14 comments

• 

  Mark Evans

  2 years ago

  It's like Devouard was begging for money the save way that PBS does from time to time! As for whether a young buck will donate some of their cash to Wikipedia, when was the last time any one of them did some philanthropic?
  By the way, I like the new look - much cleaner (and Web 2.0-ish) than the old one..:)
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  2 years ago

  Thanks, Mark -- your redesign inspired me :-)
  
  And I agree, Ms. Devouard's comments did sound a little like Goldie on a PBS pledge drive.
  reply
• 

  Seth Finkelstein

  2 years ago

  The numbers can't be right. See my post:
  
  Wikipedia is NOT going to "shut within 3-4 months"
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  2 years ago

  Thanks for the link, Seth -- but I don't see how what you posted "debunks" anything that Ms. Devouard (who presumably knows what she's talking about) said in her comments, assuming they have been reported properly.
  
  The figures you quote from Wikipedia say that it raised $1.3-million, but also notes that expenses for hosting more than quadrupled -- and says that operating expenses (for which we don't get an actual number) tripled in 2006.
  
  That could easily put Wikipedia in a position where its costs are escalating and no money is coming in, which I assumed was the point Ms. Devouard was trying to make.
  reply
• 

  Seth Finkelstein

  2 years ago

  I've updated my post with a link to the financial statement (I can't put it here because otherwise my comment will get trapped in the spam-filter). Operating expenses for 2006 were "$47,777", indeed triple (loosely) the 2005 figure of "$18,067". But that's not going to break the bank. They spent half again as much in travel as operating expenses.
  
  Hosting expenses in 2006 $189,631.
  
  There's no way you get "$5 million" from numbers like that.
  
  They had half a million IN CASH there!
  
  Does Not Compute.
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  2 years ago

  Thanks for that, Seth. I must admit, those numbers don't seem to come anywhere near the $5-million mark.
  reply
• 

  Matt Bostock

  2 years ago

  Maybe Wikipedia should modifiy, secure and adopt the Coral cache CDN system? Having cached content would be a big downside but it'd mean that anyone wanting to contribute a server and bandwidth could do so.
  reply
• 

  Mong

  2 years ago

  I think they should consider every other option except running google ads.
  reply
• 

  Doug Karr

  2 years ago

  Wikipedia could turn into an immensely profitable business by simply turning on sponsorships and advertising. Imagine how much money they could make off of Microsoft adding an advertisement to the Microsoft page.
  
  The line between advertising and content is clearly drawn since writers don't profit from any advertising on the website. I realize 'wiki' purists would scream at this... but it's a no-brain solution to a money issue.
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  2 years ago

  I agree, Doug -- although there's no question that's a bit of an ethical quagmire. What if Microsoft wanted to put an ad on the page about Linux -- or vice versa?
  reply
• 

  Joost

  2 years ago

  How could you no be able to keep the site alive with the millions they recieved in donations, I mean bandwidth is actually quite cheap - and I"m sure many companies like google would offer help in that respect just to have their name affiliated with wikipedia - they could say "We donate to wikipedia" makes them look good.
  reply
• 

  Alex

  2 years ago

  I also am also all for wikipedia puts ads on their website, as long as they do it inhouse and not partnered with google or yahoo or msn, and there is no kickbacks of money to the article authors.
  
  Wikipedia is growing in mindshare everyday. I am finding when I search on google for information, that 95% of the time the best article is the top 10 is from wikipedia.org, and then I think "Why didn't I go to wikipedia in the first place?" => Old habits die hard but I can see over time, more and more people will just goto wikipedia and skip google/yahoo/msn when searching for information.
  
  Wikipedia could potentially make as much $$ or more than google is making if they start showing ads. They can funnel that money back into improving wikipedia.org and expanding the service, or even advertising that wikipedia is the best place to find information on the web.
  
  Wikipedia may even be able to allow registered users to opt-out of the ads, and still make enough $$ off of advertising to pay basic costs.
  reply
• 

  BrunoG

  2 years ago

  Thanks for linking to my posts Mathew. In fact, Devouard's comments were not "an exaggeration" - she said they had money in the bank for 3/4 months, but never translated that into "Wikipedia is going to shut down" as some bloggers have done. There are many questions of course surrounding the sustainability of Wikipedia given the incredible growth and the feeble revenue streams, but Devouard told me repeatedly at LIFT that she did not worry about the future of Wikipedia. B-
  reply
• 

  Mohamed Yaseen Kassam

  2 years ago

  Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia's founder) working on a search project with Amazon. Surely, that will generate some revenues for the Wikimedia Foundation.
  reply