Wikipedia Fundraising Begins: $16 Million Needed To Stay Free

Wikipedia isn't as free as it might seem.

Wikimedia, the non-profit that runs the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia as well as a number of sister sites, has kicked off its 2010 "contribution campaign" and aims to raise double what it did last year.

The organization announced in a blog post that it needs to raise $16 million in order to "maintain the infrastructure necessary to keep these sites free, stable, and running smoothly, while also continually improving the systems and architecture behind them."

Wikimedia has set aside a 2-month fundraising period and released two "personal appeals" from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales (See them here. Find out more about making a donation here)

Wikipedia isn't just asking for your money. Wikimedia's Philippe Beaudette writes 2010's contribution campaign is "designed to invite not only financial contributions, but to also encourage people to contribute their expertise and knowledge to the projects."

Last year, $20,294.12 from 566 donors was raised on the first day of the fundraising drive.

Comments

[Tim Greenhalgh]

05:47 PM on 11/25/2010

It's not $16 million to me. It's £20. For that, I get the most trusted and widely-focussed knowledge source available today. My parents spent money they could not afford to give me and my brother and sister a full set of encyclopaedias because they knew that knowledge is the beginning of understanding. It has a monetary value but that is not the true worth. I do not worry that Jimmy Wales might enrich himself through this appeal. I only care for a rare, true value that Jimmy and his team have, with great effort, given us. I blogged more on this at http://bit.ly/fR1dt2

[MehulR]

04:18 PM on 11/23/2010

An average cost per year for ONE public library is more than $1.5 million. There are around 10,000 such libraries (Central Building only, excluding branch building) .
i.e. cost of Wiki per year is equivalent to 10.5 libraries . Wiki server’s whole world. I understand Wiki can not replace library but it is my first place of reference of anything which was earlier Library or an encyclopedia.

IT infrastructure is very expensive. I remember, a company paid 3.5 million for a mid size database support (Excluding hardware support or upgrade). There were total 22 database specialist and most of them were at offshore. Server quality storage(SAN), RAM , CPU, network etc cost very high too…

If Jimmy Wales would have been behind money ( :-) ) he would have made that very easily … Intelligent person like him can easily make much more than $20 million in this internet age

[Moulton45]

05:45 PM on 11/22/2010

Time to reprise my annual song parody for the fundraiser...

"I Need the Dough"

http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2009/01/wikipedia-fundraiser.html

[Andrew Wojtkowski]

11:37 AM on 11/16/2010

Does it matter whether they need it or not, or where the money will go?

Case and point: If it weren't for them, we would not have Wikipedia. Period. Should they lose their non-profit status? Well, that's a totally acceptible debate now.

Even though Wikimedia does jack all for updating Wikipedia.com/en's content, they provided those that do with the tools to do so. Something should be said for that.

[mjslater]

12:07 PM on 11/16/2010

Just because a non-profit requires an extremely large amount of money to operate doesn't mean they don't deserve a non-profit status. Their are other tech non-profits like Mozilla that are expensive to operate. Luckily, Mozilla makes a lot of their money off of Google so they don't have to push fundraising as hard.

Anyways, they publish their financial reports if you want to check to see if they still meet non-profit regulations: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports

[thekohser]

10:55 AM on 11/18/2010

Andrew, if they ran a tight ship, it would cost about $2.5 million annually to keep Wikipedia and all its sister projects running efficiently. The KPMG independent audit of their books solidly proved that. So, ask yourself... why are they asking for $20 million to run a $2.5 million operation?

It seems there are a lot of mathematically-challenged HuffPo readers, but you seem like you might "get it".

[JonAwbrey]

12:08 AM on 11/16/2010

“Outreach” = mass distribution of PR packets to e-column-inchers who need fast fodder for tomorrow's column and couldn't care less about doing their own research.

[Kelly Martin]

06:22 PM on 11/15/2010

The thing is, Wikimedia doesn't need $16 million. At most it needs $2 million, maybe $3 million, to actually keep the servers that run the site up. The rest of the money they're trying to raise is to be spent on programs of at best dubious merit. None of the money, above the cost of keeping the servers running, will likely be used to improve the content of any of the projects, and certainly none of it for the English Wikipedia (which the Foundation refuses to have anything to do with). Instead it will be used to hire people to do largely undefined jobs, or for "outreach programs" that, historically, have never reached out to anyone identifiable. The Foundation, beyond hosting Wikipedia, has nothing to do with creating it or with its content. There is absolutely no chance that any of the money donated to Wikimedia will ever reach any the people who write for Wikipedia.

There are far better charities out there that actually provide real, tangible help to people who really need it. Donate to one of them instead this year, please.

[mjslater]

12:04 PM on 11/16/2010

NAS servers probably cost them at least $500,000 a year alone. Thats just the the storage infrastructure. Most people have absolutely no idea how expensive maintaining these large sites are.

[Kelly Martin]

05:22 PM on 11/22/2010

It's relatively easy to find out what their infrastructure budget is, as they publish it as part of their nonprofit tax returns. It's in the range of $2m to $3m a year.

[LittleBalzacSeamstress]

01:28 PM on 11/18/2010

I think its important that people know 'Kelly Martin' plagiarized this from Gregory Kohs comment on MotherBoard.tv. I'll let the community respond to this, but I find it interesting that someone would so blatently critize an organization based solely on the words of a disgruntled columnist instead of conducting her own research.

[The thing is, the Wikimedia projects don’t need $16 million or $20 million. At most it needs $2 million, maybe $3 million, to actually keep up the servers that run the site and to provide bandwidth for fast access for all. The rest of the money they’re trying to coax out of people will be spent on programs of at best dubious merit, with the remainder being stuffed into a bank savings account. None of that money, above the cost of keeping the servers running, will likely be used to improve the content of any of the projects, and certainly none of it for the English Wikipedia (which the Foundation refuses to have anything to do with, for Section 230 reasons). The Foundation, beyond hosting Wikipedia, has nothing to do with creating it or with its content — that responsibility rests with unpaid volunteers.]
http://motherboard.tv/2010/11/17/how-effective-is-jimmy-wales-creepy-plea-for-wikipedia-money

[thekohser]

02:47 PM on 11/19/2010

Actually, I rather plagiarized that from Kelly. I don't think she minds.

[MIKEinNYC]

05:58 PM on 11/15/2010

It's worth every penny!

[ware]

05:09 PM on 11/15/2010

Wikipedia is the best thing that ever came out of this WWW.

[Sorti]

01:28 AM on 11/16/2010

Yes, I'm glad to give them money when they ask, it's one of the things I'd miss the most without internet access.

[AKaurora]

03:59 PM on 11/15/2010

I did my bit. Frankly, if I could donate to political races and disaster relief funds, the least I could do was to donate to something that I use constantly. The Wikimedia group has made the quality of my thinking and knowing life far more than any hardbound set of encyclopedias ever did -- and I loved those.

[thekohser]

04:35 PM on 11/15/2010

Too bad so little of your donation will go toward the quality of your thinking and knowing life. Most of it goes in the bank, earning about 1% interest, and goes toward new staff who (already) are wiring sweetheart contracts to their former employers, to the founder's side-business, etc. You're essentially donating to perpetuate graft. Way to go!

[ChrisR]

04:51 PM on 11/15/2010

Prove it.

[AKaurora]

04:55 PM on 11/15/2010

I find all of this anti-Wikipedia sentiment to be paradoxical. Perhaps, you are one of those truly dedicated and committed ethical individuals who buys absolutely nothing without a "Certificate of Ethics" from the company selling the product. You never buy fast food, nor groceries in a store, and go directly to the small organic farmer, who has this certificate, of course. You don't own an automobile, you don't pay taxes, and you don't participate in the larger social culture that uses the internet . . .oh wait, guess you break that one. And, of course, you NEVER EVER donate to any political campaign, nor to any disaster relief organization because none hold to as high standards as you have. Perfection is such an arduous course. I wish you well.

[SpreadthePanic]

03:49 PM on 11/15/2010

Wikipedia is not perfect, nor is it 100% accurate. However, for 99% of my inquiries, it does the job well, and it does so quickly. That is partially due to the fact that I know better than to use it to find information that should be coming from a primary source (preferably one that is peer-reviewed!), although the references listed often can direct you to primary sources. For this great convenience, I have never paid a single penny. And unlike most "free" services, I am not innundated with advertising banners, pop-ups, surveys, etc.

If you do not value the content on wikipedia, the solution is simple: do not go to their website. If you do not think it is a worthy cause for your donation, or if you feel as if they are inefficient with their money: do not donate. (this figure that keeps getting thrown around of 59% is assuming that wikipedia should have no operating costs other than technology costs - as if legal, administrative, and salary expenses are illegal or immoral) If you use wikipedia regularly and do not donate, that's fine... you are entitled to do so, but don't complain when the site begins to require subscription fees.

[thekohser]

04:33 PM on 11/15/2010

The 59% figure "assumes" nothing, Panic. It earned the Wikimedia Foundation a 1-star rating in organizational efficiency from Charity Navigator, even while thousands of other non-profits get 2-, 3-, and 4-star ratings in that category. Why is the Wikimedia Foundation given a pass on its 1-star rating, with your "assumption"?

[SpreadthePanic]

06:42 PM on 11/15/2010

I don't know why you find it necessary to respond to every single comment on this thread, especially since you keep rehashing the same tired points every time.

First of all, I really don't care about what Charity Navigator has to say. Yes, if I am donating to a charity to let my money do some good, I want to make sure it is as efficient as possible. However, in this case I am [theoretically - as I said, I have donated nothing] donating to maintain a service that I use and want to see continue. As I mentioned, if you don't find it worthy of your money, simply don't donate.

However, after reading you post about Charity Navigator for the hundredth time, I decided to venture to their site myself. It turns out they give Wikimedia a **3-STAR** rating overall and a **4-STAR** capacity rating. Yes, they give them a 1-star rating for efficiency, but as I mentioned, they are not a traditional "charity." With most charities, administrative expenses are seen as a waste because that money is not going towards feeding the hungry/helping the poor/curing a disease. However, Wikipedia is not trying to accomplish any of these things, it is maintaining a website. Costs for maintaining, developing, and administering this website may fall under the 41% you deem wasteful, but that does not mean your money is being wasted or that Wikipedia is evil.

[mjslater]

12:40 PM on 11/16/2010

1 star for efficiency? Guess I need to lend them some of my memcache knowledge, or just donate so they can keep hiring and paying engineers who keep the site running.

[cadawa]

02:56 PM on 11/15/2010

Good on the Huff for publicizing this very deserving organization!

[thekohser]

04:31 PM on 11/15/2010

In what way is the organization "deserving", Cadawa? The Federal TARP fund purportedly saved the global financial system. Will you be making a personal donation to TARP?

[cadawa]

04:50 PM on 11/15/2010

I think you could benefit from Wiki. How about making a donation?
The TARP funds papered over the financial problem. Instead of cleaning up the system, it rewarded the perps. Wiki could have helped you with that.

[ResearchtheFacts]

05:21 PM on 11/15/2010

I love you people on this site you are a laugh a minute.  Good comment. lol

[TidalShadow]

02:55 PM on 11/15/2010

Wikipedia is certainly not perfect. However, it is by far the best website for general information. I often use Wikipedia as a general starting point for research, using source articles from the relevant page. This cuts down research time significantly; it's a great help.

[thekohser]

10:41 PM on 11/15/2010

I find Google to be a better website for general information.

[CamBrown99]

01:00 AM on 11/16/2010

Especially when it directs me to Wikipedia

[Numskll]

01:54 PM on 11/15/2010

The Anti WP mods are storng in this thread

[Andrea Torres]

01:52 PM on 11/15/2010

this is like I'm back in 2008 and 2009 again.

[cvbnm67]

12:53 PM on 11/15/2010

It is sad that money has perverted the concept of an online encyclopedia. However, I guess many families have put food on their tables by door to door encyclopedia salesmen. Anyhow, my fear is that Wikipedia falls into the hands of the truly evil, and becomes as useless and the NewsCorp owned Wall Street Journal.

[thekohser]

01:23 PM on 11/15/2010

If you're worried about Wikipedia falling into the hands of the truly evil, methinks you're about 3 or 4 years too late with that concern.