Wikipedia Dying? Good News? Bad News?

1. 0

   ryankettposted 14 years ago

   Wall Street Journal have reported some major problems at Wikipedia, with volunteer numbers falling rapidly, and losses growing significantly in the last quarter.....
   
   Could this see one of the following....
   
   1) Monetisation?
   2) Loss of page rank as a result of unmoderation?
   3) The complete collapse of Wikipedia?
   
   Number 1 wouldn't benefit us, it would damage us (unless it was direct sponsorship rather than ad networks), but could it be that numbers 2 and 3 would drastically help us?
   
   Nobody is donating to Wikipedia, and why? Because the only people that can afford to in a recession are corporations. Do corporations like Wikipedia? No, because they cant plaster their ads on it.
   
   Just $1m out of something like $7m needed for servers has been raised..... looks like bye-bye unless they sell out in some form.
   
   Or will we be seeing 'Google Wikipedia' or 'Microsoft Wikipedia' or 'Bing Wikipedia' coming to a search engine near you?
   
   What you all thinking?

   replyreport
2. 0

   Madame Xposted 14 years ago

   One of the reasons they're losing traffic is because anyone can post anything to the site. As a result, some info is accurate and some isn't, or worse, is posted with a political agenda in mind.
   
   In short, it's not a reliable nor accurate site. And I think people know that and go elsewhere as a result.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The problems are stated as lack of donations and volunteers. If they were monitised I believe that they would be a billion dollar corporation, traffic is certainly not the issue and wont be unless google slaps it....
      
      ..... the problem for them is that without the volunteers, there is no new content, no quality control or moderation, and thus google will give them that slap....
      
      .... but is monetisation an option? Legally? Millions of people have contributed on the basis of it being a not for profit organisation; so advertising would make the operation fraudulent?

      replyreport
3. 0

   Madame Xposted 14 years ago

   I'm looking at the reasons for their lack of donations and volunteers. We seem to be going in circles

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Oh ok I get you.... I think that the tides are turning a little. People need a fair bit of technical knowledge to add content to Wikipedia (I dont understand the code), and yet they could be using their time and abilities to make a little extra cash. Can we blame them? Lots of people need all the money that they can get right now. I guess the inaccuracy of the data is important too, like you said, as that completely rules out anybody researching academically.....
      
      I know it sounds bad, but I would like to see it given a big old whack down to PR8.... have seen them at the top of the rankings far too many times. When you search for a business and the wikipedia entry is above the company website... that is too much power!

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Blame google

         replyreport
4. 63

   prettydarkhorseposted 14 years ago

   nobody will write for free only to be faced with criticism,...and nobody will moderate whether the postings are of value or some scientifc basis on it

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Do they often get criticised? I wouldnt know, I have added just two lines to Wikipedia in my lifetime.... and that was only OCD!

      replyreport
5. 69

   thisisoliposted 14 years ago

   They legally have the right to advertise, whether they will or not is another matter.
   
   Also wikipedia is pretty accurate to an academic degree since all information has to be related to a source.
   
   The inaccuracies tend to be where data has been manipulated in academic circles, I.E the disproportionate reporting of global warming and so forth.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Are you referring to the recent controversy? The University of East Anglia (UEA) is the university of my hometown Norwich!

      replyreport
6. 59

   Mark Knowlesposted 14 years ago

   Good riddance as far as I am concerned.
   
   http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/

   replyreport
7. 0

   Nelle Hoxieposted 14 years ago

   "Great New Ideas" have come and gone on the internet for years. Can't wait to see what's next

   replyreport
8. 95

   Sue Adamsposted 14 years ago

   I have contributed to Wikipedia. It is a great opportunity to enlighten the world about lesser known areas of expertise. Anyone can rebute and correct entries so, in principle, it should work. If more of us were committed to sharing knowldege for no gain it would work even better.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      But their issue is that previous contributors no longer do so, so do you still contribute? You could well be well placed to give your reason if you don't! If you do still contribute, how much time do you spend doing this? And.... do you spend less time doing so now that you can make money from your writing?

      replyreport
      1. 95

         Sue Adamsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         When I look for, say a correct definition for something in my area of expertise and cannot find one anywhere, then I provide one to the best of my knowledge. This has not happened recently so I have had no cause to contribute in recent times.
         
         Wikipedia is a great source. Its very greateness is that it is open and and it would be a great shame to lose it. Mind you, its contents would be filtered and sold to the next ...pedia (hopefully).

         replyreport
         1. 78

            mega1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            That's it - not much new to contribute about -

            replyreport
      2. 85

         Marisa Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I suspect many of the original contributors are burnt out. After all, once you've written entries on your topics of expertise to the best of your ability, what else can you do?  Fix up your entries when other people mess with them?
         
         At one time, I did some work on Wikipedia - mainly editing badly written entries to improve readability.  Believe it or not, I rather enjoy editing!  But once I discovered I could make money online with my writing, I moved on - and I wonder whether that's the case with others, too.
         
         I actually think they're foolish not allowing advertising.  If they set it up like HubPages, where contributors got a share of Adsense revenue, they'd see contributors returning I'm sure.  And it would be possible to include advertising tastefully - it doesn't have to be plastered all over the site.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Problem with that model is that numerous contributors are responsible for each page, whereas we each 'own' our hubs.... would be very difficult to implement, particularly with existing content, although if they could pull it off then it would certainly work!

            replyreport
9. 0

   BookFlameposted 14 years ago

   I hate to see Wikipedia in decline.  The site was very good for some information.  Sooner or later, it seems, the online creeps and scumbags show up and ruin a good thing.

   replyreport
10. 95

    Sue Adamsposted 14 years ago

    I agree Marisa.

    replyreport
11. 80

    ngurecoposted 14 years ago

    These days there is nothing for free in this world. Even clean water and clean air is no longer free as God intended. If Wikipedia think they can do it for free, then the only option they have is to ask Obama to print free money for them.

    replyreport
12. 71

    Singular Investorposted 14 years ago

    With the amount of traffic they get they could make a mint - instead they ask people to donate ? Where is the sense in that ? By asking people to donate they admit that they need money, so why not have ads. ? It makes no sense.
    
    But the main problem as far as I can see is that you have to take it on a lot of faith that what you are reading is actually true. There was a famous case in the UK when Prime Minister Gordon Brown used something he had got from Wikipedia only to discover it was inaccurate ! Very embarrassing for both him and Wikipedia.

    replyreport
13. 60

    visitmaniacposted 14 years ago

    I am kind of glad, Honestly I never used the site ever because I knew it was just peoples opinions or people trying to sell stuff. It's become littered with self promotion crap anymore. I hope very soon its removed from Google's trusted sites and pushed down into the normal rankings.

    replyreport
14. 72

    thranaxposted 14 years ago

    Wikipedia is at 2.2 out of 7.5 million needed (time of my post). I am sure they will find someway to come up with what is needed, or maybe donations might be going up. It only takes 50 cents from 14 million internet users to keep it up. Anything massive is affordable from small donations if people could just contribute that much.
    
    ~thranax~

    replyreport