Just run ads, it's not that hard.
>>51693983
yeah, be like encyclopedia dramatica with 3 or 4 redirections on mobile
Seriously, just run a few static ads, no flash, no scripts, no trackers. No one will care.
>>51694145
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_independence
>>51694145
I will, idiot.
I love those emails from Jimmy
they sound so desparate
today's email subject was "<firstname> - Let's end it", what the fuck
>>51694193
Over constantly begging for donations?
Wikipedia prides itself on being totally independent. The moment they begin cutting deals with ad agencies, they lose their total control over their domain. They want people to go there to learn, not so they can see a commercial for Trojan condoms. Being a Top 5 website is a big fucking deal, and they're the only non-profit on the list. It's called having decency.
Honestly, as much as I use wikipedia I should probably throw them a few bucks one of these days. Eh.. maybe after I sell some of the shit in my garage on craigslist.
>>51694249
>literally ask once a year
>constantly
Do none of you fucks know what editorial independence is?
>>51694249
Every 12 months isn't "constant".
>>51693983
Dude, you're just going to block it with Adblock and then they don't get the money. What now?
>>51694309
simple as telling the ad companies to fuck off if they don't want to be on a page
they'd get a shit ton of visits if they advertised on wikipedia, it'd be more than worth it
12/10 would drink poison to kill myself and OP
>>51693983
I donated. I don't really give a shit about 3 dollars a year, considering how much time I spend on wikipedia and how much I appreciate it's independence.
>>51694505
But the normies won't
Reminder that wikimedia artificially hyperinflates its costs and dramatically overpays board members. Also, for some unfathomable reason it has over 50 million dollars in assets.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212
>>51693983
Jimbo's gotta pay for his whores somehow
Wikipedia is a cancer.
>Host a website that is maintained and written 100% by volunteers
>Occasionally write some software that is ultimately rejected by the community because it is shit
Please give us 80 million this year, we need it.
>>51695237
It's like 95% volunteers. There's a IT team and a few business administrators.
>>51695253
Right, they need the 20 million+ wikimedia spent in wages this past fiscal year
>>51694518
Is $3 really too much?
My last coffee was $4.50, I'd donate if I get that banner. I love wikipedia.
>>51695330
fuck off shill
wikipedia have enough money to run for 10 years without a single donation
>>51695346
It's closer to 2 years actually. A project like Wikipedia cannot afford to live on the verge of bankruptcy. Prove me wrong.
Do you think they stopped using photos because we made fun of them
>>51695362
Easy. Open source the programs they've developed for wikipedia, keep core staff, and let the community do the rest. Pretty much exactly what they do now except without unnecessary baggage. They're a charitable company, why the fuck are they wasting money on shit that isn't needed
>>51695179
Intellectual property, servers, websites. These are all assets. Cash on hand to pay bills is an asset. 50m for them isn't much desu
>>51695401
It is considering they ran the whole operation on 1 million 7 years ago.
>>51695401
>50 million for servers and websites
u wot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4
See around the 4:30 mark, he states 1.4 billion monthly views was costing them 5000 dollars, and that was their MAIN cost.
This past November they had 9 billion views, plus almost 50% mobile traffic:
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthly.htm
Even factoring in inflation, increased costs for servers etc, there is no fucking way they could justify spending even 2 million a year on servers.
The vast majority of the money they spend goes on shitty programs that even Jimmy Wales has admitted to have a poor record on delivering value for money.
They have more cash on hand than almost any other charity, have increased their yoy spending by over 1000% since 2008, and have delivered next to nothing to show for it.
There have been communication releases showing programmers/administrators complaining about how misleading the whole fundraising thing is.
For example- from Anthony Cole, a board member of the Wiki med foundation:
"Your failure of a foundation that has added nothing to the reliability and value of the world's encyclopedia, while sucking up hundreds of millions of readers' dollars does not deserve immortality, based on its performance up to now. Consider an endowment fund when you have a track record that justifies one."
>>51694280
Nice blog post
>>51694223
You heard the man.
You have to kill yourself.
How much money could these guys really need?
6 million to run servers for a year?
>>51693983
fuck wikipedia, it`s a Quasimodo of stolen information anyways run by incompetent jews
>>51693983
They get everything free including hardware and bandwidth.
>>51693983
Wikipedia deserves to die.
Their community is more cancerous than us.
Just ignore the message its not that hard
