Wikimedia announces end of ninth annual fundraiser.
No doubt if you're a regular visitor to Wikipedia, you've noticed the yellow banners appearing on each page of Wikipedia. These are the latest effort to raise money for the Wikimedia Foundation. Created and maintained by a volunteer community members, the encyclopedia is free but it doesn't run on thin air. As a result, the Foundation occasionally appeals to users for donations.
Today, Wikimedia announced that it had raised $25 million in its efforts to keep Wikipedia ad-free and free to use. Not only that, but the money was raised in record time. The ninth annual fundraiser ran for just nine full days, a dramatic decrease from the 46 days of campaigning the site had in 2011.
“I’m grateful that the Wikipedia fundraiser was so successful. Our supporters are wonderful and without them we could not do the job of delivering free content worldwide,” said Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. “We're thrilled to be able to introduce our readers to the editors around the world who create Wikipedia and to invite our readers to join in editing."
Donations will be used to maintain server infrastructure, support global projects to increase the number of editors, improve and simplify the software that supports Wiki projects, and make Wikipedia accessible globally to billions of people who are just beginning to access the internet. Wikimedia says that a total of 1.2 million donors contributed this year and the most successful 24-hour period brought in $2,365,564 million from 145,573 donors.
I, for one, am happy about this..
Although I am sure many others are not... Let the 'yacht' comments commence..
I, for one, am happy about this..
Although I am sure many others are not... Let the 'yacht' comments commence..
After finding out they've raised 25 mill, there was a very heartwarming and elegant speech by one exec. "Let's go to club and make it rain, b!tches."
For factual things like the atomic weight of carbon, it's always correct. But for very recent things like news or celebrity tabloids, things like that that are usually hazy, it can have some errors (or at least things that are open to interpretation). A good way of gauging how trustworthy the info is is to see how long it's been on the site without having been edited. The longer it's been there, usually means the more trustworthy it is.
Don't they lock some of the articles to prevent vandalism? Name an article that is currently being "crapped on".
-Getting a general grasp of something
-Getting into the nitty gritty of something
With Wikipedia, you no longer have to look for sources, since you can go to a Wikipedia page and all the sources are at the bottom, and you can use those. Wikipedia has been very accurate and objective for the many years I've used it.