Why wouldn't you contribute? What are the other options for wikipedia?
I don't think they really need money being us the visitors to the web site puts in all the information for them. A domain name only cost about 7 dollars a year and unlimited web hosting on yahoo servers only cost about 12 dollars a month with a free domain name. Pay Pal credit card acceptance is free, and you only pay fees when you get a donation. I know there are other cost but with 10,000,000 (ten million) visitors per day they should have no problem with cash flow. They need to get rid of that Jet and those limos and sell about 10 of their 20 beach front homes.
I have 9 websites with about 6000 visitors per month and they pay for themselves with no problem, just from people clicking on the Google ads. Then the products sold lets me buy a nice bike and all the trimmings plus just built a new home and have not missed a payment in over three years.
So are they really needing money or just greedy?
all over. The farms have to be next to power plants and the obvious places they've already built on.
The next step is to build power plants largely just for the new server farms.
Their business is outgrowing their business model.
Personally, I see it as a needed service, like the highways. If we let if fail, replacing it will cost a pretty penny. And we would wind up replacing it.
...that this nation, shall have a new birth, and that government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, shall not perish from the earth.
Yes I agree they have a big load and have a great product. We can make it with out it if we need to. Some one else will step in and fill the slot.
I know I should have not spoken. But how many Billions of dollars in bail out money should we give them? All I see any more is everyone with a hand out wanting free money. No one will give me free money. And to think they have the 8th most traveled website on the internet and have to beg.
Just one small ad on each of their millions of pages could bring in as much as a million dollars every day for them. They don't even have to do anything because Google changes the ads to match the information on the page. You may not even notice the ad was there, But when you seen it you would click on it because it was a link to the product you was reading about.
Anywhere from 4% to 18% of the visitors that come to a website click on the ads. So roughing 10% for them would be a million clicks a day at the lower end of .50 cents per click. Wow that is an easy half a million dollars per day. If they can not run a 23 employee business on 182 million dollars a year they don't need to be in business to start with.
I feel they should get with a new business plan or shut it down and let someone run it that knows what they are doing.
I just can't make myself feel sorry for them..
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you.
Ads don't belong in reference materials or libraries.
無上甚深微妙法 .... 百千萬劫難遭遇..... 我今見聞得受持
No worries, I thought this was a P&R topic so this innocent looking sock I'm holding is actually full of batteries.
But seriously, I don't expect to see ads in my public library, in my World Book, or on my wikipedia. It's distracting and not fitting for the nature of pure academic research and public resources.
What harm is there to donate to a public resource like PBS or wikipedia? None. Taxes and fees are not the only way. Begging in itself is not a bad thing. No shame from where I'm standing.
無上甚深微妙法 .... 百千萬劫難遭遇..... 我今見聞得受持
i'd rather it be free of advertising.
Wikipedia, on the other hand, pretty obviously wants to be viewed as a semi-legitimate source of information, which it generally is, but is not regarded as such by scholars. In order to make progress in the direction they want to go, they need to keep up their squeaky-clean altruistic sheen, which won't happen if you start having Google ads on every page, as their critics will (quite rightly) assert that this supposedly reliable source of information has been bought and paid for by advertisers.
Also, if you're running nine websites, you should know that running a high-traffic website is neither free nor cheap, and running a web application such as mediawiki is even more expensive and requires tons of high dollar maintenance, either by your own staff or the datacenter in which one colos one's servers, as is likely the case for Wikipedia, as it means they don't have to have employees all over the world - just servers.
IMO, their business model is generally the right one, they just need to be more creative with their fundraising.
this is the main reason i don't use webmd. seems like a giant market for advertisers to hawk their drugs. look up depression, for example, and you'll see all kinda of ads for cymbalta. the whole thing is compromised by that. in fact, it's even hard to figure out what is an ad and what is content.
Last edited by timmhaan; 12-27-08 at 01:28 PM.
Anyway with 6000 users paying for bandwidth I'd call shenanigans, as in you're asking them to click, especially saying 4% of them click.
Also with advertisements comes the obligation to not allow bad things to be written about them in their Wikipedia, a major conflict.
Here is the wake up call:
Learn about large scale computing before claiming that they should just buy a blade server or get a yahoo account. =\
Last edited by StrangeWill; 12-27-08 at 01:38 PM.
LOL I see that I got this one going pretty good.
Just to resolve this,
Even if I do this for a living and did make well over $400,000 from one of the 9 websites in 2008.
You are right and I'm wrong.
The last place I worked had over 14,000 employees world wide, Hundreds of computers connected to the system all the time and stored over 50 years of data. This kind of load is more then a quick data check like on an internet website. It is hard core data entry 24 hours a day. I think about 23 workers or less is all they had for the Information Systems / IT department, Most were techs to fix PCs, Only two or three worked on the main frame and network.
I know it don't take that much.
But again you are right and I'm wrong.
I had a great bike ride today, So I'm happy....
Last edited by cawoodwilly; 12-30-08 at 08:11 PM.
Here is the wake up call:
The above is a quote from your message and so you know, That is a blade server, and looks to have 20 or 21 blades in it. The 5 units looks to be about 12 foot from left to right.. My-Oh-My what power they must put out.. What is that $100K investment, maybe $200K max? Looking back just makes me think, what a joke this conversation was and had nothing to do with bikes.
(p.s. If you did what you say for a living, you'd know that a T1 is nowhere near enough bandwidth...)