Poll: Poll: Does anyone else donate to Wikipedia?

Do you donate to Wikipedia?


  • Total voters
    92
  • Poll closed .
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
57,618
Location
Stoke on Trent
£2 is nothing but are they pulling my plonker?
Surely something like Wiki must be rolling in it!
I use Wiki at least once a week usually for band discographies and if it went I'd be upset.


[email protected]

10:06 (7 hours ago)
cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif

to the sexiest grey fox ever
cleardot.gif




Dear David,

About a year ago, you donated £2 to keep Wikipedia online for hundreds of millions of readers. I'm deeply grateful for your continued support. You are part of the 1% of readers who donated to support Wikipedia. We need your help again this year.

I ask you, humbly: please renew your donation today.

Perhaps you’re thinking: Wikipedia will be fine if I don’t give today. Someone else always gives. It’s a little awkward to say this, but consider that fewer than 1% of readers donate to Wikipedia. It’s your generosity that keeps us going. The knowledge that what we’re doing matters, and it matters to people like you. It ensures Wikipedia is here for you when you need us.

Here in the UK, we are not at risk for having Wikipedia deleted, but the threat is out there and it is already a harsh reality in many countries around the world. Imagine waking up and not being able to look up facts on your favorite celebrity or learn about a historical figure for a last-minute paper your child is writing for History class. There are groups around the world that rely on Wikipedia for things like basic, up-to-date medical knowledge so doctors in rural areas can keep their communities healthy. It’s a powerful tool, and there are huge repercussions when it is taken away.

If all our past donors gave again today, our fundraiser would be over within an hour. We’re not there yet. Please renew your gift and ensure that Wikipedia remains independent, ad-free, and thriving another year.

Wikipedia is the closest thing the world has to a public internet. We’re always open, always free, and always there when you need us. We’re here to answer your most embarrassing questions or resolve the silliest debates. But we’re also here to be a common point of reference for the world, the foundation for shared understanding. If Wikipedia were deleted, it would be a great loss to the world. This is a role we take seriously, and we know our integrity is rooted in our independence.

Folks like you help us maintain that integrity, quality, and accessibility. You safeguard our non-profit mission. Please help us keep this wonderful website free and independent for another year, and do your part to make a better world for years to come.

Now is the time we ask. If Wikipedia is useful to you, please take one minute to keep it online, ad-free, and growing another year.

https://donate.wikimedia.org

Thanks,
Katherine Maher
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
 
Yeah I always assume they are milking it.

Content is user submitted. So free.

Hosting should be cheap if not free too, especially since it's a popular resource ISPs should have local cache servers within their networks like they do with YouTube and Steam for example.
 
Yeah I always assume they are milking it.

Content is user submitted. So free.

Hosting should be cheap if not free too, especially since it's a popular resource ISPs should have local cache servers within their networks like they do with YouTube and Steam for example.

Who is going to host Wikipedia for free given the massive amount of traffic it gets and no financial incentive to do so?

What about all the other costs of running one of the top ten sites in the world?
 
Who is going to host Wikipedia for free given the massive amount of traffic it gets and no financial incentive to do so?

What about all the other costs of running one of the top ten sites in the world?

I'm talking about edge caching. It benefits everyone. Reduces load at Wikipedia's end and reduces external traffic at the ISP end. That's how CDNs manage to get a lot of free traffic.
 
Yeah I always assume they are milking it.

Content is user submitted. So free.

Hosting should be cheap if not free too, especially since it's a popular resource ISPs should have local cache servers within their networks like they do with YouTube and Steam for example.

Using raw user-submitted content would be a disaster. You need to employ moderators.
You'll also need developers and IT people to manage the site and infrastructure.
And hosting will not be free.
 
Using raw user-submitted content would be a disaster. You need to employ moderators.
You'll also need developers and IT people to manage the site and infrastructure.
And hosting will not be free.

I thought the moderators were just selected out of normal users who aren't paid. A bit like ocuk moderators.

The site software I thought was also open source and free software.

Hosting can be almost free if edge caches are used inside ISPs.
 
I donate one or twice a year when the emails come, a tenner here or there for using it often is good value.
 
I thought the moderators were just selected out of normal users who aren't paid. A bit like ocuk moderators.

The site software I thought was also open source and free software.

Hosting can be almost free if edge caches are used inside ISPs.

In which case they'll be spending money on an army of people to manage those contracts with all the ISPs?
ISPs cache Netflix or Amazon Video or Youtube stuff for free (or near as ) because of the massive cost of NOT caching it impacts them. Wiki content probably barely registers in terms of traffic when spread across ISPs. Game of thrones latest episode, you can bet every ISP knows when that's out.
 
The site software I thought was also open source and free software.
Yes, it's open source. It didn't just magic itself into existence though. You need developers to create and maintain open-source software too.

Hosting can be almost free if edge caches are used inside ISPs.
Caching can only reduce the load on the main server. The server still needs to store all of the data.
I doubt many hosting companies would be willing to store 23TB of data for free, no matter how many caches you have.
 
Yes, it's open source. It didn't just magic itself into existence though. You need developers to create and maintain open-source software too.


Caching can only reduce the load on the main server. The server still needs to store all of the data.
I doubt many hosting companies would be willing to store 23TB of data for free, no matter how many caches you have.

23TB that's tiny! Loads of people have 20tb+ just for their movie library!

Fair point but there are loads of companies out there willing to store hundreds of TB of images of people's wives and children for free, so why not Wikipedia, it's a lot more important than cat pics.
 
I donate once or twice a year when I see the message appear whilst reading.

It's a great, free resource and I'll do my best to help out with donations and keep it free.
 
23TB that's tiny! Loads of people have 20tb+ just for their movie library!

Fair point but there are loads of companies out there willing to store hundreds of TB of images of people's wives and children for free, so why not Wikipedia, it's a lot more important than cat pics.

That's 23TB of constant small changes, plus all the version control and snapshots that go with it.

And those catpics are monetized by ads. Wiki isn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom