Wikipedia "free" but demanding donations

[BraidedPony]

i give them a few bucks every year. i use them often, so why not?

 

[Yeshuasdaughter]

Oh, they've been doing that for decades! Every few years Wikipedia begs for money.

Personally, I preferred Ask Jeeves. He never hit me up for cash. He just hung out and told me cool stuff.

 

[paloftoon]

Could be worse.

At least Wikipedia doesn't tug at everyone's heartstrings with images of abused dogs and cats.

Did your opinion of Natalie Merchant ("My Skin") and Sarah McLachlan ("Angel") change?

 

[Judge]

Did your opinion of Natalie Merchant ("My Skin") and Sarah McLachlan ("Angel") change?

I have no opinion of Eric McCormack or Sarah McLachlan. Never heard of Natalie Merchant.

 

[paloftoon]

I have no opinion of Eric McCormack or Sarah McLachlan. Never heard of Natalie Merchant.

Ever seen this commercial before? It's Natalie Merchant.

This one is Sarah McLachlan in case you didn't get what I was inferring.

Time to save the animals, Judge!

 

[GrownupGirl]

I go on Wiki all the time so it's very annoying when they beg for donations. They just assume I have all the money in the world to give them. But at least they don't use emotion triggering nonsense like those gawdawful ads about abused animals or starving children. Which, for some reason, tend to air while I'm watching a lighthearted sitcom. I'll be amused by the wacky antics of Kramer only to be interrupted by one of those PSA's that go one for two very slow minutes while the remote control decides to make its disappearing act. No wonder I haven't gone near the TV in months.

 

[Qoyote]

Look up “crocodile tears” and I bet you’d find that Wikipedia puzzle globe. I hate how they keep adding hackneyed ways to pull at your heartstrings when they’re more than covering costs already. First it was “this is the nth ad we’ve shown you”. Last week I saw them put emoji in the message. Today, they said they couldn’t get money any other way because “they have no salespeople”. Well, no duh, if they had salespeople they’d have better ads!

If they stopped showing the ads when you gave a certain amount of money, I’d be fine with it. I love the site and I use it a lot (Wikipedia rabbit holes are so fun!). But I already donated more than the $2.75 they asked for and it didn’t stop. If they were really in the red, it’d be different, but not right now.

 

[Au Naturel]

It costs money to do what they do. They do it better than anyone else. It is a huge enterprise and with only 35 (IIRC) paid employees, it is almost entirely volunteers who do the articles. Without the functional equivalent of pledge breaks, they don't exist.

Not in the red? Not sure what you mean by that. There are a lot of valid reasons to ask for contributions other than impending bankruptcy. I've given them money before. Once in a while, I get a banner pop up on the site and I usually ignore it.

 

[Joshua the Writer]

It costs money to do what they do. They do it better than anyone else. It is a huge enterprise and with only 35 (IIRC) paid employees, it is almost entirely volunteers who do the articles. Without the functional equivalent of pledge breaks, they don't exist.

Not in the red? Not sure what you mean by that. There are a lot of valid reasons to ask for contributions other than impending bankruptcy. I've given them money before. Once in a while, I get a banner pop up on the site and I usually ignore it.

I'm also pretty sure they don't even have ads on the site, as well, as their main goal is to provide information. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Hylian]

They're a nonprofit with no ads. At most they ask for one donation of $2, and you can just click off the pop-up/scroll past it. They need money somehow, and even if they have enough to continue to run their site as-is, what about improvements to it? There's many reasons they may need donations even if they seem well off and there's no obligation to give them one.