Wikimedia Foundation Raises $25M In Donations Over 9 Days
31 replies, posted
[quote]Wikimedia Foundation [url=http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/27/wikimedia-foundation-raises-25-million-in-record-time-during-2012-fundraiser/]announced today[/url] that it raised $25 million from more than 1.2 million donors during its 2012 fundraiser, which ran on English-language Wikipedia in five countries (the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand) for nine full days, a decrease in time from Wikipedia’s 2011 fundraiser, which was 46 days and raised $20 million. Another donation drive will be launched in April.
The donations will go toward allowing the online encyclopedia to remain ad-free by giving it the funds needed to maintain server infrastructure, increase the number of editors around the world, improve software and “make Wikipedia accessible globally to billions of people who are just beginning to access the Internet.” More details about Wikimedia’s budget for the current fiscal year can be found in its 2012-2013 Annual Plan.
The announcement also said that there are roughly 80,000 volunteer editors, photographers and free-knowledge advocates that contribute to Wikimedia projects. According to the foundation, Wikipedia now has more than 23 million volunteer-authored articles in over 285 languages, and is visited by more than 475 million people every month. This year has been a busy one for Wikimedia. In March, it began developing Wikidata, the first new project from the Wikimedia Foundation since 2006, which launched in October. The project’s goal is to create a semantic, machine-readable database that can be edited by anyone. Wikidata allows information in Wikipedia articles about the same topic in different languages to be synced with one another, and allows Wikipedia Lists, usually made by users, to be created automatically.
The Wikipedia Foundation also began work on Wikimedia Labs this year. Based on OpenStack, the project allows volunteers to help Wikimedia Lab team members to develop changes in its back-end infrastructure that will help Wikipedia continue to run smoothly.[/quote]
[url=http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/27/wikimedia-foundation-raises-25m-in-donations-over-9-days/]SOURCE[/url]
[url=http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/27/wikimedia-foundation-raises-25-million-in-record-time-during-2012-fundraiser/]ALT SOURCE[/url]
Have you donated yet? You really should.
I wonder how much money Wikipedia would make if they put a banner add at the top and bottom of each page instead of relying on donations.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;38999445]I wonder how much money Wikipedia would make if they put a banner add at the top and bottom of each page instead of relying on donations.[/QUOTE]
They don't want ads.
A shame 90% of Wikipedia's users are lazy students.
[QUOTE=Badunkadunk;38999509]A shame 90% of Wikipedia's users are lazy students.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, we all have used Wikipedia.
Oh yeah I'm totally one of those lazy students.
Must have been those personal appeals.
[QUOTE=Badunkadunk;38999588]Oh yeah I'm totally one of those lazy students.[/QUOTE]
Well aren't you a saint
This one time in sixth grade I literally just copy and pasted an article off of Wikipedia and acted like I was typing for about half a hour.
Got a 100.
How can it be lazy? Using Wikipedia as a source of information that is. Wikipedia is maintained by the entire human population, a hive mind of information isn't more reliable in educational work than one or two authors who are self appointed educators?
I was using Wikipedia back in 04/05 for school papers exams, and sited the many references (usually using one book or two from the library aswell as wikipedia) and STILL I got a 2/5 for my sources of information.
Are schools and teachers still that fucking backward, even after all these years?
I gave $20 last year but didn't have enough money this year. I've learned so much off Wikipedia it's insane though.
[QUOTE=Zarjk;39000329]This one time in sixth grade I literally just copy and pasted an article off of Wikipedia and acted like I was typing for about half a hour.
Got a 100.[/QUOTE]
Conversely, I wrote a (in my opinion) good paper in the eight grade and got a 0 for plagerizing. I asked my teacher what I plagiarized and she winked and said "You know". What the fuck lady.
[QUOTE=EndOfTheWorld;39000822]How can it be lazy? Using Wikipedia as a source of information that is. Wikipedia is maintained by the entire human population, a hive mind of information isn't more reliable in educational work than one or two authors who are self appointed educators?
I was using Wikipedia back in 04/05 for school papers exams, and sited the many references (usually using one book or two from the library aswell as wikipedia) and STILL I got a 2/5 for my sources of information.
Are schools and teachers still that fucking backward, even after all these years?[/QUOTE]
Wikipedia isn't considered a source at the tertiary level, and maybe not at senior secondary levels either, for obvious reasons. The key is just to follow the sources that the wikipedia article itself provides, rather than citing the wiki article itself.
Wikipedia is basically the sum of all (read: most) human knowledge.
You don't get much neater than that, and the fact that it's funded by donations from individuals around the globe as opposed to a governmental body or a private corporation means donating is worth every penny.
v:v:v
I donated $5
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39000872]
I asked my teacher what I plagiarized and she winked and said "You know". What the fuck lady.[/QUOTE]
she totally wanted your dick
[QUOTE=squids_eye;38999445]I wonder how much money Wikipedia would make if they put a banner add at the top and bottom of each page instead of relying on donations.[/QUOTE]
...
You say it like relying on donations is some disgusting, revolting thing or something.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39001317]...
You say it like relying on donations is some disgusting, revolting thing or something.[/QUOTE]
Well it could theoretically be more efficient and profitable than donation runs, but I sure as hell want an ad free Wikipedia.
I donated nothing because it's a shitty website overruled by children.
[QUOTE=fr1kin;39001791]I donated nothing because it's a shitty website overruled by children.[/QUOTE]
I think the word you want to use is overrun. I guess someone didn't use wikipedia.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39001317]...
You say it like relying on donations is some disgusting, revolting thing or something.[/QUOTE]
Fucking lazy ass website. Wikipedia should get a job
[QUOTE=EndOfTheWorld;39000822]How can it be lazy? Using Wikipedia as a source of information that is. Wikipedia is maintained by the entire human population, a hive mind of information isn't more reliable in educational work than one or two authors who are self appointed educators?
I was using Wikipedia back in 04/05 for school papers exams, and sited the many references (usually using one book or two from the library aswell as wikipedia) and STILL I got a 2/5 for my sources of information.
Are schools and teachers still that fucking backward, even after all these years?[/QUOTE]
That's exactly why it's lazy. If you need to research a topic for an assignment you can just go to the relevant Wikipedia page and get all your information there, because if the content is cited then it's more than likely genuine knowledge.
Markers don't want people being lazy cunts and going to the one source that has everything. They want people actually researching the topic and [b]citing from multiple sources[/b]. Granted that this is one of the central philosophies of Wikipedia, markers generally want multiple sources for information as a sign that students did proper research on the matter. If you really are that lazy, get your information from Wikipedia and cite from its sources.
I never donated. Has nothing to do with laziness, or even the fact that I can't spare anything. Nah, I just don't like donating to people/entities that beg so hard for it. I'd probably toss 'em a bone if they didn't plaster fuckhuge banners on every page begging for anything they can get.[QUOTE=Antdawg;39001905]That's exactly why it's lazy. If you need to research a topic for an assignment you can just go to the relevant Wikipedia page and get all your information there, because if the content is cited then it's more than likely genuine knowledge.
Markers don't want people being lazy cunts and going to the one source that has everything. They want people actually researching the topic and [b]citing from multiple sources[/b]. Granted that this is one of the central philosophies of Wikipedia, markers generally want multiple sources for information as a sign that students did proper research on the matter.[/quote] So they're trying to force kids to do it the hard way for no real reason except because they can, then?[quote] If you really are that lazy, get your information from Wikipedia and cite from its sources.[/QUOTE]
I have a feeling the sweeping majority of school papers are written this way, and not out of laziness. Mine were, I couldn't be assed to pour through a bunch of dusty old tomes when someone else already did so for me, but many kids have so much fucking homework thrown atop them that they don't have the time to do the research 'proper'.
[QUOTE=EndOfTheWorld;39000822]How can it be lazy? Using Wikipedia as a source of information that is. Wikipedia is maintained by the entire human population, a hive mind of information isn't more reliable in educational work than one or two authors who are self appointed educators?
I was using Wikipedia back in 04/05 for school papers exams, and sited the many references (usually using one book or two from the library aswell as wikipedia) and STILL I got a 2/5 for my sources of information.
Are schools and teachers still that fucking backward, even after all these years?[/QUOTE]
My mums a school teacher and she likes using wikipedia as a starting source but then using the little [number] brackets to pull or discover more information
a lot of them use the excuse about it being edited by almost everyone, but even websites can be edited
It's a little stupid but it doesn't stop me of finding a backway
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39001317]...
You say it like relying on donations is some disgusting, revolting thing or something.[/QUOTE]
I didn't mean it like that at all. I think it is pretty amazing that they can run such a huge website with nothing but donations and it is very selfless of them to not use advertising even if it means they make less money overall. I was merely wondering how much they would make in a hypothetical situation where they decided to use adverts.
[QUOTE=Badunkadunk;38999509]A shame 90% of Wikipedia's users are lazy students.[/QUOTE] I'd say half the time I use wikipedia it's for looking up stuff that interests me or I just want to read for pleasure.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39000872]Conversely, I wrote a (in my opinion) good paper in the eight grade and got a 0 for plagerizing. I asked my teacher what I plagiarized and she winked and said "You know". What the fuck lady.[/QUOTE]
You must have plagiarized some of it. I find it hard to believe you'd simply forfeit an entire genuine paper without even disputing your teacher (who apparently just said "you know" without even proving you plagiarized it).
Either you did do some plagiarizing or you're an unassertive submissive individual. You're never going to get anywhere in life with that type of push-over attitude.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39006395]You must have plagiarized some of it. I find it hard to believe you'd simply forfeit an entire genuine paper without even disputing your teacher (who apparently just said "you know")
Either you did do some plagiarizing, or you're an unassertive submissive individual, and you're not going to get anywhere in life with that attitude.[/QUOTE]
I'm suddenly incredibly self conscious.
[QUOTE=TestECull;39002192]I never donated. Has nothing to do with laziness, or even the fact that I can't spare anything. Nah, I just don't like donating to people/entities that beg so hard for it. I'd probably toss 'em a bone if they didn't plaster fuckhuge banners on every page begging for anything they can get.[/QUOTE]
so what you're telling me is that you've set yourself an arbitrary point at which you refuse to help someone or something, regardless of how important helping them may or may not be? and that this arbitrarily-crossed point, which, again, you just kind of set for yourself, is somehow a decent justification for not giving money?
you're basically saying "I don't want to give money because of reasons that I made up to my own satisfaction"
[QUOTE=Badunkadunk;38999509]A shame 90% of Wikipedia's users are lazy students.[/QUOTE]
Hey. It's actually hard work researching everything on Wikipedia, and then going out and finding actual sources to cite. Thou Shall Not Cite Wikipedia on Term Papers
[QUOTE=squids_eye;39006297]I didn't mean it like that at all. I think it is pretty amazing that they can run such a huge website with nothing but donations and it is very selfless of them to not use advertising even if it means they make less money overall. I was merely wondering how much they would make in a hypothetical situation where they decided to use adverts.[/QUOTE]
It initially sounded like a snide remark like "they're so dumb for not doing this" but okay.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.