Wikipedia's Banners Raise $20 Million
Wave goodbye to the banners.
For months, visitors to Wikipedia were also shown banners appealing for money for the site. This is because the site itself is ad-free and supported by donations. These donation appeals ranged from pictures of founder Jimmy Wales to photographs of regular Wikipedia contributors. However, the banners have now disappeared, because the Wikimedia Foundation has reached its target for donations for 2011.
Speaking via blog post yesterday, Jay Walsh, said that the Foundation had received donations from nearly every country in the world and that the 2011 campaign carried on the trend of donations increasing every year since 2003.
"It is our most successful campaign ever, continuing an unbroken streak in which donations have risen every year since the campaigns began in 2003," he said, adding that Wikimedia had received $20 million in donations from readers. This is up from $4.5 million in 2008, and the number of donors is said to have increased ten-fold since that same year.
"Your support is how we pay our bills. People like you, giving five dollars, twenty dollars, a hundred dollars. Thank you for helping us," said Sue Gardner, Executive Director of Wikimedia Foundation. "We're the #5 most-popular site in the world --- we operate on a tiny fraction of the resources of any other top site. We will use your money carefully and well, I promise you."
Funds raised during the campaign will be used to buy and install servers and other hardware, develop new site functionality, expand mobile services, provide legal defense for the projects, and support the large global community of Wikimedia volunteers. Walsh says that the Wikimedia Foundation’s total 2011-12 planned spending is $28.3 million. The majority of this was raised during the fundraising, and the remainder will come from grants and other donations throughout the year.
- Anonymous Attacks Nazis in Germany
- LG Announces Ultra-thin 55-inch OLED TV
- How Nokia Designed and Makes the N9 and Lumia 800
- iPads (and Other Tablets) are Killing Free Hotel Wi-Fi
- 3 LTE-Based Windows Phones Rumored For AT&T in 2012
- Japanese Vending Machines Puts Faces in Your Coffee
- Large Hadron Collider Confirms Discovery of First New Particle
- VIDEO: An Atari 2600 Turned Into a Rockin Rave Machine
- Show & Tell Glove Translates Sign Language Into Text Messages
- Asus May Reveal Transformer Prime Mini at CES 2012
- Report: iPad 2 May Drop to $299 After iPad 3 Launch
- Sony's Tablet S Gets $100 Price Cut
- Nintendo's Wii U May Have an Ebook Store Too
- German Police Used 440K+ Stealth SMS to Track Suspects
- Unofficial Steve Jobs Action Figure Looks Too Real
- Transcend Develops SD Card with CD-ROM-Like Partition
- Hackers Launching Satellite to Evade Internet Censorship
- Yahoo Names Former PayPal President as New CEO
- WSJ: Kodak Prepping for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing
"we operate on a tiny fraction of the resources of any other top site."
Pardon me, but wouldn't that mean they need even less money? The way i see it you have costs for servers and bandwidth and the R&D of programming the site.. but after that, users basically fill in all the content for you.
Even having the 5th most popular website ever, with loads and loads of traffic, I don't see how hosting can cost more than.. say.. 500,000 a year.
Don't get me wrong I love Wikipedia, great idea, but I still think they ask way too much when they keep the plea-banners going until 20 million (for 2011 only? really?) 20 mill should keep you good for the next 10 years (i hope). I will be disappointed if i see the same banners this year, or next year.
Glad to see donations going towards a worthwhile cause. Much
Sad that I can believe this guy when he says he will be responsible with the donated money, yet I can't say the same for my government.
"we operate on a tiny fraction of the resources of any other top site."Pardon me, but wouldn't that mean they need even less money? The way i see it you have costs for servers and bandwidth and the R&D of programming the site.. but after that, users basically fill in all the content for you.Even having the 5th most popular website ever, with loads and loads of traffic, I don't see how hosting can cost more than.. say.. 500,000 a year. Don't get me wrong I love Wikipedia, great idea, but I still think they ask way too much when they keep the plea-banners going until 20 million (for 2011 only? really?) 20 mill should keep you good for the next 10 years (i hope). I will be disappointed if i see the same banners this year, or next year.
They provide their budget information freely. Go look at it.
20m is a small price to pay. speaking for the UK only, 30p per person for a year's worth knowledge
Taking account of the world, everyone throwing in 1cent/pence would keep this place running for a long time.
Could you imagine a world without Wikipedia? I couldn't. If in an alternative reality Wikipedia cost $50 a year, I would still use it. Thankfully it's free, and I know I'm supporting a cause that is passively making the world a better place simply through access to information. In fact, Wikipedia is probably one of the most successful investments in the world the world has ever created. It probably surpasses the Marshall Plan in making the world a better place (for alot less money). We support you Wikipedia and hope you continue in your endeavors.
I appreciate that Wikipedia has been there for me as many times as I have needed it (which has been a lot). I use it heavily even to this day. I understand the legitimacy of concerns over users being able to alter articles - but I have seen many occasions where if an article is with question, it does become flagged in a short time-frame. What I appreciate the most about the donations though is that it keeps advertisers at bay. The last thing I want to do is read about a company who's product is advertised on the main page, the article gleams with how great it is, and really it's a complete failure. Keeping ad money out of an information-sharing site helps to maintain neutrality and keep bias out of it. Thanks guys!
This was the first time I had ever seen the banner to donate and I decided to put in a couple bucks. Glad I did, its nice to support something ad free and basically the best tool on the internet.
Guess the banners for 2012 will start up pretty soon!
If you have a target and only stop once you reach the target is it really that notable your donation total keeps increasing?
I'm not saying they are wrong to do such, it's just the way it's written would get slapped with a {{peerreview}} if it was a Wikipedia article (and not directly quoted from a source).
He looks so sad....
Does he look like Chuck Norris or what.
I respect him for what he does, though the messages on the banner did become rather irritating after a while.
"If everyone donated $5, this could be over today"
Atleast they're upfront and frank..... that's the main reason for me to donate....plus they're doing a good service... why not....
I love it how the pirate bay supports itself by selling a handful of tshirts and other gadgets with their logo on it. Not saying its bad to ask for donations but still.
If you have a target and only stop once you reach the target is it really that notable your donation total keeps increasing?
It is notable when you continually reach higher goals in shorter periods of time. Take a look at Wikimedia's own statistics (shows every day of every fundraiser since 2007!) and you'll see that the rate of donations has increased every year. Though this was the biggest fundraiser Wikimedia has accomplished yet, it was also the shortest by far.
I use Wikipedia at least five times a day on my phone.
"Wikimedia Foundation has reached its target for donations for 2011"
Let me see, it is January 4, 2012. Sounds like you just about made it in time then and the 2012 fundraising campaign will start tomorrow ?
Don't get me wrong folks, I am a fan of Wikipedia. But $20M (28.5M this year) is a chunk of change for a site like Wikipedia where the content is mostly free contributions.
I am wondering how much of that goes into management pockets under various budget item disguises. Not that it may not be deserved; why should anyone invent/develop something useful and not get rewarded. Just curious, that's all.
"Wikimedia Foundation has reached its target for donations for 2011"Let me see, it is January 4, 2012. Sounds like you just about made it in time then and the 2012 fundraising campaign will start tomorrow ?Don't get me wrong folks, I am a fan of Wikipedia. But $20M (28.5M this year) is a chunk of change for a site like Wikipedia where the content is mostly free contributions.I am wondering how much of that goes into management pockets under various budget item disguises. Not that it may not be deserved; why should anyone invent/develop something useful and not get rewarded. Just curious, that's all.
Think how much money a large company in the top 10 spends, they go through hundreds of millions per year, so I don't think 28 million for the 5th most popular website in the world is all that much.
The way I see it, gigantic banners on top of every page is more intrusive and annoying than some text-only advertisements at the bottom of the sidebar, but I guess some philosophies are worth sticking to.
Sad that I can believe this guy when he says he will be responsible with the donated money, yet I can't say the same for my government.
Thats because you can count on companies to spend their own money on themselves very very carefully.. Whereas you can count on the government to spend other peoples money on other people and spend it like it will never end..
Thats because you can count on companies to spend their own money on themselves very very carefully.. Whereas you can count on the government to spend other peoples money on other people and spend it like it will never end..
Oh so that explains all those companies failing so badly....