Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

readwriteweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 139 posts

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#101

Post by Untitled »

philipn wrote: post #89
solipsist wrote: post #74

If someone was asked, "Would your rather use a website that has ads or one that has no ads?" , they would most likely choose the latter. However, Wikipedia has shown the world something that no one would have expected; it seems as if most people would rather have the ads given the circumstances.

Most people being commenters on HN? Or the 500,000 people who have donated to Wikipedia?

> Or the 500,000 people who have donated to Wikipedia?

How many of those that donated thought that the advertisements would disappear after they gave money?

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#102

Post by nazgulnarsil »

redthrowaway wrote: post #81
nazgulnarsil wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, that and vast swathes of historical sections and articles are whig history echo chambers.

You might feel that way, and certainly there are others who take issue with the general tone of Wikipedia. My advice is simple: try to fix it if you think it's a problem. Wikipedia is generally democratic, but not entirely. it's not majority rules. Come up with convincing arguments and get yourself taken seriously.

you just summed up the problem. democracy sucks.

I'm going to be the asshole here and say some of us have things to do. convincing what are probably history majors with too much time on their hands due to being history majors that corrections are needed would be a huge time sink for no reward.

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#103

Post by neilk »

cookiecaper wrote: post #98
neilk wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your informative take on the WMF's current woes. P.S. Jimmy Wales doesn't run the Wikimedia Foundation.

Yes, I see that he is no longer the chairperson, though he still sits on the Board and I would expect holds other powerful positions relative to Wikipedia. It'd also be silly to think that he didn't exert a large influence on the Board as presently composed and Wikipedia's community as a whole -- his face was just plastered all over the site for four months, as you may recall.

I realize for many, time stands still when gazing at Jimmy's fuzzy visage. But the 2010 campaign lasted 50 days; not even close to four months.

I see you did not even read the link that sparked this very thread.

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#104

Post by lwhi »

btilly wrote: post #86
JusticeJones wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd hardly call Google the 'ultimate do-no-evil' company after they signed that anti-net-neutrality pact with Verizon last summer.

Funny, when Google and Verizon agree on a framework for net neutrality, everyone thinks they are being evil. When the FTC issues a ruling that looks almost exactly the same, everyone lauds them for their forward thinking stance. Can you explain what, exactly, you thought was so horrible about what Google and Verizon did?

The world is going to eventually become far more reliant on wireless internet services - Google reneged on their promise to fight for net-neutrality, because they left wireless/mobile internet services unprotected.

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#105

Post by tokenadult »

Untitled wrote: post #99
patio11 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The add campaign was distasteful and I suspect just an ego trip for Jimmy Wales They published the results of the split tests: Jimmy Wales ROFLstomped all their other creatives. It blows my mind, too, but there you go: the people who matter (i.e. people who donate to the foundation) want to Jimmy's rugged and photoshopped good looks, and all he has to do is glance in their general direction and their wallets open.

Maybe, but there are other factors. Firstly, the question is the size. Were all the advertisements the same size? (i.e. were they all images or were some text - like google adwords?). Then there is the question of how non-donors feel. The ad campaign made me negative about WP (and I bet quite a few other people). The third problem is the damage to the image of WP. An idiot on the top of every page begging for money r…

Then there is the question of how non-donors feel. The ad campaign made me negative about WP (and I bet quite a few other people).

That's an important point that is harder to reveal through A/B testing. What would Wikipedia's fundraising look like if there were another online encyclopedia that appeared to be a credible contender? Is Wikipedia Google in this space, or is it AltaVista?

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#106

Post by rb2k_ »

solipsist wrote: post #74

If someone was asked, "Would your rather use a website that has ads or one that has no ads?" , they would most likely choose the latter. However, Wikipedia has shown the world something that no one would have expected; it seems as if most people would rather have the ads given the circumstances.

I think the problem for a lot of people is that "the website" doesn't seem to be where the majority of the money is going. There are grants, "External contractors", salaries, ...

I personally think that most people would be happy if they just concentrated on keeping the site up and running. While they DO need a bit of workforce for that, they should stick to the "core" that is the website.

p.s. I'm perfectly happy with another non-profit trying to make workshops, grants and other things, but I'd prefer there to be a "we're just the website" one too...

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#108

Post by corin_ »

I'm now seeing 'If everyone reading this donated £5, our fundraiser would be over today. Please donate to keep Wikipedia free.' banners.

If they've already hit the target, presumably they must have already set a new target in order to make that statement?

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#109

Post by miniatureape »

patio11 wrote: post #91
Untitled wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are people so consistently negative about Wikipedia? I am not negative about Wikipedia, but about its management. The add campaign was distasteful and I suspect just an ego trip for Jimmy Wales. The real Wikipedia is the thousands of faceless people who write the articles.

The add campaign was distasteful and I suspect just an ego trip for Jimmy Wales They published the results of the split tests: Jimmy Wales ROFLstomped all their other creatives. It blows my mind, too, but there you go: the people who matter (i.e. people who donate to the foundation) want to Jimmy's rugged and photoshopped good looks, and all he has to do is glance in their general direction and their wallets open.

Suspecting A/B tests, I actually waited until I got one of the photos of Mr. Wales looking off in the distance before I donated (anything was better than the glaring full-on eyes). I didn't see any of the volunteer ads until after I donated.

Re: Wikipedia Raises $16 Million to Remain Ad-Free

#110

Post by ghaff »

ghshephard wrote: post #62
tptacek wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tens of great arguments you could have made against deletionism, why make a bullshit one? You know it's not about the disk space --- though presumably not all of the 16 people who modded you up know that as well.

I'm guessing at _least_ 15 out of those 16 people knew that deletionism has nothing to do with the cost of disk space. It was more a vote of frustration over the overreaching that occurs when seminal figures like _why have their Wikipedia Page deleted. There are _shades_ of notability, and I agree that someone has to make a call: Not: o How many times have I sneezed today. Barely: o The Ties of my Local Anchorman Not…

Notability is a really tough concept in the context of Wikipedia for a couple of reasons.

The first is that notability is in no small part a function of scale. Many things that would not make the cut in a global, space-limited encyclopedia are nevertheless in Wikipedia (properly) because they're notable to some niche of contributors/readers. But once you start having articles about some episode of a 1980s TV show, how can you, in good conscience, say that an article about a selectman in a small town or an athlete at a small college isn't also notable?

And verifiability gets interesting in this context. Effectively, verifiability puts disproportionate weight on verifiability through traditional media. Thus, presumably, school newspapers and the like would be considered an indication that something is indeed notable.

Post reply on HN