But............ they've asked for millions a couple of times already..........

EDIT: Double Post FTL!!!!

its just an empty threat

Wikipedia is an awesome service. Well worth donating a few bucks to a PBS-style fundraiser every now and then.

I always found the whole 'We're not monetized and that makes us better' angle as being stupid.

The fact is, they could make billions if they put a simple header ad on the site. One for each article. Would generate tons of money. It would even potentially help them add more staff to improve accuracy and reliability of their articles.

But no, Jimmy, wants YOU to keep donating, or else threaten you with a pay-for site. Heck, Jimmy didn't even found Wikipedia, Sanger did (who graduated from a college near me with a Ph. D).

Its a total joke.

If they meet the required ad goal to continue operating, there is absolutely nothing wrong with running donation drives to avoid placing ads on the site. Why on Earth would you think that's a joke, Stickball? Both methods are perfectly acceptable ways of achieving the same goal.

As someone who is Libertarian-minded, I'd think you'd applaud their attempts to finance their operation entirely from their user base. If the need isn't there, why involve businesses? Wikipedia is a non-profit; they don't exit to make "billions", they exist to provide free information to everyone. I respect their decision to keep business and their resulting demands out of a free information-gathering website, especially since it doesn't cost anything to anyone who doesn't wish to donate. He's not "threatening" to turn it into a pay site, he's stating that they want to keep advertisers off Wikipedia.

Oh, and Sanger himself admits that Wikipedia in its current form was entirely Wales' idea. You're WAY off base on this one.

If things start getting really bad they'll just be bought by Google or Microsoft or whatever, who will just put 78 ads on every page. Problem solved.

Its certainly their choice as to how they fund the website - paid advertisments, user donations, ect. I will not begrudge them if they want to fundraise money through donations.

I just think its a joke that they think that if they were to monetize, they somehow become wrong, evil, or offer a less attractive product. Their company employs a lot of people. Its a business. Even if its a non-profit, there is still a lot of money in funding their website.

They're not claiming ads are evil. In fact, read Wales' statement:

"I don't get paid a cent for my work at Wikipedia, and neither do our thousands of other volunteer authors and editors. When I founded Wikipedia, I could have made it into a for-profit company with advertising banners, but I decided to do something different.

Commerce is fine. Advertising is not evil. But it doesn't belong here. Not in Wikipedia."

I happen to agree with him, honestly. I'd rather see Wiki run ads than shut down but if they can raise the money themselves without the help of advertisers, more power to them.

It's true he doesn't get paid for his actions as Emperor of Wikipedia.   He does, however, take $50-75k a pop giving speeches about Wikipedia, and encourage links in Wikipedia to Wikia sites, which are for profit and which he owns. 

But that's a side point, not relevant to your main point.