Wikipedia Meets $16M Budget Goal

netbuzz writes "Thanks to some 630,000 individual contributions that averaged $22 apiece, Wikipedia has reached its fundraising goal of $16 million, founder Jimmy Wales announced over the weekend. Writes Wales, '... this year is a little more incredible than most because this year we celebrate Wikipedia's tenth anniversary. It's so important that we kick the year off just like this: by fully funding the Wikimedia Foundation's budget to support Wikipedia and all the sister projects as we head into the next decade of our work together.' The online encyclopedia now boasts of being the Internet's fifth largest site, which renews questioning by some as to whether it can afford over the long haul to stand by its policy of refusing advertising."

Comments

Re:Begging

[jhoegl]

Ask NPR, it has been their business model for quite some time.

Re:Begging

[Rude Turnip]

I prefer to put my money where my mouth is and support public radio. After not watching any commercial news for probably the last few years and just relying on NPR and BBC for the most part, I happened to visit a relative when the TV news came on. I am not exaggerating when I say the news show had a jittery cartoon-like appearance in its speech and presentation style. And it was mostly commercials. That is the mindless garbage you get when you let someone else pay for your news.

Re:First Address Targeted Advertising, Then We'll

[Abstrackt]

I always thought this was self-destructive behavior on Slashdot's part.

I can't speak for others but just the fact that I was given the option to block ads at the site level is enough for me to allow them. I feel that little checkbox is a sign of respect from this site and since I'm too cheap to pay to be a subscriber, I show my respect by leaving the ads in place.

Ads?? But the annual fund raiser was a success!

[ciaran_o_riordan]

I can't understand the mentality of the story summary.

The news is: the annual fund raiser was a success. It raised more money than ever before, in a shorter time than the previous fund raisers.

How does raising oodles of money without ads make someone wonder if ads will soon be required?

The news story answers this question: No, there is clearly no need for ads.

Ads could even ruin Wikipedia's funding model. Would so many people donate if there were ads and if Wikipedia had a conflict of interest (don't offend the advertisers)?