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....
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?
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.
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?
I'm looking at the reasons for their lack of donations and volunteers. We seem to be going in circles
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!
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
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.
Good riddance as far as I am concerned.
"Great New Ideas" have come and gone on the internet for years. Can't wait to see what's next
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.
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?
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).
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
by agusfanani 11 years ago
Is Wikipedia reliable and accurate as a source of information ?
by Susannah Birch 13 years ago
I'm getting a few referrals and have nearly 100 hubs written by them now. Just wondering how other hubbers approach their referrals...Do you try and help them, either person to person or in the forums/on their hubs? Or do you leave them be and hope they're smart enough to learn it all themselves...
by Pamela N Red 9 years ago
I discovered today that the German Wikipedia (Wikiversity) stole one of my articles so you may want to check and see if they have any of your work. The aggravating thing is that I have a Google Alert set up for that story but was never notified about this. I sent Wikiversity an email and received a...
by Jason Menayan 13 years ago
Hey everyone,Our Wikipedia entry:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HubPagesis a bit overdue for an update.Due to Wikipedia's rules, we are not allowed as HubPages employees to make any changes to the site. However, HubPages community members are free to do so.Are there any volunteers that would like to...
by PrettyPanther 8 years ago
"Aggressively judgmental" means those who spend an inordinate amount of time and energy focusing on people who have failed to achieve success, "success" as defined by the judgmental. Specifically, the aggressively judgmental endlessly evaluate the personal characteristics...
by Susan Reid 13 years ago
Where in the Constitution does it allow foreign BUSINESSES to directly influence US elections? This doesn't sound very Constitutional to me. Nor ethical. Nor legal.News recently broke that the U.S. Chamber of Commerceâ��one of the biggest sources of corporate cash backing Republicans this...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|