Wikipedia running out of cash?

What about the Yahoo server donation to Wikipedia? Was that a one-time thing with no sustainability?

Remo: power, bandwidth, and server space are expensive, even if you already have the servers.

I assumed they got some sort of an all-inclusive data-center, and not just a box of hardware. What else would I expect from a multibillion-company?

But maybe I’m a bit naive regarding that topic, since I didn’t research any details…

Remo: I don’t know. I’ll have to look into what Yahoo gave to Wikipedia.

They should sell “live” links

Or maybe the ability to edit an “advertorial” section about items relating to your products that can’t be edited by outsides… call it “Official Company Line”

Robert, that was a bit of a shocking news to hear that Wikipedia may be running tight on cash.

We are organizing WikiCamp ( http://www.wikicamp.in ) in Chennai on Feb 25th. Jimmy Wales is coming down in flesh to attend the event. It will be interesting to ask Jimmy about the financial situation of Wikipedia and how folks around the world, especially India, can help.

Cheers,
Kiruba Shankar
http://www.KirubaShow.com
http://www.WikiCamp.in

That is not expected news. You would think if Yahoo did do that they would have paid for everything else. I am surprised more people don’t donate (IE Large Corps), Microsoft should now since they are paying people for Wikilobbying (watch Colbert ).

Please note that Wikipedia is not shutting down! It just takes money to run a top-10 web site, non-profit or no. If we never ran fundraisers and never took in any more money, of course it would run out, but that’s not going to happen. Business continues as usual.

What we have from Yahoo is a cluster of servers and provided bandwidth in South Korea which we use for caching proxies to visitors in Asia.

We have a similar cluster in Europe from another provider.

Both of these caching clusters are *hugely* helpful, together serving about half our total bandwidth — that means cutting operating costs by *a lot* compared to what we’d need if we didn’t have them.

Our primary hosting is at a data center in Tampa, Florida, where the bulk of our machines are; that’s not provided to us for free (which also means we’re not dependent on the continuing goodwill of a single benefactor).

I am intensely surprised that Google hasn’t flat out bought (or acquired, or whatever it is you do with foundations) the Wikipedia Foundation, lock, stock, and barrel.

Wikipedia, like all Web 2.0 activities, atleast needs to consider how to make enough money to fund itself. Frankly the site has been too dominated by people hostile to any economic activity on the Internet or any business activity. That is not practicle in our world.

If Wikipedia is going to be more than just the first big wiki that then fails, it needs to find ways, like all not for profits, to find ways to cover its costs.

The information struction of thousands of editors and millions of readers must provide some semiotic structures and information architecture that could be provided “at costs” to ethical companies.

If Google bought wikipedia, I would stop using them. Google thinks they own the web, that their search engine is the best there is. It’s not. Mindshare only, despite the number of people using them. What do you expect from a search engine that has become a verb. I’ll stick with Ask.com.

I find myself using Ask.com more and more. It’s almost become my default search engine. Everything Google touches loses that small feeling and become just another acquisition. I refuse to use Google for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is they are too haughty for me. Do no evil… yeah whatever. Tell that to the Chinese people you help put behind bars.

Seems like this is a divide/conquer problem . . . for access into wikipedia, maybe they should require us all to run a P2P client to share the burden in a mathematically fashionable way?

Perhaps what would be better is for Wales to perhaps see if some university would host Wikipedia for nothing, but allowing him the same control.

So does that mean it is the end of free speech and community moderated information ?

So does that mean it is the end of free speech and community moderated information?

Wikipedia was never that. They may say that they were but many folks no longer see it as such. With no equality application of the rules, no clear method of dispute process, and with each users doing what they want as they see fit, many folks no longer see it as a true source of unbiased information.

And their recent application of nofollow noindex to outbound links while their are millions of live links to them just shows how little they really feel about those who have provided the information to them and those who have worked long hours on their site.

It’s turned into a joke really…

Is there any chance they could just cut back? They seem to be expanding every time I turn around (Wikiquote, etc.) Why not just stick to being a dictionary for a while?

Why would wikipedia need money to be a top ten site? Didn’t wikipedia fame come from word of mouth advertising? That should be enough to keep it in the top ten.

While I love Wikipedia as a service, this is a clear indication that they need to revise their (yes, I’ll say it!) business model. Operating a web site the size of Wikipedia requires millions of dollars, as most of us are aware, but living off of donations means that they simply need to limit thier services.

They could possibly take on the share/nag-ware model, and prompt end users every 5 pages for a donation. Maybe that would improve the financial resources slightly, or maybe that would kill traffic even more so.

Someone needs to modify the “Wikipedia” article to state that they have tons of cash laying around. After all, if Wikipedia says it’s so, it must be.

I fell bad for them they are a great site!

P.S. Come to koolpenguinlemonade.page.tl!

That would suck, they are a good site.

Ahaha. Really? Wow. It could be true even so. Maybe they need some ads or some sponsors. Sure, it will come out as another multibillion dollar hugging subsiadiary.

The world would be a sadder place without Wikipedia. Perhaps they could incorporate advertising?