Brandon C
Feb 11 2007, 12:04 AM
Summary:
QUOTE
Florence Devouard, Chairwoman of the Wikimedia foundation has told an audience at the Lift07 conference that Wikipedia has the financial resources to run its servers for another 3-4 months, and that without further funding Wikipedia “might disappear”.
Full article:
QUOTE
In a rather extraordinary example of begging for money, Florence Devouard, Chairwoman of the Wikimedia foundation has told an audience at the Lift07 conference that Wikipedia has the financial resources to run its servers for another 3-4 months, and that without further funding Wikipedia “might disappear”.
Could Wikipedia shut it’s doors? Tthe site alone would be worth at least $xxx million, if not a billion, after all, there’s literally no better property out there when it comes to traffic and authority than Wikipedia. And whoever bought it would not only have an amazing marketing tool, they could even control the truth, at least as most of us know it. Indeed, the likes of Microsoft wouldn’t need to hire people to edit entries, they could simply pay the new owner. Text Link sales alone across the site would more than pay for the servers the site uses, tens of thousands of times over. I smell a begging bluff on this one, but Devouard did make the claim.
Source:
http://www.901am.com/2007/wikipeda-could-s...-wikimedia.htmlDigg:
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Wikipeda_cou...onths_WikimediaDo you think that Google should buy it? I think that would be neat for Google to buy out and save the excellent, free, ad-free Wikipedia. Either that, or have Google and other organizations donate to Wikipedia to help keep it up and running. Just anything to keep it up!
zigs
Feb 11 2007, 12:36 AM
There is one major thing wrong with wikipedia... and that is anyone can edit it... the rubbish I have seen posted there is unbelievable and I wouldn't source anything from it
SwitchFX
Feb 11 2007, 12:57 AM
QUOTE(*zigzag @ Feb 10 2007, 04:36 PM)
There is one major thing wrong with wikipedia... and that is anyone can edit it... the rubbish I have seen posted there is unbelievable and I wouldn't source anything from it
I agree, it's stupid. My favorite astronomer Carl Sagan's bio on on wikipedia said he was a crack addict and killed his wife and kids and at e them raw, and then shot himself.
Quillz
Feb 11 2007, 01:26 AM
I hope this isn't a ploy solely to collect money.
Steve
Feb 11 2007, 01:50 AM
If they do...then so be it. I've never relied on wiki for anything reliable. Yes, it's a resource, but when anyone can add to it it, how credible can it be?
Μichael
Feb 11 2007, 02:03 AM
Wikipedia is brilliant, it's a great resource site. Yes, sometimes people will deface certain pages, but they are typically dealt with quickly. And since it's a wiki, the old revision is still stored to be re-instated. If this is true and Wikipedia is shut down it will be a big loss.
Steve
Feb 11 2007, 02:09 AM
QUOTE(Μichael @ Feb 10 2007, 09:03 PM)
Wikipedia is brilliant, it's a great resource site. Yes, sometimes people will deface certain pages, but they are typically dealt with quickly. And since it's a wiki, the old revision is still stored to be re-instated. If this is true and Wikipedia is shut down it will be a big loss.
True, but as an internet junkie I've seen places like this come and go. Is it right? No, it's not, but it happens when people are required to pay to keep said resources alive. All people can ask is to keep it it afloat.... if it survives, then it was meant to be.
princetontiger
Feb 11 2007, 02:23 AM
A billionaire investor will most likely bail them out. Wikipedia has a name and is valuable real estate
Steve
Feb 11 2007, 02:27 AM
QUOTE(Jämes @ Feb 10 2007, 09:23 PM)
A billionaire investor will most likely bail them out. Wikipedia has a name and is valuable real estate
It won't take a billionaire.
Regardless of real state on the internet. I wouldn't invest, and I've invested in many ventures.
*GS*
Feb 11 2007, 03:55 AM
It would be very sad if Wikipedia closes down due to financial reasons. Wikipedia is a fantastic site, unfortunately due to the nature of running such a large site there will no doubt be on ocassions content that is absolute rubbish! But the site is moderated, the administrators are strict, and once reported/sighting of fraudulent content it can easily be removed and repeated offenders banned for life.
I remember sighting someone who was desparately trying to sell his worthless collection of art for millions $$$, and then there's the acassional Spammer who manages to post content, again that has to be reported/sighted and removed, and the offender(s) banned for life.
On a whole, Wikipedia is an excellent resource containing excellent content
holla@yoboy
Feb 11 2007, 09:49 AM
Wikipedia is awesome and is the best resource on the web! No opinion all fact! if I had the money I would buy it instantly! INSTANTLY! BOOM!
kan
Feb 11 2007, 10:51 AM
NickM
Feb 11 2007, 11:28 AM
Well there's no statement posted on the Wikimedia website - which I would have expected had something like this actually been the case.
UBERHOST.NET
Feb 11 2007, 01:08 PM
QUOTE(holla@yoboy @ Feb 11 2007, 01:49 AM)
Wikipedia is awesome and is the best resource on the web! No opinion all fact! if I had the money I would buy it instantly! INSTANTLY! BOOM!
Thank
you for
your opinion
newbie.
Pⅇter
Feb 11 2007, 03:19 PM
QUOTE(*zigzag @ Feb 11 2007, 01:36 AM)
There is one major thing wrong with wikipedia... and that is anyone can edit it... the rubbish I have seen posted there is unbelievable and I wouldn't source anything from it
the fact that everyone can edit it is in fact it's power.
Danny
Feb 11 2007, 03:40 PM
Just because anyone can edit it doesn't mean that it isn't reliable. Most articles have citations in it, so you can just go look at the source they used and check it. Or, you can just not even use what the article says but just go right to the citations and use them for yourself.
Barn
Feb 11 2007, 04:54 PM
QUOTE(Steve @ Feb 11 2007, 02:09 AM)
True, but as an internet junkie I've seen places like this come and go.
Me too but Wikipedia is really nothing like any other site before it. Its sheer scale alone sets it apart.
Luke
Feb 11 2007, 06:18 PM
Whether you consider the information on Wikipedia accurate or not, the fact that anyone can edit it can make the information, at least the good portion of it, very accurate. I've followed certain articles where the moment something changes someone has already updated the information. Like there's a page about Steve Erwin. The day that he died there was already information about it on his page, and it hadn't been been a full 24 hours. As the situation progressed it was updated more and more...
.John.
Feb 11 2007, 06:59 PM
I find this incredibly strange, especially considering they just had several large donations in the end of 2006 to meet their goal...
Strange_Will
Feb 11 2007, 08:36 PM
QUOTE(Μichael @ Feb 10 2007, 06:03 PM)
Wikipedia is brilliant, it's a great resource site. Yes, sometimes people will deface certain pages, but they are typically dealt with quickly. And since it's a wiki, the old revision is still stored to be re-instated. If this is true and Wikipedia is shut down it will be a big loss.
Same here, Wikipedia has lots of ways to find out if something is just a claim, or a properly researched piece of data, and it takes either checking the history, or scrolling down to the references. Neither really that hard.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm"The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows."
SwitchFX
Feb 11 2007, 08:38 PM
QUOTE(holla@yoboy @ Feb 11 2007, 01:49 AM)
Wikipedia is awesome and is the best resource on the web! No opinion all fact! if I had the money I would buy it instantly! INSTANTLY! BOOM!
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?QUOTE(kewlceo @ Feb 11 2007, 05:08 AM)
Thank you for your opinion newbie.
Ace!
Chris T
Feb 12 2007, 07:52 PM
Wikipedia is very handy IMO. While I would never use it as a reference in an essay I have been known to use wikipedia for a prelimenary scouting of the relevant information.
Pⅇter
Feb 12 2007, 08:30 PM
I use it all the time, it's either wikipedia or a google search for me in my firefox searchbar.
Stephen Fleming
Feb 13 2007, 01:57 AM
Don't use it.
SwitchFX
Feb 13 2007, 06:26 AM
QUOTE(CTerry @ Feb 12 2007, 11:52 AM)
Wikipedia is very handy IMO. While I would never use it as a reference in an essay I have been known to use wikipedia for a prelimenary scouting of the relevant information.
Doesn't your Uni. have a proper subscription to a TRUSTED DB?
stobbo
Feb 13 2007, 08:02 AM
I use it a fair amount, mostly just because I am bored so I type a random place or something in, which links me to other article and so on
But I also use it for school work, although I do use other sources for verification
Strange_Will
Feb 13 2007, 08:32 AM
QUOTE(Inland @ Feb 12 2007, 10:26 PM)
Doesn't your Uni. have a proper subscription to a TRUSTED DB?
Ignore the article on Wikipedia accuracy == Encyclopedia Britannica.
It helps if you spend the 15 minutes it takes to understand how to use the software to check for inaccuracies. I mean afterall it's a encyclopedia of references if you know how to use it.
Chris T
Feb 13 2007, 12:50 PM
QUOTE(Inland @ Feb 13 2007, 06:26 AM)
Doesn't your Uni. have a proper subscription to a TRUSTED DB?
Not for Social Sciences, no. In fact I don't think there are any decent social sciences databases.
DXL
Feb 14 2007, 12:44 AM
That site will never go under, you'll see corporate ownership before that happens. Worse comes to worst, you will start seeing content based ads appearing on each page. But these things do happen, DMOZ had stopped in its tracks when their servers failed and AOL wasn't helping out.
Pⅇter
Feb 14 2007, 10:24 AM
jimmy wales, the owner of wikipedia/wikimedia/mediawiki etc.. has said that he will never place ads on his sites, that's why donations are needed, and I'm pretty sure donations will keep on flowing in.
Zaryach
Feb 16 2007, 11:21 PM
Wikipedia should launch a advertisement thing, most companies would pay to get there companies displayed where most people look there info at.
Pⅇter
Feb 16 2007, 11:29 PM
that's exactly what the owner doesn't want, he wants to maintain neutrality, having advertisments is a high risk in keeping neutrality.
Zaryach
Feb 16 2007, 11:31 PM
QUOTE(Pⅇter @ Feb 16 2007, 06:29 PM)
that's exactly what the owner doesn't want, he wants to maintain neutrality, having advertisments is a high risk in keeping neutrality.
How does Wikipedia get money anyways? To pay for servers and all the billions of bandwidths used. Do you know?
stobbo
Feb 16 2007, 11:51 PM
They seem to get a fair bit from donations.
callumevans324
Feb 17 2007, 12:16 AM
Google should buy it if it is going to close down IMO. They have the money and ability to keep Wikipedia running, so, Google FTW ^^
Michael Merritt
Feb 17 2007, 12:24 AM
Wikimedia does donation drives every quarter. So, while they may be hurting for money, they could easily prompt the need for money, and people would probably be willing. Personally, I think they did too much at once, too many sites. Should have focused on just Wikipedia, though I expect their other sites are nowhere equal to Wikipedia's resource usage.
NickM
Feb 17 2007, 12:17 PM
QUOTE(Michael Merritt @ Feb 17 2007, 12:24 AM)
Wikimedia does donation drives every quarter. So, while they may be hurting for money, they could easily prompt the need for money, and people would probably be willing. Personally, I think they did too much at once, too many sites. Should have focused on just Wikipedia, though I expect their other sites are nowhere equal to Wikipedia's resource usage.
I have to say I agree. Although things like Wikiquote and Wiktionary are good resources, other things like Wikinews just don't seem to work. The concept is good, however, people will continue to get their news from outlets that do their own original reporting and don't rely on other sites for their news.
Jimbo Wale's new idea about a 'people-powered' search engine (for me at least) feels a little premature and excessive. I hope they're not going to use the current Wiki software to do it, since although it's good for Wikipedia, just wouldn't translate to being a search engine.
rock man
Feb 17 2007, 01:24 PM
why would people wanna buy it?
Brandon C
Feb 17 2007, 03:18 PM
QUOTE(rock man @ Feb 17 2007, 07:24 AM)
why would people wanna buy it?
Because it is an excellent source of information and has a huge potential.
Dªn
Feb 17 2007, 05:43 PM
I think in general Wikipedia is pretty good for the bigger more academic articles. Most of the time when I refer to it for linguistic theories, concepts and research it's pretty accurate and I use it fairly regularly to get resources that I could actually reference - referencing wikipedia at Sheffield is pretty much a death sentence. I think you tend to find it's the smaller articles that attract a lot more inaccuracies and vandalism, small towns, pages about schools, tv shows etc. Not long ago the page about X-Factor had several rather rude words inserted to describe Simon Cowell, with "C**T" inserted as his middle name throughout the article.
I wouldn't ever take anything from Wikipedia as gospel, but it's a very useful resource provided it is used correctly.
Pⅇter
Feb 17 2007, 06:24 PM
i've read that vandalism on wikipedia is typically reversed within a few minutes after the vandalism takes place, of course for less active pages (less visitors) it could take longer...
VelvetElvis
Feb 17 2007, 07:23 PM
Wiki technology is a product of social evolution. If wikipedia proper goes away, the people using it will migrate somewhere else.
I always liked
e2. Maybe it would be cool again if wikipedia died.
Brandon C
Feb 19 2007, 01:47 AM
QUOTE(VelvetElvis @ Feb 17 2007, 01:23 PM)
Wiki technology is a product of social evolution. If wikipedia proper goes away, the people using it will migrate somewhere else.
I always liked
e2. Maybe it would be cool again if wikipedia died.
But that's just it - Wikipedia
won't go away.
Someone will pick it up and keep Wikipedia going because it is such a huge site and millions of people from all around the world depend on Wikipedia and use it everyday in a lot of different languages.
SwitchFX
Feb 19 2007, 06:51 AM
Unfortunately this was a poor attempt of getting money.
Brandon C
Feb 20 2007, 02:59 AM
QUOTE(SwitchFX @ Feb 19 2007, 12:51 AM)
Unfortunately this was a poor attempt of getting money.
And what makes you say such a thing?
Rip Tide
Feb 21 2007, 01:31 AM
wiki is full of BS if you find 1 or 2 good pages but the rest is just clutter. The good part is if they shut down thats one less annoying internet phrase (LETS WIKI IT)
Quillz
Feb 21 2007, 07:42 AM
QUOTE(Rip Tide @ Feb 20 2007, 05:31 PM)
wiki is full of BS if you find 1 or 2 good pages but the rest is just clutter. The good part is if they shut down thats one less annoying internet phrase (LETS WIKI IT)
Obviously you've never actually used Wikipedia. The majority of its information is accurate.
Rip Tide
Feb 21 2007, 06:25 PM
QUOTE(drygnfyre @ Feb 21 2007, 01:42 AM)
Obviously you've never actually used Wikipedia. The majority of its information is accurate.
that was dumb to say, I've been there enough, Like my original post says theres more junk than real stuff, I didn't say theres no good stuff.
It has gotten out of hand with spam
NickM
Feb 21 2007, 06:38 PM
QUOTE(Rip Tide @ Feb 21 2007, 06:25 PM)
that was dumb to say, I've been there enough, Like my original post says theres more junk than real stuff, I didn't say theres no good stuff.
It has gotten out of hand with spam
Have to disagree. The scientific articles on there are normally excellent in quality. Those articles that 'the man in the street' may read are far more susceptible to some vandalism. In any case, looking at previous versions of articles will often yield the correct version.
Quillz
Feb 21 2007, 06:52 PM
QUOTE(Rip Tide @ Feb 21 2007, 10:25 AM)
that was dumb to say, I've been there enough, Like my original post says theres more junk than real stuff, I didn't say theres no good stuff.
It has gotten out of hand with spam
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but it's flat out wrong to say that only 1-2 articles are accurate. Keep in mind that the wiki also has some automation to it. Articles that are clearly vandalized are usually reverted almost immediately.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.