Filed under: Internet, News, Web services
Wikipedia NOT on the verge of shutting down
Contrary to popular rumor, it looks like Wikipedia will not have to shut down in three months if it doesn't raise enough money. Dozens of blogs and technology websites have spent the past few days reporting that Wikimedia Foundation chairwoman Florence Devouard said at the LIFT07 conference that Wikipedia "might disappear" if money is not raised.But Laurent Haug, the founder of LIFT, went back and looked at his actual transcript of Devouard's statements. Basically, Haug asked Devouard how much cash was on hand to run Wikipedia's servers, and she replied three months.
Devouard also pointed out that the foundation is making plans for Wikipedia two years in advance, so there's no expectation that the money's going to dry up entirely. The overall point that was being made was simply that it costs more to run Wikipedia the more popular it gets, and as with any foundation, it's important to continue raising money as you go along.
[via Scobleizer]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
knight17 said 2:39PM on 2-11-2007
The best way is to just insert "an ad a page".They will get more than enough moey.
Reply
keeves said 5:48PM on 2-11-2007
As is mentioned above, adds would defiantly come way way before Wikipedia was ever to shut down. I know that isn't necessarily what they want, which is why they need donations, however if needed be im sure adds would happen.
Reply
tigerdev said 6:05PM on 2-11-2007
In a previous slashdot article, it talked about a university that was banning wikipedia references in papers, apparently the professors were up in arms about incorrect information on wikipedia. This seems like a great opportunity for the universities which are always looking for ways to get more web representation to help out. Instead of banning the references they should correct them or force the students to and then have the professors endorse their work. The structure for this web presences is already made and maintained they just need to add their expertises. And the universities, who always have money for online reference books and search engines, should pick up the banner and start getting involved with wikipedia. Adding on verified by or confirmed by with an actual professor at a university would help add extra credibility to wikipedia and give the universities the advertising they need/want with out having to put actual ad banners on the pages.
Reply
Morgan said 1:25AM on 2-12-2007
"Instead of banning the references they should correct them or force the students to and then have the professors endorse their work."
Maybe you should read the rest of the article about the reception the professors that tried got. The Wikipedia folks seem like the folks from The Open Directory. Untouchable, arrogant, and inaccessible for any support.
Wikipedia is fairly openly hostile to authoritative sources, which is why one of the founders is attempting to start another where credentials matter more than just numbers.
Wikipedia is a great illustration of why democracy alone is terrible. 100 guys with nothing but time can easily override 10 professors and turn an entry the way they want to.
Add to that the tendency to 'freeze' contentious articles at the most opportune moments for Wikipedia's bias.
I personally think Wikipedia's mostly accurate material is worse than if it didn't exist at all. It's got enough that most people believe what they read there, which then gets cited and repeated, and inaccuracies coming from there are almost impossible to reverse. But hey, it's huge toilet, and anyone can crap right on top and join the fun.
Reply