Wikipedia exceeds $6m donation goal
Wales' personal begging earns last $2m
A personal plea for cash by Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, has melted enough hearts to keep the ubiquitous online encyclopedia running for another fiscal year – and then some.
The Wikimedia Foundation announced today that it's raised more than $6.2m since launching a fund-raising campaign in early November. The website exceeded its goal of approximately $6m to fund operations through June 30, 2009, with more than 125,000 donors contributing worldwide.
In late December, the non-profit org appeared to be falling short of its financial target until Wales posted a personal appeal for donations in place of Wikipedia's standard fund-raising banner. In the remaining eight days of the month, Wikimedia pulled in more than 50,000 contributions totaling $2m, the foundation said.
"You have proven that Wikipedia matters to you, and that you support our mission: to bring free knowledge to the planet, free of charge and free of advertising," Wales wrote in a thank-you message.
Surplus revenue will be placed into a reserve fund for offsetting operating costs beyond the fiscal year, Wales said. The foundation also provides a breakdown of Wikipedia's 2008/2009 budget, which totals $5,974,000.
The site, which employs only 23 workers, bills itself as the fourth most visited site on the internet according to numbers by comScore. Of course, Wikipedia's donation box is still open – so there's still plenty of opportunities to raise more cash.
In the spirit of Wikipedia, however, the best way to raise more revenue is simply for someone to edit the entry to indicate the foundation has raised – oh, say $600 zillion. Instant money, although there may be . ®
The WP article on global warming is a reasonable example, with references to various opposing points of view and no less than 135 citations. I wouldn't normally look to WP for GW info (having my own set of prejudices!) but I can't fault it for balance.
"withstood the forces of corruption and special interests so well"
If you really think that I must conclude that you have no idea what is actually going on in the Land of Truth By Consensus.
The only articles that are relatively intact are the ones concerning science and boring stuff that the moronic super-editors are not interested in or do not have the knowledge to fudge almost imperceptibly. Anything else is good for target practice from the endless horde of special-interest groups, of which the super-editors themselves are part.
The definition of corrupt is when the people with authority use their authority based on personal bias rather than defined and accepted rules. If the super-editors actually followed their own rules, one could argue your point, but the fact is that they don't (well, a portion of them in any case).
Therefor WhackyLand is most definitely corrupt.
I dont see any bandwith/hardware costings?
In there sexy corporate pie chart I didnt see any costings for hardware or bandwith or is that included in technology? It must be a lot more for a site 4th most popular in the world