wikipedia suddenly disappear.

    7. Re:Giving back by kdogg73 · · Score: 0

      IMHO, Google searches Wikipedia better than Wikipedia searches itself.

      --
      Let's face it, most of us are scoffers. But moments before zero hour, it does not pay to take chances.
    8. Re:Giving back by tepples · · Score: 1

      A long time ago, some of the people behind Slashdot created Everything2, one of the first massively collaborative writing projects. Some people like myself used to write encyclopedic articles on E2, but they kind of trailed off as Wikipedia picked up steam following this Kuro5hin article, leaving people who wrote more subjective, opinionated articles and even fiction. Should Wikipedia disappear, would people flock back to E2?

    9. Re:Giving back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or giving back 0.4% of the typos.

    10. Re:Giving back by spyrochaete · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's trivial for a website to disallow Google's crawlers if the traffic they bring is a problem. Google owes nothing to Wikipedia. This is a charitable donation and not a matter of obligation.

      Also, websites disappear from the web every day. Google doesn't have to change their algorithms to accommodate this. Wikipedia is at the top of search results because they contain valuable textual content relevant to specific queries, and because people link to Wikipedia from their sites. The point of Google's algorithms is to be a hands-off approach to search ranking.

    11. Re:Giving back by maxume · · Score: 1

      That's retarded.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:Giving back by gartogg · · Score: 1

      No. E2 is a wonderful atmosphere, but it doesn't allow collaboration, just discussion. The wiki-aspect of Wikipedia is they key feature. E2 is a great participation site, but the end product just isn't so useful. Wikipedia is in many ways harder to contribute to positively, but it evolves into a great end product.

      Disclaimer: I love E2. I started on the site most of a decade ago, and I think it's tremendous fun. If it were less addicting, I'd probably be on there more.

      --
      I'm a concientious .sig objector.
    13. Re:Giving back by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

      While what you say is true. Wikipedia makes enough internet traffic, and Googles XX% of it makes Google WAY more than 2 million bucks. So Google doesn't 'owe' Wikipedia anything, but it would be stupid not to have it.

      And I don't know where I read this (maybe slashdot) but a few years back when Google revamped its page rank system it did not count internal links (ie. one cnn article to another cnn article) but they made an exception for wikipedia so those articles would show up on the first page of results.

      --
      My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    14. Re:Giving back by dangitman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Google must get huge revenue from searches like $WHATEVER wikipedia

      Not from me. I use Wikipedia to find the Google homepage.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    15. Re:Giving back by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

      While what you say is true. Wikipedia makes enough internet traffic, and Googles XX% of it makes Google WAY more than 2 million bucks. So Google doesn't 'owe' Wikipedia anything, but it would be stupid not to have it.

      I agree, but Google itself provides absolutely zero content. Google owes 100% of its revenue to content authors and publishers. I doubt Google will be cutting cheques to every other site in its index.

      Not that Wikipedia creates any content either.. though I believe the donation was in fact to Wikimedia which releases its open source wiki server for free.

    16. Re:Giving back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sincerely doubt that Wikipedia is hardcoded somewhere into the PageRank algorithm. Just sayin'.

  3. eh... by Pojut · · Score: 1

    ...Google, please please please don't even think about offering to buy Wikimedia. I (and others that use their services) appreciate your donation, but it does make me a bit nervous...

    --
    Living With a Nerd
    1. Re:eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The WMF people are painfully aware of the dangers of tying the majority of their funding sources to any one particular entity, benevolent or otherwise. The future of Wikipedia is in good hands.

    2. Re:eh... by Winckle · · Score: 1

      How do you buy a charity?

    3. Re:eh... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Usually by offering a large amount of cash and then privatizing the foundation.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:eh... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Its difficult to buy a non-profit. You cant just put in an offer. You pretty much have to convince the board to switch to a private system and hand over the organization as a sale. I doubt Jimbo can even do this. The result would be a massive migration away from the Googlepedia and its collapse.

    5. Re:eh... by boarder8925 · · Score: 1

      If Jimmy Wales will take money for favorable edits on wiki pages, I have no doubt that he would sell Wikipedia in a heartbeat.

      --
      Keep your eyes to the sky.
    6. Re:eh... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      With money?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    7. Re:eh... by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      So far, no amount of shady dealings and messups from Jimbo has caused mass migration and collapse. For good and bad, Wikipedia is a machine running on its own steam now. I'm not sure even an attempt to sell out (or should we say another? He has his for-profit sister project after all) would be sufficient.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    8. Re:eh... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      WMF is a non-profit, not a charity. Most (but not all) charities are non-profits, but "charity" implies an organization with a charter to provide help to the less fortunate. WMF is more like an educational or research organization.

    9. Re:eh... by blai · · Score: 1

      download wikipedia and mirror it elsewhere if Google does buy...

      --
      In soviet Russia, God creates you!
  4. The article explains it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    As the article already states: there are "long-term motivations" at play here, (probably to soften its image) in preparation for some new project, as already mentioned with Firefox and Chrome.

    As usual, since the article summary does not include this info which is easily found by reading the article, people will speculate here in the forums and end up rewriting the article themselves :D

    1. Re:The article explains it already by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Or to offset some of the bad press they've had lately with Buzz.

  5. May be by CSHARP123 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    because Bing does http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors

    1. Re:May be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Well, Slashdot would have to post an article every day if they followed how much money Microsoft and the B&MGF donate.

      Major news channels only feature them when they make donations in the order of billions of USD, but they donate, invest or grant smaller amounts quite often.

  6. First Time Supported with *Cash* by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Google has kept Wikimedia afloat with gimmicked page rankings and search results for years.

    1. Re:First Time Supported with *Cash* by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gimmicked page rankings? They're by definition gimmicked. If they tried to do it without human intervention 99.99% of of the top 10 results would be porn and scams.

    2. Re:First Time Supported with *Cash* by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Gimmicked", how? It's not like there's not a huge amount of people linking to Wikipedia. I'm not sure how boosted search rankings and the corresponding increased traffic helps keep an ad-free site "afloat" either.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:First Time Supported with *Cash* by msantosn · · Score: 1, Insightful
      What? This is what page rank is used for... Is the nature of Google, so having said that I wouldn't say that:

      Google has kept Wikimedia afloat with gimmicked page rankings and search results for years.

      Google hasn't done anything for them... except of course the 2 million dollars donation.

    4. Re:First Time Supported with *Cash* by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:First Time Supported with *Cash* by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      Not every unpaid-for GET is unpaid-for. Some readers pay for their GET with their time by becoming editors.

  7. State of the Knol by Sockatume · · Score: 1

    I had completely forgotten Knol existed until right now. I promptly did a quick search for a popular video game's title and was given this.

    Chilling the circuits is still not efficient if you are using more electricity to do it... But chilling the circuits in outer space could be done efficiently by using the cold environment of space itself to chill them...

    It looks like they've basically reinvented Geocities.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:State of the Knol by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, a search for "mass spectrometry" gives me a page copied exactly from a mass spec manufacturer's web site. I can tell because Google helpfully flags the original site as "similar content" on the web. There's not much screening going on there!

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:State of the Knol by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      That was the point of Knol. You don't know if you can trust information unless you know who it's coming from. Then you know you can't trust it.

    3. Re:State of the Knol by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Knol isn't meant to be a general encyclopedia but a database for articles. It isn't collaborative and only one author can edit it. That means you're relying on the authors reputation and authority. So unlike an encyclopedia, you can cite it. A number of Wikipedia pages link to reputable sources on Knol.

    4. Re:State of the Knol by iknowcss · · Score: 1
      From the linked article:

      If Millikan could neutralize the force of Gravity by opposing it with a simple Electromagnetic Force, then Gravity must be a simple Electromagnetic Force of Classical Physics.

      Makes sense to me. I wish I was that smart :)

      --
      Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
    5. Re:State of the Knol by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Actually, knol articles have three different collaboration settings: Open, like wikipedia, moderated (anyone can suggest changes but it has to be approved by someone with edit privileges) and closed (only the creator and people with explicit privileges).

      It's just that the open mode is unpopular. People who prefer that write on wikipedia instead, it seems, or maybe it's just a result of defaults. Last 12 hours only 4 open articles were created, vs. 254 moderated, 13 closed.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  8. $2m, not that much by tiger32kw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    because Google makes $500m a year off typos...

    1. Re:$2m, not that much by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thut meens thut onlee evry too-hudnred-nd-fiftee typoz goze too funnd Wikkimedia. I kno tht I'mm gonnna increaze my owtput too shhow my suppport!

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
  9. Wikileaks by mariushm · · Score: 1

    I'd be more impressed if Google would donate even $50-100.000 to Wikileaks - it brings almost as much good as Wikipedia. Not every benefit is directly visible.

    1. Re:Wikileaks by Locklin · · Score: 1

      Especially considering Wikileaks is currently offline and looking for financial support to continue paying the bills.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    2. Re:Wikileaks by jgtg32a · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wikileaks would reject it though, they have a policy against that.

  10. I was much mor generous. by javipas · · Score: 0

    As I told on my Twitter account..., just a little quick math:

    Google's revenues on Q409: $6,6 billion dollars. So $2 millions (0.000299% of that) wasted here and there don't seem much of a problem.

    I was much more generous. My Q409 was well bellow that, and I donated $10. That's aprox 0.0024% of that revenues. 10 times more.

    1. Re:I was much mor generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      You were more of a fool to give Wikipedia anything and not get a thing in return.

    2. Re:I was much mor generous. by HamburglerJones · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is access to a useful resource "not a thing in return"? I donated to Wikimedia too, because I appreciate what they have created and use it frequently.

    3. Re:I was much mor generous. by Permutation+Citizen · · Score: 1

      2/6600 = 0.000303 that is 0.0303%

    4. Re:I was much mor generous. by Dayze!Confused · · Score: 1

      He must be a Verizon employee.

      --
      "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
  11. What about Wikileaks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google claims a commitment to freedom of information, yet Wikileaks languishes. Wikimedia was not faced with a shutdown due to lack of funds -- Wikileaks was.

    In terms of bang for the buck, a fraction of what they gave to Wikimedia would have done much more "good" at Wikileaks.

    1. Re:What about Wikileaks? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Wikimedia doesn't refuse donations from corporations...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:What about Wikileaks? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Google also claims committment to laws...

  12. everything2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't remember Knol, but I do remember everything2, Slashdot's failed attempt at a Wikipedia.

    1. Re:everything2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everything2 is still awesome though... because it's not encyclopediac, it's just random user-generated content.

  13. I scratched my balls, people are wondering why... by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
  14. H.264 License by Fantom42 · · Score: 1

    Maybe Google will buy the Firefox guys an H.264 license. I wonder if they would accept it.

    1. Re:H.264 License by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Could Google just completely buy out whoever owns the H.264 patents?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:H.264 License by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      If they can redistribute it under the relevant open-source license (MPL, is it?), I'm sure they will. Otherwise, they'll probably not know what to do with it.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    3. Re:H.264 License by bflong · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't matter. They still couldn't allow it to be redistributed. They would have to keep track of every Firefox download and pay a fee for each one. Nobody could include Firefox in any other download. Linux distros would have to fork it to strip the patented code out. Mozilla is making the right choice by pushing for an open video format instead of trying to find a 'workaround' for getting h.264 working. H.264 is a minefield and doesn't belong on an open and Free Internet.

      --
      Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
    4. Re:H.264 License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla can afford the license fee. But including the code will prevent redistribution by 3rd parties, so it is not an acceptable option.

    5. Re:H.264 License by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The licensor can license it under an arbitrary and discretionary license, should they chose.

      Were Google to give them a huge chunk of money, they might just give Mozilla limited redistribution rights.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  15. it has many wondering why by wisnoskij · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well Google still is relatively a new company (at least as a company successful enough to be handing out millions to charity), I am sure they just never got around to it yet.
    Big companies give money to charity and Wikimedia makes sense for Internet based companies like Google because they make the web so much more worth using.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  16. how to buy a charity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How to buy a charity: you buy its assets including goodwill, trademark rights/copyrights, and assume its contracts including employment agreements through a "novation agreement".

    Such a sale/assumption requires the consent of the trustees of the charity. Since charities exist (ostensibly) for benevolent purposes rather than profit, you don't ever hear about such agreements, because they don't happen.

  17. New Google Company Motto.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do no ation

  18. Cheaper than the alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's in Googles interest to keep Wikipedia running strong. It gives them a massive, (mostly) reliable source of good information to stick at the top of a results page. If Wikipedia can't pay the bills, then MS and Google will have to fight over who is going to buy it and the inevitable PR disaster that would follow as users splintered, competitors emerged and we all lose something really wonderful. The problem is that Wikimedia could very easily become dependent on that kind of money. I think they should just have a single text ad on every page until they meet their monthly goal. Allow people who donate to turn them off. Tada!

  19. Wave floundered? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

    Wave isn't even officially launched. It is also a protocol more than a service.

    Let's not call Wave a flop just yet.

    I think Google is sitting on a variety of different pieces that they haven't put together yet. I think they have the potential to put these pieces together and really changing the way people use the internet.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  20. A bit background info... by saibot834 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nothing like that will happen. The Wikimedia Foundation has received large grants before (such as Omidyar's $2M grant). WMF isn't a company you can just 'buy out'. It's a charitable 501(c)(3) organization that is controlled by the Board of Trustees, which is composed of 3 community-elected seats, 2 community-seats elected by chapters, a "Jimbo-seat" for the Wikipedia founder, and up to four "Specific expertise" seats elected by the board itself (source). Google could attempt to get a "Specific expertise" seat, but they can't do anything to significantly change the course of the foundation. Also, if they tried, there'd be a major outcry by the community (and perhaps a fork).

    (To be fair, one should address the Omidyar case. Around the time Omidyar granted $2M, Matt Halprin, an Omidyar employee got a "Specific expertise" seat. There were of course conspiracy theories about Omidyar 'buying' a seat in the board. I've discussed this matter with one of the board members, and the result was something like this: Omidyar didn't 'buy' a seat, but in the grant negotiations, they became aware of Matt Halprin's expertise and realized of which value he'd be on the board.)

    1. Re:A bit background info... by Kagato · · Score: 1

      I don't think Google has any interest in messing with what Wikipedia does, or it's day to day operations. But they could certainly show them how to technically do what they do on a leaner/meaner budget, getting more from the same hardware. And maybe that's the win for Google, a case study in integrating Google technology on a very large third party web site.

    2. Re:A bit background info... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      WMF isn't a company you can just 'buy out'. It's a charitable 501(c)(3) organization that is controlled by the Board of Trustees

      Interesting that you mention that. Because of WMF's classification, they are legally required to honor any stipulations that were specified along with the grant money. In other words, Google can ask them to spend the $2 million on specific things, and WMF has to either honor that request, or return the funds to Google. So I'm wondering if there were any interesting stipulations attached to this grant.

  21. Nice list... but Anonymous also donated a lot by thijsh · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...does that mean WikiMedia will also be classified as kiddie porn in Australia now?

    1. Re:Nice list... but Anonymous also donated a lot by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      ...does that mean WikiMedia will also be classified as kiddie porn in Australia now?

      Probably. Just think about it: knowledge porn is just a gateway drug to greater evils ... ;)

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:Nice list... but Anonymous also donated a lot by soulsteal · · Score: 1

      Only if WikiMedia's got small tits.

    3. Re:Nice list... but Anonymous also donated a lot by saibot834 · · Score: 1

      You mean like in the UK? (more info)

  22. So what? by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    Its not like Google bought a controlling interest in wp, it was a donation. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  23. Already has been in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But quickly corrected:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation_and_Wikipedia

  24. Just to unlock Bill Gates wiki page by RedTeflon · · Score: 1

    Google paid 2 million just so Wiki would unlock Bill Gates's page so Google can go back to defacing it for giggles. $$$ well spent

  25. Probably a Waste by afabbro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
    1. Re:Probably a Waste by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even more interesting is to compare their 2007-2008 budget with their 2008-2009 budget.

    2. Re:Probably a Waste by Angst+Badger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    3. Re:Probably a Waste by grahamsaa · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up!

      This is very interesting. So technology expenses as a percentage dropped by a total of 12% between 2008 and 2009? That's a big drop -- anyone have any idea what would account for this?

      --
      Facts have a liberal bias.
    4. Re:Probably a Waste by ig88b · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not a drop in technology expenses, it's an increase in other spending. If you look at the actual income statement ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/FINAL_08_09From_KPMG.pdf pdf page 5), you can see the HUGE increase in salaries from 1.1M to 2.2M. Compare that 100% increase to the internet hosting, which increased about 50% (from 537k to 822k).

    5. Re:Probably a Waste by Eil · · Score: 1

      Non-profits are often "non-profit" only in the sense that they don't follow the traditional business model and the organization itself doesn't keep the donations given to it. The employees who work for non-profits, however, can be compensated very well for their time.

      (Disclaimer: I'm not dogging all non-profits here. I'm sure there are many that are run almost entirely on volunteers, have little overhead, and do a lot of good for the cause that they serve. But as an I.T. consultant, I've had an up-close view of how the majority of non-profits operate and that is in a word: self-sustaining.)

    6. Re:Probably a Waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're well-heeled enough, perhaps they can walk to wherever the wikipedia donation box is located.

    7. Re:Probably a Waste by Simetrical · · Score: 1

      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?

      Maybe because it's a lot easier to find software developers in the Bay Area? Their previous location was Florida – better known for its retirees than its programming industry. Even though Wikimedia runs a website, and many people work remotely, they still do have quite a few people working from their office.

      --
      MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
  26. On the contrary by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

    Actually, as a long-time Wikipedia contributor I have mixed views on this. I think you underestimate the potential influence a large donor can have. Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects claim to have a neutral point of view. That view could be potentially influenced by major donors if they donate enough. In general, the Foundation has very little input into editing, but occasionally does step in, generally when there is some major legal reason or when a Foundation board member (such as Jim Wales) is asked by someone to look personally into something. Even when he's acting personally and not for the foundation, having Wales edit something is going to have an impact with the editors. Moreover, donations like this will give editors a personal feeling of gratitude towards Google which could impact the coverage in a favorable way even at a very subtle and not deliberate level. If Google decided that some newspaper was worth supporting that was going under and gave them 2 million dollars, we'd worry about what that did to journalistic integrity. This isn't that different. (Note incidentally that this is not the first time a major donation has raised this sort of worry. Earlier there was a large donation from one Richard Branson's organizations. Given his political views and political activities that one is arguably more of a concern about neutrality. But the issues are essentially identical).

  27. Why? Google is broken by fermion · · Score: 1
    On popular topics, Google is only useful as interface to Wikipedia or IMDB or the like. Occasionally a few other links are useful, but most of the time they are "we have more information on widgets" with tons of ads.

    On technical topics I just go directly to the place I know, like Wolfram.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  28. Re:Why? Google is broken by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    On popular topics, Google is only useful as interface to Wikipedia or IMDB or the like.

    On any topic, Google's search engine is designed to be an interface to the rest of the web, not a source of its own.

    Your complaint is like complaining that a car is useful only as a means of transportation.

  29. Google would have to buy Apple by tepples · · Score: 1

    Could Google just completely buy out whoever owns the H.264 patents?

    Hell no. I don't think Google has the cash to buy a 51 percent stake in each of these companies. For one thing, Google (market cap 171 billion USD) would have to buy Apple (market cap 184 billion USD).

    1. Re:Google would have to buy Apple by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't say they had to buy every company who purchased a license. They'd have to buy the patent owner.

      Google, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, etc. have a history of purchasing patent owners rather than attempting to license themselves from time to time.

      If Google bought the patent owner, then Apple and everyone on that list would have to pay license fees to Google.

      MPEG LA is a LLC, not a publicly traded corp. So I can't easily figure out with a quick search what the approximate net worth of the company is. But it might be a company that Google could purchase.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  30. Knol? Not exactly Wikipedia :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Observe:
    http://knol.google.com/k/macedonia-the-greek-kingdom-in-antiquity#

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia

  31. Traffic, sure, but not revenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google makes no money off of those searches unless you search for "$WHATEVER wikipedia" and then click on a sponsored link (and not the Wikipedia page you were actually looking for.)

    If you click through to the Wikipedia, or do a Feeling Lucky search, all Google gets out of the deal is a higher bandwidth bill.

  32. For those of you who are wondering... by hey! · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  33. why? by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

    I just learned that Google earns 500m on typos alone. Wikipedia is full of typos (and incorrect 'facts', but that's another issue). The 2m is just a "thank you".

  34. Google makes me feel lucky by thijsh · · Score: 1

    Try Googling "kind girls" and press "I'm feeling lucky"...

    Who wouldn't love a 'suggest for Google Community Donation (tm)' button with that. :-)

  35. Why google is donating to wikipedia by Mister_Stoopid · · Score: 1

    OK here's my theory... just hear me out. Google is in the business of indexing the internet, right? That's a pretty hard job! Maybe Google is having some trouble keeping up; maybe they're looking for someone to "lighten the load" a little, as it were. That's where wikipedia comes in. The way I figure it, Google would like to see the wikipedia editors expand their domain of influence. Imagine if wikipedia editors had the power to delete knowledge not only from wikipedia, but from the web as a whole! If google gets wikipedia editors to delete all the non-notable content from the internet, Google's job get's a lot easier! Really makes you think...

  36. There is no single H.264 patent holder by tepples · · Score: 1

    I didn't say they had to buy every company who purchased a license. They'd have to buy the patent owner.

    The page I linked has the title "licensors", which means "patent holders". There is no single H.264 patent holder; the patent pool is spread out among a couple dozen companies and administered by MPEG LA.

  37. Google helps Wikimedia, a first! by ljhiller · · Score: 1

    I can see how the submitter might be surprised that Google would help Wikipedia, which competed with its own Knol, because Google has certainly never tried to do this before

  38. What's $2 million to Google? by JustinFreid · · Score: 1

    A good way to spend some of the $500 million they make from ads on typosquatting domains.

    --
    Hey, how's it going?
  39. Knol does not compete with Wikipedia by fusiongyro · · Score: 1

    The whole point of Knol was to provide source material for Wikipedia articles. Remember?

  40. No necessarily by BeanThere · · Score: 1

    It's extremely un-PC to say this, and it's also somewhat counterintuitive, but merely vaccinating a population doesn't *necessarily* raise their standard of living --- it may merely raise the *number* of people living in poverty. Africa is a prime example; it historically has been one of the biggest benefactors of vaccinations since vaccinations were first developed ... do most Africans now have a high standard of living? No, instead they have a massive population explosion but are still living about the same poor quality of life they did 100 years ago. In other words, 'well done, you just made even more poor people'. (PS I am speaking as an African, and have lived in Africa and worked with Africans my whole life, this is not just armchair rubbish.)

    Bill Gates seems to genuinely mean well, but I fear his efforts will just serve to further explode the population of people living in poverty, and then there'll be even more people that need to be fed that can't feed themselves. You need to also simultaneously educate those people whose lives you are saving, to teach them to run their own modern industrialised economies, and that is much, much harder than merely sending them a bunch of medicine or food.

    I think if I had that much money, I'd rather create an investment fund for funding free-market entrepreneurs within poor communities who help build solutions to their own problems.

    1. Re:No necessarily by DaleSwanson · · Score: 1

      I agree, it's the standard "give a man a fish...". The key to raising the standard of living in third would countries is reducing the population growth rate, and boosting their economy. They need to be able to support themselves, because human history shows that relying on the charity of others won't ever work out in the long run. Even if the west has enough surplus to provide for them they simply won't take a decrease in lifestyle in order to do it. I'm not saying that is good, but that is simply how it is.

      We should be promoting birth control as much as possible, and then various policies to help with economy. Something I've thought of would be providing nuclear power plants and running them for them. Simply put energy is needed for economic development. The only means of power generation that would be feasible for them to do themselves would be coal, and we don't want that. So instead we design a safe standard rather small nuclear plant and offer to build and run them in some countries. The cost should be a lot less since there shouldn't be much red tape. We run them for 20 or so years while training locals to run them themselves. After 20 years we turn over control, while maintaining some inspectors to ease nuclear weapons concerns.

  41. I raise my hat by openfrog · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia is an accomplishment of immense proportions.

    For what is does directly as well as for the example it sets on what is possible on the Internet.

    Larry Page and Sergey Brin have made a gesture recognizing this accomplishment, as the mission of Google shares a lot with Wikipedia's.

    Kudos to them for applauding the work of a competitor. I raise my hat.

  42. Re:Why? Google is broken by pavon · · Score: 1

    No he complaining that Google is not being an adequate interface to the rest of the web because the only things showing up in his search are Wikipedia and link farms. This is like complaining about a car that will only take you to the library and stores, and not any other building.

  43. Excellent by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

    I see what you did there. Very nice.

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
  44. Re:Why? Google is broken by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    No he complaining that Google is not being an adequate interface to the rest of the web because the only things showing up in his search are Wikipedia and link farms.

    Since he said it was good only as a gateway to Wikipedia, IMDB, and similar sites for popular queries, that's very different that your characterization. Sure, its a complaint that, for any given set of subject matter, there one or a small number of useful sites, and lots of parasitic ones, but that still leaves Google as useful for searching those useful sites (especially when their coverage overlaps so you don't have to search multiple sites individually for the same information.)

    This is like complaining about a car that will only take you to the library and stores, and not any other building.

    Its more like complaining about a car that, when you are in a mood for a particular kind of food, there usually aren't very many good places to drive with the car, and most of the other places you could drive with it suck for the purpose of getting a decent meal of the type you want at that time.

  45. "completely unrestricted" grant by saibot834 · · Score: 1

    According to Sue Garnder's email (she is the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation), the gift is "completely unrestricted" (which isn't common - many major grants are restricted to a certain use, e.g. ford, stanton gifts).

  46. Re:Why? Google is broken by pavon · · Score: 1

    Except I know for a fact that for many things I am searching for the problem isn't lack of sites with the correct information. I will search for information about product x, and get nothing but sites selling x for the first three pages. I will try searching for "x reviews" or simular and get nothing but link-farms and very poor quality sites (stuff like about.com). I will then restrict my search to a site that I know about, and sure enough they have the information I need.

    So it isn't that sites containing the information aren't available, or aren't being indexed, they just aren't being given proper weighting in the search results. That would be my two biggest wishlist items for searching - do better at filtering out linkfarms, and have a switch I could select to exclude commerce sites from a specific search. None of the other search engines are doing any better than google, but if there were one that managed to do the above, I would switch to it in a heartbeat.

  47. Bill & Melinda Foundation is wonderfull by silarulz · · Score: 1

    I live in Africa, Malaria kills more people (I mean children under 5) than AIDS in a year in some places. Thanks to the B&M Foundation, free treated mosquito nets have been handed out to pregnant mothers. And thanks to George W. Bush, PEPFAR is doing wonders when it comes to AIDS!

    --
    silarulz!
  48. Re:Why? Google is broken by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    So it isn't that sites containing the information aren't available, or aren't being indexed, they just aren't being given proper weighting in the search results. That would be my two biggest wishlist items for searching - do better at filtering out linkfarms, and have a switch I could select to exclude commerce sites from a specific search.

    IME, using the search options and selecting "Fewer shopping sites" seems to do a fairly good job of living up to its name, eliminating most shopping sites from the results. The only real problem I see is that Google's Search Options aren't part of the Search Settings, so while they persist as long as you keep the window open and keep doing searches in it (which, if you habitually open search results in a new tab to keep the search results list available like I do is pretty good, but not perfect.) If they would keep Search Options as part of the persistent Search Settings for your account, or at least provide an option to set the current Search Options as your default for the account, that would do a lot.

  49. Yahoo even mirrors them by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, Yahoo maintains a large set of Wikipedia servers all for free without strings attached.

    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_hosting

    Yahoo has an amazing PR problem, for sure.

    Of course; If you consider people thinking "Hopefully, my browser won't hit google analytics after this donation.", perhaps Google's PR problem is deeper. I am personally amazed that they didn't donate a single cent before.

  50. Who remembers by GWBasic · · Score: 1

    Who remembers the article that floated around about a year ago about how Google manually tunes their search results. One of the manual things that they check is to ensure that Wikipedia articles are top links.

    --
    No, I will not work for your startup
  51. It's time to turn up the heat on Wikimedia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because they're a corrupt "charity" that is now in a prime position to control anything and everything they want online.

    It can start by forcing the media to be reminded of Jimbo's indiscretions, and the infamous "essjay" controversy. It shouldn't stop there, though. There's always the "SlimVirgin" debacle, and some of David Gerard's creepy "hobbies" could stand to be brought to a brighter light.

  52. Re:Cut out the middleman by MacWiz · · Score: 1

    Wasn't wikipedia scheduled to be broke and shut down by now? Weren't they in serious need of funds like, a month ago?

    If so, then Google did a good thing, regardless of what it thinks it might gain going forward. Maybe Bing will chip in a million, too.

  53. Wikileaks by Gaffod · · Score: 1

    I don't necessarily that wikimedia does not deserve donations, wouldn't donating to wikileaks do more good at this point, seeing as how their site has been down for some time now?