"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

[Krimpet]

The phrase "(ad-)free forever" keeps reminding me of those gawd-awful "Evony: Free Forever" ads that are plastered all over Google's ad network. (If the WMF is interested in heading in that direction, I'm sure they've got plenty of cheesecake pictures to use on Commons. )

Thankfully, they haven't brought back the <marquee> from their 2007 fundraising ad campaign. If the intent was to shock people via an epileptic seizure into whipping out their credit card, it was a smashing success.

[CharlotteWebb]

The phrase "(ad-)free forever" keeps reminding me of those gawd-awful "Evony: Free Forever" ads that are plastered all over Google's ad network.

Well in Evony you have the option of buying your way out of any calamity or time-sink that arises. If somebody's in ur base killin ur doods, you can whip out your credit card and make more of them almost instantly.

As far as I know donating money to WMF generally does not help players advance in the MMOWPG, though some seem conditioned to expect that. I think most would rather donate time anyway.

[Krimpet]

As far as I know donating money to WMF generally does not help players advance in the MMOWPG, though some seem conditioned to expect that. I think most would rather donate time anyway.

Are you sure?

[grievous]

As far as I know donating money to WMF generally does not help players advance in the MMOWPG, though some seem conditioned to expect that. I think most would rather donate time anyway.

Are you sure?

A lot of drama could have been avoided if only Daniel Brandt had known that all it would have taken was $5K to delete his bio.

Surprised how no one has pointed out how ludicrous the claim of "ad free forever" is when the banners themselves are ads. Even PBS has dropped the claim of being ad free from their bi-monthly pledge drives.

[EricBarbour]

A lot of drama could have been avoided if only Daniel Brandt had known that all it would have taken was $5K to delete his bio.

I'm fairly certain that blackmail is, you know, um, kind of illegal......

[grievous]

A lot of drama could have been avoided if only Daniel Brandt had known that all it would have taken was $5K to delete his bio.

I'm fairly certain that blackmail is, you know, um, kind of illegal......

Well I suppose that threatening to disclose personally identifiable information unless one gets their way would fall under the definition of blackmail too, but who's counting.

A $5k contribution seems to have been proven to be a much easier route to deletion. Much easier and effective than blow jobs in 5-star hotels on the WMF dime. But at least if that doesn't work you can sell the residuals on eBay.

[the_undertow]

Not since I audited Hilton have I ever seen this much slight of hand in a 'financial report.' If there are other public accountants here, please don't let me take the limelight. Report here Not only is this quite unacceptable in the business realm, but the lack of annotation, and the focus on imagery is what one would expect from a company that owns an image farm.

Actually, thinking about Commons, this is what shareholders are given. This is what they expect. This is why donations are called upon, because investors would rather see a Shankbone shot of a vagina (not sure that exisits) then what Wikimedia considers to be a financial report. When the US goes IASB, fuck us all, and when I say that, I mean this endeavor may be strong as not for profit, fail as 'one uses it everyday' and even worse for what can pass as a business. 14 employees, with 'hopes' to gain 6 more, makes this nothing more than a site that has top rankings in Google, and nothing else.

I'm certainly not dogging out those who contribute, but if my own contribution can show how financial papers look like a Kinko's copy of doom - it will only be allowed until the rest of the world forces the US to produce a decent FAR. This is a joke.

A sick joke. And when wales says that many rely on WP 'every day,' God help us if we, who have doctors, lawyers, and parents, actually do rely on a site where you may be in the middle of a hysterectomy, but you are relying on a generally stable article, where another editor, IP or registered, has changed the venue, before you make that final stitch.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Not since I audited Hilton have I ever seen this much slight of hand in a 'financial report.'

Um, does the professional association to which you presumably belong have any ethical code at all?

[victim of censorship]

Not since I audited Hilton have I ever seen this much slight of hand in a 'financial report.'

Um, does the professional association to which you presumably belong have any ethical code at all?

The concept of "ethical code" used to describe "Wikipeidia" is a laughable oxymoron.

Big Sue is making a real killing as queen of the hive.

[Sarcasticidealist]

The concept of "ethical code" used to describe "Wikipeidia" is a laughable oxymoron.

Really? "Ethical" contradicts "code"? You'll have to explain that to me sometime, maybe in a thread that has even the remotest relationship to a "Wikipedia ethical code".

I'm talking about the kind of ethical code that prevents accountants from spouting off on internet message boards about the "slight [sic] of hand" used by named companies they audit.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist: Tue 24th November 2009, 1:13pm

[victim of censorship]

A true apologist. People, like you, are like the mother who cries.... Johnnie not a bad boy, while Johnnie is on trial for mass murder.

The Wikipedia operations fund is just a personal slush fund for BIG SUE, JIMMY, and all the meatballs at the wiki club house. Proper accounting and accountable to the money is not a concept what would fit well with the lifestyle of an internet rock star.

Lets have no mistake or mis-understanding, Wikipedia has no system of governance, no rules. The only system Wikipedia has is gang rule, corruption, and jungle law.

Think of Wikipedia to be a failed state, run like Somalia. The rule of guns, gangs, and warlords.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Tue 24th November 2009, 1:21pm

[Sarcasticidealist]

A true apologist. People, like you, are like the mother who cries.... Johnnie not a bad boy, while Johnnie is on trial for mass murder.

Lets have no mistake or mis-understanding, Wikipedia has no system of governance, no rules. The only system Wikipedia has is gang rule, corruption, and jungle law.

Think of Wikipedia to be a failed state, run like Somalia. The rule of guns, gangs, and warlords.

There's a school of thought that holds that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a statist institution, enhancing the power of courts to impose social change without the request or consent of the populace. That school of thought overlooks, though, that the Charter is designed to empower the individual in the face of the state; the only entities subject to it are public entities (i.e. organs of the state), and in virtually all cases the restrictions it imposes prevent those entities from infringing on individual freedoms.

[victim of censorship]

A true apologist. People, like you, are like the mother who cries.... Johnnie not a bad boy, while Johnnie is on trial for mass murder.

Lets have no mistake or mis-understanding, Wikipedia has no system of governance, no rules. The only system Wikipedia has is gang rule, corruption, and jungle law.

Think of Wikipedia to be a failed state, run like Somalia. The rule of guns, gangs, and warlords.

There's a school of thought that holds that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a statist institution, enhancing the power of courts to impose social change without the request or consent of the populace. That school of thought overlooks, though, that the Charter is designed to empower the individual in the face of the state; the only entities subject to it are public entities (i.e. organs of the state), and in virtually all cases the restrictions it imposes prevent those entities from infringing on individual freedoms.

So your implying that Wikipedia a "sovereign state" which supersedes the law of the United States of America?