TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Wikipedia wants your donation! WTF?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Wikipedia wants your donation! WTF?

So I go on Wikipeida today and there's an appeal from the founder. I thought maybe the sight was shutting down. But no, they want people to donate money preserve the site and protect it? Okay. They want $10 million a year. What the hell! and then the founder talks about this so called organization he created in 2003 to preserve Wikipedia. In all these years I have used this site, i have never seen it have issues or ask for money. I mean, yes the site requires fundage to operate, but $10 million a year is absurd.

Here is the appeal letter:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki...n&target=Appeal

I think all websites should be pay sites

10 million may seem a lot, but you must realize that Wikipedia is 6th most visited site and it needs operation funds for sure. I mean, it's an ad-free general use online encyclopedia. I see no problems asking for people to donate to keep the site running.

What do you think it costs to operate a site like that? Have you ever run a site even 1/1000th the size of Wikipedia? Ask Del how much it costs to run TA, then multiply by a metric shitload.

They've always depended on donations, just never really asked for them before. And it's not all for Wikipedia - if you actually read it, they give a detailed description of what they do with the money.

$10 million is hardly anything. It probably averages to less than 10 cents per user. If you don't want to donate, don't.

Wikipedia gets 330 million unique visitors per month. On a site that I manage we get an average of seven page views per visitor. While I'm sure this number is much higher for wikipedia, that's about two and a half BILLION page requests per month.

Just because you don't have to pay for many things on the internet doesn't mean they don't cost anything to create and maintain.

They asked for money last year too. Not sure how many times they've done this type of campaign though.

I actually donated this year. I use it enough, and I think their revenue model is at least honest.

I also believe wikipedia is the single finest resource on the internet and wikipedia's prosperity benefits the entire world (directly or indirectly).

Shit I'd throw wiki some money...

I'm on there at least once a day...

pretty soon most sites will involve some sort of payment. it wont be a lot of money but it will be something. I say good. People need to learn the value of content and creativity again. I think other than sept 11 the other major disaster of the last decade is the devaluation of media forms in our society. (music, movies, tv, radio and now books!)

wikipedia is one of the best resources on the internet, for free.
every single person has at some point used it for information, i dont see the big deal to donate money to them. i actually will right now.
did this infuriate you so much that you had to create a thread about it? lol gtfo

I'd pay.

Cuzo

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 pretty soon most sites will involve some sort of payment. it wont be a lot of money but it will be something. I say good. People need to learn the value of content and creativity again. I think other than sept 11 the other major disaster of the last decade is the devaluation of media forms in our society. (music, movies, tv, radio and now books!)

Most turn to the ad-supported model. Unless and until there is a trusted and established micropayment provider and the process takes only one or two clicks, ads and donations will continue to be the dominant revenue models.

And Wikipedia doesn't have ads, so donate.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Most turn to the ad-supported model. Unless and until there is a trusted and established micropayment provider and the process takes only one or two clicks, ads and donations will continue to be the dominant revenue models. And Wikipedia doesn't have ads, so donate.

its coming..

look for new computers to have a built in credit card reader in the near future. We will all pretty much have our own merchant terminals right in our own home.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 pretty soon most sites will involve some sort of payment.

here in the US, there are lobbyists in Washington who want to ban free antenna based tv so everyone would have to pay to watch regular non-cable based programming

quote:

Originally posted by thesauce23 here in the US, there are lobbyists in Washington who want to ban free antenna based tv so everyone would have to pay to watch regular non-cable based programming

i can understand why. With the internet pilfering away eyeballs for free and undercutting traditional media, they have to find the money to pay for their content. The crunch is here... the money has run out. Either we pay up or we end up in a world where for the most part our entertainment will be homemade

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 its coming.. look for new computers to have a built in credit card reader in the near future. We will all pretty much have our own merchant terminals right in our own home.

The computer already has a credit card reader - that big warm squishy thing hunched in front of it. You can buy USB readers right now if you're really that bloody lazy.

Not sure how this would change anything (can't type a 16 digit number off a card?) A reader would offer no advantage in security unless I'm missing something.

Where do you get the idea that pay sites are going to take over? Ad support seems to be only more prevalent and successful as time moves forward.

it will be as secure as it is now when you go to a store and they use the same kind of encryption. Think pin and chip cards that are being phased in now. Why do u think they so desperately want this to be the new standard?

Most sites get peanuts for ad revenue in comparison to the amount of eyes that see them. You have to be an enormous site in order to be somewhat viable in terms of ad revenue. For most companies, its just not cutting it. There is a push to create a more user pay system. The costs wouldnt be great. We are talking a few dollars at most. Im all for it. Especially if done a way where content providers are properly compensated for their work.

im pretty sure i can part with $10 or $20 a month spread out over several websites to get the kind of services i get now.

Its a freaking steal compared to what the costs would have been 10 years ago to get the kind of content we have now!

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 i can understand why. With the internet pilfering away eyeballs for free and undercutting traditional media, they have to find the money to pay for their content. The crunch is here... the money has run out. Either we pay up or we end up in a world where for the most part our entertainment will be homemade

Yup. All the big networks are on the verge of liquidation. Back to Textured Wooden Blocks and Cinnamon Flavored Playdough.



Where do you come up with this stuff????

I don't think its that far off that the internet will be just like cable television. You will end up paying a fee to gain access to certain types of websites and if you want to gain access to others you will have to pay additional fees.

quote:

Originally posted by DeleteFromUsers The computer already has a credit card reader - that big warm squishy thing hunched in front of it. You can buy USB readers right now if you're really that bloody lazy. Not sure how this would change anything (can't type a 16 digit number off a card?) A reader would offer no advantage in security unless I'm missing something.

Too complicated for a $1 payment to see some content on a whim. Think iPhone apps. But a built-in credit card reader isn't the solution either, nor will it ever happen (way too expensive and risky).

If micropayments ever take off, it'll look something like PayPal, only even quicker/easier. It has to be centralized - one provider works everywhere - otherwise it'll never take off. As it is, it's a chicken-and-egg problem, which is why I say ads and donations will be around for a while longer.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced I don't think its that far off that the internet will be just like cable television. You will end up paying a fee to gain access to certain types of websites and if you want to gain access to others you will have to pay additional fees.

I sincerely doubt it. That would be ridiculously complicated to maintain - more expensive than anybody would be willing to pay to compensate. The internet doesn't work like cable TV where a provider can just choose what to broadcast to you; communication is two-way, decentralized, and all actions must be actively monitored in order to restrict access. Even when it's done within the walls of a private business, where users are willing to tolerate that sort of thing, the results are notoriously erratic and inaccurate.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 it will be as secure as it is now when you go to a store and they use the same kind of encryption. Think pin and chip cards that are being phased in now.

While I can see this perhaps being more secure, why would anyone trust it 100%? As the hardware and software would be run locally by the client's machine (thus open to being compromised) why would anyone trust the info any more than a typed CC number over 128 bit ssl? If the software developers can make it, the crackers can break it - guaranteed.

I don't get it. Explain. I can't find any articles that support your argument.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut If micropayments ever take off, it'll look something like PayPal, only even quicker/easier. It has to be centralized - one provider works everywhere - otherwise it'll never take off.

I'd bet on Visa, MasterCard and Amex for this type of service. Seems like a natural for them. They're always in the mix anyway, why not integrate completely?

quote:

Originally posted by DeleteFromUsers Yup. All the big networks are on the verge of liquidation. Back to Textured Wooden Blocks and Cinnamon Flavored Playdough. Where do you come up with this stuff????

in some cases yes...

but not on a large scale yet. But the cracks are there hence why all the infighting about cable user fees in canada and the US. Many medium and small market stations are already losing a lot of money and the big guys are cutting costs on production and content. And thats just television!



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/b.../07canwest.html

http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles...lost-generation

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100102...able_tv_dispute

Interac is already that central processing centre. And Mastercard/Visa are both entering the debit market this year. I would imagine that the system would be run through the banks/interac as it is now with merchants but on a very large scale.

The banks would make a fortune, merchants would sell products easier and the consumer would be able to shop at home as if he or she were at the mall.

here is a company already doing it in a similar way.

Just imagine when the majors jump on this

http://www.smartswipe.ca/

Just stumbled across this old article from 1996. Interesting perspective.

quote:

February 22, 1996 1:00 PM PST Online shopping: future or flop? There is no shortage of cyberstores on the Web: Nordstrom, Foot Locker, OfficeMax, Omaha Steaks, Borders Books & Music, and Harley Davidson have all set up shop. But is anyone buying anything? If consumers haven't taken to cybershopping yet, they're going to, according to a study released today from MasterCard International and the National Retail Federation (NRF), which found that 84 percent of current Net users said they would buy something via the Net this year. The more time they spend on the Net, the more likely they are to buy, the study said. In fact, the study concludes, real-life retailers are going to be losing customers in droves to their cyberequivalents. A separate study released this week predicts that by the year 2000, 1.8 million Internet users in Europe alone will be shopping from their home computer. Information technology consultancy Datamonitor said that insurance and vacations will be the most popular items to haggle over online. But some observers say online services have a long way to go before they pose a serious threat to suburban malls and mail-order catalogs. Maxwell Sroge, president of catalog consulting firm Maxwell Sroge Company, says online shopping will be "an explosive opportunity" for retailers once they learn to replace the visceral enjoyment of walking into stores or buying something over the phone. "People enjoy thumbing through a catalog with a cup of coffee. You see something you like and you call the 800 number. It's a very simple, relaxing process," said Sroge. "The way that it's being done on the Net right now is almost like a storm-trooper approach to things. You push a button, and it will take you there and that's it. I think it's a horrible way to buy things." Sroge also says that most current online shopping services are being designed by male engineers and that this may result in sites that are unappealing to female consumers. "I think there are more men on the Net than women, and 85 percent of the shopping is done by women. Online shopping will take off when women are welcomed into the store and are given a pleasant overview of what's there," Sroge said. The MasterCard/NRF study found that 75 percent of Net users are male with a median age of 34. Sroge also refutes the idea floated by the MasterCard/NRF study that online shopping will take off after consumers are persuaded that online transactions are secure. "I don't think the guys talking about the so-called safety issue are shoppers. I think it's all a bunch of hype. You give your credit card number to a company over the phone, so why wouldn't you give it to a company over the Internet?" he said. "Safety isn't the problem; companies haven't realized what consumers want."

quote:

Originally posted by DeleteFromUsers I'd bet on Visa, MasterCard and Amex for this type of service. Seems like a natural for them. They're always in the mix anyway, why not integrate completely?

They are the obvious choices in terms of scale and trust; the rub is the profit margin. At the normal 3% rate they make less than a penny on a 25� payment. I'm not sure that their systems are set up for either the minuscule size or massive volume of transactions that such a system would entail. Not that they couldn't do it - I'm sure they could - but there has to be a business case for it, and at the moment they don't seem to be interested.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.