901am

New Media News Every Morning

Wikipeda could shut within 3-4 months: Wikimedia

By

wikipediaIn 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.

(via Via Digitalis/ SEO Black Hat)

Originally posted on February 9, 2007 @ 9:44 pm

Comments

  2. Well in theory, but if this would happen it would destroy what little remains of Wikipedias credibility, making the site completely irrelevant.

  3. This is nuts! The WM Foundation just raised over $1m in one month. Just last summer at WikiMania Jimbo said the finances were so sound that they didn’t need to do big fundraising activities. So what really gives? If this is a move to scare the “community” into accepting advertising on the site it’s a really bad strategy. Gaming the community is never a good idea!

  4. I sincerely hope that they will be able to sustain themselves financially; however, if that is not the case, I would prefer to see the site bought by Google.

  9. This is just a ploy – they’re trying to get more donations so that they can invest it in future technology, they don’t really need it. Google donates bandwidth already, and that’s about as much of Google putting in as I want to see – if Google secures rights to it or gets an affiliate link or something like that I’ll stop using it because it’s legitimacy as an unbiased or NPOV encyclopaedia becomes breached.

  10. So put up some ads already. Why does everyone need to donate to this thing all the time? Millions of dollars ought to have been enough. If they’re going to reach like this, they need a profit model, not complaints that people aren’t dumping enough free cash on them.

    Get some simple Google Text Ads and be done with it. Or just ask Google to buy you. Whatever.

  11. Wikipedia should take a leaf from it’s own book and open it’s financial books to the community. It could use the collective knowledge of it’s users to help secure it’s financial future. How about a “Financial Wikipedia”?

  12. Add a small Google ad, problem solved. I don’t think a small 25×25 square ad on the right sidebar would devistate too many

  13. “Ms. Devouard’s comment was taken out of context,” Ordonez claims, although it’s difficult to imagine the context in which “might disappear” could be taken differently. “Wikipedia will not be closing any time soon. Ms. Devouard was simply referring to the ongoing, pressing needs for funds that Wikipedia, like most nonprofit organizations, face. Ms. Devouard was attempting to showcase how, because of our global reach, Wikipedia needs to be much more creative in its fundraising efforts.”

  14. 901am Are troublemakers they hide there true identity every step of the way.

    Registrant:
    Domains by Proxy, Inc.
    DomainsByProxy.com
    15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
    Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
    United States

    Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
    Domain Name: 901AM.COM
    Created on: 02-Oct-06
    Expires on: 02-Oct-07
    Last Updated on:

    Administrative Contact:
    Private, Registration [email protected]
    Domains by Proxy, Inc.
    DomainsByProxy.com
    15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
    Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
    United States
    (480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2599

    Technical Contact:
    Private, Registration [email protected]
    Domains by Proxy, Inc.
    DomainsByProxy.com
    15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
    Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
    United States
    (480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2599

    Domain servers in listed order:
    NS1.HELLOCOWBOY.COM
    NS2.HELLOCOWBOY.COM

  16. Why are people so keen on having Google buy wikipedia? Do you really want Google to have so much control over information? Oh wait, I forgot that their motto is “don’t be evil”. Ok, I trust that they aren’t and won’t be in the future. Let ’em have whatever they want…

  17. I’m sorry.I will update my wiki soon and things will return to normal,.. but hey
    stop copying me in the meantime.

    Sincerely

    Munchius C. Wallfhashelstrasse.

  18. Oh please, what a crock. If Wikipedia are going broke with their millions upon millions of dollars in donations, then they just need new management and a new business model – not to just throw good money after bad!

    Personally, I think if you can’t turn a profit from one of the most popular, highest traffic sites on the internet, then something is wrong with you and you should be fired, rendered homeless, and forced to eat leftover cheeseburgers out of trash cans. Granted, everybody likes Wikipedia being free (and ad-free), but the world simply doesn’t work like that! Money doesn’t grow on trees, you head-in-the-clouds morons! A huge site like this needs money to profit, and rattling the cup isn’t exactly the smartest business model ever invented. Time to get your act together, get the site profitable on its own steam, and stop whining for handouts.

    If I owned a site that had one tenth the traffic Wikipedia gets, I’d be sleeping each night on a huge pile of money.

  20. \echo: Where is the money going? Im not any sort of expert in running servers, but I cant imagine it costing THAT much. Especially for the type of site it is….

  21. I find Wikipedia a valuable resource, an asset to humanity, and an admirable joint human endeavor.

  23. Unless this post is a conspiracy to generate more donations for Wikipedia, otherwise I would see Wikipedia carrying on at least for a couple of years. They’re unlike to fall within the next few months.

    http://keith-neo.com

  24. It’s WikipedIa, with an “i”, RETARD!

    Holy fuck, it’s one of the most popular sites in the world and you can’t even get the name right?

    And yes, fix the grammar.

  29. I am sure they will get enough funding before that..

    However in long run they will have to incorporate advertisements on their site otherwise they will never be able to survive..

  30. Up to 9 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time – using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.
    Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, ‘Jimbo’s second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is ultimately at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.

    For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter ‘Scientific Discovery’. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with ‘Jimbo’ and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to ‘Jimbo’s’ opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball home and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time – the web link is http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk.

    Dr. David Hill
    Chief Executive
    World Innovation Foundation Charity (reg. no. CH-035.7.035.277-9 – 11th July 2005)
    Bern, Switzerland

  31. I notice that Dr. Hill has spammed over 20 blogs and news sites with his comment, but I figured that I should respond anyway. :)

    For some reason, it appears that Dr. Hill believes that if he provides the Wikimedia Foundation with money, then his charity will be automatically guaranteed a spot on Wikipedia. I am happy to say that this is not the case. While I have nothing personally against World Innovation Foundation Charity, Wikipedia’s neutrality and impartiality is very important.

    I have reviewed the original article. There are absolutely no references in the final revision before it was deleted. The main reason that it was deleted was because we didn’t believe that the organisation was notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. This was done through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Innovation_Foundation – I will let the reader judge whether this was a fair process. I should also note that if someone believes and can demonstrate that they are notable, then there is a deletion review process.

    Dr. Hill should also be aware of our suggested guidelines that deal with potential conflicts of interest – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Though it isn’t prohibited on Wikipedia, it is clearly a conflict of interest to write about your own organisation. It is thus frowned upon. I think that given the goals of Wikipedia, this is pretty reasonable.

    Personally, I don’t believe that Wikipedia editors or the Wikimedia Foundation has anything against this charity. In my dealings with Wikipedia and the WMF, I have always found that they welcome contructive dialogue with organisations and individuals.

    Chris Sherlock
    User:Ta bu shi da yu
    English Wikipedia Administrator (writing in personal capacity)

  40. I was wondering what some of the more mature members here do about dating. It seems much harder for older singles to find a mate, so I might be turning to online dating for older singles.
    any suggestions? thanks.