Wikipedia - tell me it aint so
1 Comments Published by Tom Gara on Sunday, February 11 at Sunday, February 11, 2007.
According to this little report, the Chairperson of the Wikimedia foundation (the trust which "owns" Wikipedia) told an audience recently that:
Two reasons why the cry for help is basically bullshit:
1 - There is not a chance that people will stand around and see wikipedia die in the ass. Some rich philanthroper would be crazy not to bankroll it - Soros? Gates? Google Guys?
2 - It is probably one of the most valuable advertising venues on the internet - a contextual advertisers wet dream, with all that content neatly organised into categories....Rupert Murdoch mentioned the other day that MySpace earns $25 million per month in advertising revenue - with Wikipedia only needing something like $5 million per year, we are talking chicken change.
I understand why they would prefer to stay ad-free - it would be great. But I think we all know that when the choice comes between being ad-free and closed, or open with a million-dollar-a-month advertising scheme, it is pretty obvious which option they would take.
Anyhow, it's still far more likely that a Sillicon Valley gazillionaire will step in and become the Wikipedia sugardaddy, in my opinion....
“At this point, Wikipedia has the financial ressources to run its servers for about 3 to 4 months. If we do not find additional funding, it is not impossible that Wikipedia might disappear”In my opinion, Wikipedia is one of our finest cultural achievements, and probably the greatest single actualisation of the potential of the internet. It is a Wonder that earns us major civilisation points.
Two reasons why the cry for help is basically bullshit:
1 - There is not a chance that people will stand around and see wikipedia die in the ass. Some rich philanthroper would be crazy not to bankroll it - Soros? Gates? Google Guys?
2 - It is probably one of the most valuable advertising venues on the internet - a contextual advertisers wet dream, with all that content neatly organised into categories....Rupert Murdoch mentioned the other day that MySpace earns $25 million per month in advertising revenue - with Wikipedia only needing something like $5 million per year, we are talking chicken change.
I understand why they would prefer to stay ad-free - it would be great. But I think we all know that when the choice comes between being ad-free and closed, or open with a million-dollar-a-month advertising scheme, it is pretty obvious which option they would take.
Anyhow, it's still far more likely that a Sillicon Valley gazillionaire will step in and become the Wikipedia sugardaddy, in my opinion....
And what bling points! Imagine your the dude who bankrolls wikipedia- no need to intervene, just sending the checks 'coz you love their work. Just a little link of every single page with "Why wikipedia is important to humanity", mad brand points.