"Wikipedia Forever" - fundraising campaign, or non-stop laff riot? Options

[Newsfeed]

<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia seeks to raise $7.5M in 'Wikipedia Forever' campaign[/b]
VentureBeat
The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that manages Wikipedia, is passing the hat around in its annual fundraising campaign. ...



View the article

[carbuncle]

Someone dislikes thekohser enough to spend US$6.66.

[thekohser]

Someone dislikes thekohser enough to spend US$6.66.

I am hurt by this defamatory affront to my good name, and I have notified the Wikimedia Foundation that they may either remove the hurtful comment, or they may release to me the personally identifying info related to the donor (typical anonymous coward).

[thekohser]

Someone dislikes thekohser enough to spend US$6.66.

I am hurt by this defamatory affront to my good name, and I have notified the Wikimedia Foundation that they may either remove the hurtful comment, or they may release to me the personally identifying info related to the donor (typical anonymous coward).

I received a reply from Anya, that the comment will be taken down from their site within an hour. (If it's anything like the flagged revisions estimated time to process, the comment will be down in March or April.)

[MZMcBride]

I received a reply from Anya, that the comment will be taken down from their site within an hour. (If it's anything like the flagged revisions estimated time to process, the comment will be down in March or April.)

The comment has been removed.

[Cla68]

As I was working on the Eurasian Land Bridge article, I found that there are a lot more articles on the subject that are not currently available on the free web. I assume that this is the case for many other subjects.

Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount? The Foundation would be able to keep the proceeds that exceed the cost of buying the site license. Wiki-project participants would be motivated by being able to obtain the access at a discount, and could use the access for their own personal activities like school projects, as well as for building articles in Wikipedia. I would think that article quality would greatly improve because editors would have ready access to more sources of information.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 12th November 2009, 11:32pm

[everyking]

As I was working on the Eurasian Land Bridge article, I found that there are a lot more articles on the subject that are not currently available on the free web. I assume that this is the case for many other subjects.

Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount? The Foundation would be able to keep the proceeds that exceed the cost of buying the site license. Wiki-project participants would be motivated by being able to obtain the access at a discount, and could use the access for their own personal activities like school projects, as well as for building articles in Wikipedia. I would think that article quality would greatly improve because editors would have ready access to more sources of information.

It would be great to see the foundation adopt proposals like that. I know I could do quite a bit more work if I had access to a site like Lexis-Nexis.