Wikipedia Could Shut Down Within 3 to 4 Months?

Oh no! I love wikis. I used to use it for so many assignments and issues that I could not find on other websites. It would be terrible if it shuts down. I'm hoping they won't shut it down.

I rely on Wikipedia heavily for my on-line research. I hope it stays up. Where are the Bill Gates of the world when you need them, lol. Hope somebody with some coins can give them a sizable donation. They are an asset to the Internet.

I like that site, some what useful. I double check things I read there. But it a cool site.

the site has more than 5 million entries in multiple languages and draws an estimated 7 billion page views a month. that must be alot of people. I'm sure there must be some type of business model to keep the site alive.

Here's what I found so far on them - most recent.

Here's 5 pages in a recent news week interview. feb 1st
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16926950/site/newsweek/?from=rss

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246400,00.html
Microsoft Caught Trying to Change Wikipedia Entries back in january

Feb 5th


Wikipedia Unintentionally Blocks Entire Nation of Qatar

What's going to happen to their plans for the Wiki site for whistle-blowers? if they can't keep Wikipedia going how are they to keep the whistle blower site going? or maybe they will drop Wikipedia and focus on the whistle blower site ? one of the two.

I'll keep searching and see what's happening

I know I will get hung for saying this, but I honestly think it would be fair for Wikipedia to host tasteful, non-invasive advertising to help fund itself. I know it goes against the whole principle but it's such a valid resource and it gets such high traffic that I think it would do more good than bad.

There is no way wikipedia will go under and disappear, there are too many users and too many options. Yes Chris advertising could do it, a backer could do it, a hosting provider looking for the best PR ever could do it, an online movement by users could do it... etc.

i repeat. this site will not go down.

@ malan:
i repeat. this site will not go down.

I don't think so either, but how do you explain the chair of Wikimedia publicly crying funding problems?

A motive to get big financial backing?

Yes as malan says it has to adopt advertising either from
google or any other advertising company for its survival

Why don't the people who use it support it. They could set up a donation link or charge for useage.

Just a thought

actually Chris brought up advertising... ;)

Or Google can buy it and support this with no ads, they have enough resources elsewhere, it will complement them. But if they don't want to sell to Google then they should put some ads to support it, or they have Wiki Search in progress where it is going to results + ads I think. I had to use Wiki for my research and info, I hope they don't go out totally.

@ Chris Hogg:

@ malan:
i repeat. this site will not go down.

I don't think so either, but how do you explain the chair of Wikimedia publicly crying funding problems?

A motive to get big financial backing?

You read my mind Chris. I think this is an appeal with the hope that someone with deep pockets will step in. I don't know how much it would take to keep the site afloat but I'm sure it would be pocket change to Gates,Jobs or Branson.

If not,you'll see advertising.

I cant see them folding. I have a feeling someone will help them if they are seriously in need.

I can't see myself without Wikipedia. It's just great for information. I think advertising is the way to go.

Is it true that the information in wikipedia was all contributed by users? I have a friend that said that she was looking up a word some time back and it didn't have a definition for the word and a box or something came up giving her the option to insert the definition, or something to that effect.

Can someone explain to me who wrote wiki and if it is 100% valid? Thanks.

I guarantee they could easily sell ad spots for HUGE chunks of cash, not only to keep it up and running, but they could actually start earning cash...not that they want to..but they could put it in the bank or something and give it out to charity or something (they currently run charitable programs even when they're in financial problems!).

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm :
Complaint re: False Biography

While wikipedia appears to be open to all, I’ve seen numerous examples of changes getting immediately deleted for what appears to be political reasons rather than the pursuit of pure knowledge. And I’ve also seen people be attacked for making changes that appear to be factual and correct.

Citing Wikipedia in your school projects and papers is now a big no no at Middlebury College in Middlebury Vermont. The History department in the small liberal arts college has banned citing the popular online encyclopedia. Students who continue citing could face reduce grades or even failure from the class.
Don Wyatt, the chair of the History department, told Inside Higher Ed reporters that Wikipedia has proven to be untrustworthy from an academic standpoint. "Even though Wikipedia may have some value, particularly from the value of leading students to citable sources, it is not itself an appropriate source for citation." quote source: http://play.tm/wire/click/1332057

These are just 3 examples indicating that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source of information.

Chris Hogg writes:
It would be the end of one of the greatest Web domains every created on the Internet.
How could this be one of the greatest domains if the information given is not verified to be accurate? I really didn't have any idea what wiki was. It just started showing up when I would do searches and being the naive and gullible internet user I am I just took it to be correct and accurate - as do apparently millions of people world wide.
Is this really the right direction to go? If students growing up are led to believe that the info cited at wiki is correct, but it in fact has a veiled political agenda - isn't that a bit frightening? History can be rewritten, ideologies twisted, biographies falsified, definitions changed, ever so slightly to create a slightly different slant.

I am sorry, but wiki is a dangerous place to be in my opinion -and far from The Greatest Web Domain ever created on the internet.

NO respectable college allows it to be cited, that is not news.

Of course it isn't 100% reliable, but it DOES have facts to back up most of it's articles, citations of news articles, books, etc. Anytime a site is user-generated there's bound to be some mistakes.

But by-and-large, Wikipedia is great for pedestrian usage (non-scholarly). If I want to find out a quick date of something, I check wikipedia, generally they are spot on. If I want to know more about something pop-culture..again spot on. Hell, even some clarifications for some technical terms, the site is usually right.

One of the Greatest Web Domains ever? Hell yes.

Also, if you think History doesn't have a political slant, you are sadly mistaken. History is my life, and yes, there is a HUGE slant on history. The Victors write history, remember that. There is always a slant to it.

A false Wikipedia 'biography'
By John Seigenthaler
"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."
— Wikipedia

This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story.

I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious "biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable. There was more:

"John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984," Wikipedia said. "He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

At age 78, I thought I was beyond surprise or hurt at anything negative said about me. I was wrong. One sentence in the biography was true. I was Robert Kennedy's administrative assistant in the early 1960s. I also was his pallbearer. It was mind-boggling when my son, John Seigenthaler, journalist with NBC News, phoned later to say he found the same scurrilous text on Reference.com and Answers.com.

BobSP.....Did you look at any of the links I provided, like the story I just copied a bit from above?
Did you read anything I said in my post? Does it not bother you that people can be fed UNTRUTHS and led to believe they are factual? You are an adult - so you can reason if something just doesn't ring true, based upon your life experiences and knowledge gained, but can a 10 year old? A 12 year old? Hell, a not too bright or experienced, "I believe it because it came from a sight called wikipedia which rhymes with encyclopedia which is what I grew up with and it was the true source of history and geography and everything else" AnyYearOld?

I'm sorry, but I stand my previous post - I think leading the general public, which we all know can be pretty easily mislead - into believing that fiction is fact is dangerous............

@ bobSP:
NO respectable college allows it to be cited, that is not news.

Of course it isn't 100% reliable, but it DOES have facts to back up most of it's articles, citations of news articles, books, etc. Anytime a site is user-generated there's bound to be some mistakes.

Can you tell me BobSP, why no respectable college will allow wiki to be cited?
And you are telling me that even though it isn't 100% reliable, that it does have facts to back up MOST of its articles, that is OK with you? That it is OK to feed what is supposed to be valid information to the general public that may in fact be untrue?

You don't see any potential misuse of a site like this on a grand scale? You don't see, after enough time has passed, the general public has now been immersed in WIKI for many years how the general population could start to be subtly brainwashed into a whole new way of thinking and believing and relating??

You don't see any of a Bigger Picture here BobSP? Seriously! I thought you were brighter than that.

Yes. People are fed lies all the time. Wikipedia is neither the first, nor the last. Nor is it one of the worst offenders--Newspapers, Sites, and others are the some of the biggest generators of so-called slanted truths.

No it does not bother me to know that a small minority of the articles have false information--it's just a fact of life.

Yes, I read all three of the articles you posted, but I do not believe that the amount of false material is great enough to damn the entire website. Nearly every history book that covers North America glosses over the Genocide of the Amerindian peoples, and spouts the outright lie of the 'land bridge theory,' when all recent scientific discoveries show that Amerindian civilizations pre-date the land bridge by some 20-30,000 years.


If the article has no citations, don't believe it. If the general public exercises any type of common sense, they'll be able to see what should and shouldn't be taken as fact.


You have already been immersed in a biased history and do not know it, so no, I do not find wikipedia to be any more vile, any more base, than anything else that is put out an accepted as 'true.'

Oh, and thanks for showing me that you will turn to insults when posed with a differing opinion. Insulting my intelligence was unneeded and hurtful. Thanks, Now I'm done on this story.

If you have any questions, refer to my previous post: I said it was great for pedestrian usage, and that is all.

Sorry BobSP - I shouldn't have questioned your intelligence. I apologize.
I don't agree with you, but that doesn't make me any more intelligent than you.

I just figured you, of all people, would understand the point I was trying to make, but I was wrong.

Again, I am sorry. My bad.

GTS, what you aren't getting about bob's argument is that almost everything is cited.

If you contribute anything as far as stats are concerned, you must provide a link to a published credible source to prove that number or fact you are citing is accurate. Yes, you will get people who game it or replace serious posts with silly comments (probably things like "douche guzzler") but overall it's a reference only.

If you are looking for something, it's a good place to start and a good place to find more links. It's one of the greatest web domains because it has done so much for the Internet, it's fuelled new trends in usability and it's now getting credit for breaking news stories before mainstream media.

You are expecting Wikipedia to be more than it is, which is why you are criticizing it or why you believe it's nothing important. You don't expect YouTube to be the world's classiest video site where everything is ground-breaking, high-class television, but you still have to give the site credit for doing so much for online video and for the gold that is available there.

Wikipedia is a great reference site. I use it alot and so do my teens when they need to find out something or find other links.
I think advertising on the site would help them alot.

GotTheScoop,

There is an addendum to the wiki biography of Seigenthaler Sr. that is as follows:

Wikipedia controversy
Main article: John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy
In May 2005, an anonymous user (later identified as Brian Chase)[25] created a five-sentence Wikipedia article about Seigenthaler which contained defamatory content.

Seigenthaler contacted Wikipedia in September, and the content was deleted. He later wrote an op-ed on the experience for USA Today on November 29, in which he wrote "Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool."[26]
It looks as though they have a mechanism in place for retractions, etc. Also, there are many publications cited and there are references throughout the wiki article to use as backup. I tend to agree with bobSP and Chris Hogg as far as it would be a great loss if this website were to go down in flames. Perhaps as someone else suggested in one of their comments, Google will snap it up in a fire sale kind of way!

I don't think wiki should be shut down and I, too, use it alot. My only point is that the information is sometimes fraudelent and I don't honestly believe that everyone realizes that the definitions and articles are "user generated".

I guess I am from the olden days here, with my hardcover printed Encyclopedia Britannica's - knowing in my young formative mind that what was contained in those books was the real deal and not just something that a bunch of people had a meeting on and decided was real - you know what I mean?

BobSP states that history books are slanted, and I am sure that is true. Just like the endless debate vs Evolution or Creation......school books teach that we evolved from mud to monkeys to man - but won't teach the flip side of God and Adam and Eve.

I didn't mean to imply WIKI should be gone. Again, I just think it is important that the uninformed public, of which I was a member, should understand it roots and origin and that you can take everything you find there to be the gospel truth.

I just went onto the main page of the wiki site. Am I too understand that I can click into the wikibook section and post my definition of what, for example, a mosquito is?
I just clicked on a book about "bugs" and when I click on the various names of bugs it tells me there is no definition yet and invites me to create one.
Is this really how this whole thing works??

Please forgive me if I sound old and dumb here! :-)

Also, my previous post - meant to read CAN'T take everything you find there to be the gospel truth.

@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop):
I just went onto the main page of the wiki site. Am I too understand that I can click into the wikibook section and post my definition of what, for example, a mosquito is?
I just clicked on a book about "bugs" and when I click on the various names of bugs it tells me there is no definition yet and invites me to create one.
Is this really how this whole thing works??

Please forgive me if I sound old and dumb here! :-)

Also, my previous post - meant to read CAN'T take everything you find there to be the gospel truth.

Yes, it's all user contributed. When you write a description you have to follow their guidelines and source what you are writing with footnotes. Once you publish, they have hundreds or thousands of moderators that will police the site and ensure you aren't posting garbage. Sometimes it slips through but I've seen stuff get taken down in seconds after being posted. It is pretty well policed by the mods.

But you say above that you use it a lot -- you didn't at any point know how this site works, but you used it a lot?

Actually GTS, this would probably be a perfect opportunity for you to check Wikipedia to find out what Wikipedia is all about.

It's handy to have an online resource that provides you that detail, isn't it?

=)

Yes, that is PRECISELY my point Chris. I just assumed, as I do really strongly believe others do, that the information here was created by some reliable, viable, legitimate, verifiable source. You know, like whoever was in charge of publishing those dusty encyclopedia britannicas I grew up with.

I didn't know who they were, but I just knew that what was printed there was real.......maybe it was just the same thing only in a different form. Maybe a bunch of men and women sat in a room and said - "OK people, next item, how should we describe the Voolkenisian Tribe found deep in the jungles of Katmandu?" and I just bought it!?!?!?

I'll stop talking now...............

I've not used Wikipedia all that much but occasionally it's come in handy. I like it's often conversational, easy-to-read style, and I accept that the information it provides on subjects is contributed by mere mortals like myself. I feel the onus is on me to check that information if I plan to use it somewhere important, but it's been a good starting point for me on some things.

So, let's hope that the financial backer comes in and helps. Father Google might just have to bail out another child of the net and it certainly won't hurt them one iota to do so.

And I agree with you Chris: Wikipedia was one of the most innovative additions to the net, opening doors for other community style sites, like maybe even DJ?

Wikipedia was launched as the English wikipedia on January 15, 2001, as a complement to Nupedia, an expert-written and now defunct encyclopedia.Nupedia wanted scholars to volunteer content for free.

Poor Nupedia - my good old trusty bites the dust. Guess it was expecting the scholars to contribute for "free" that blew that one!

Apparently I am the only person who has been so ignorant as to the origin of wiki.......

If you find Wikipedia not good, you can try other Encyclopedias like Brittanica only problem they are costlier. If you really want to go in depth then Brittanica or you can go browse school literature, where they definitely need citations to back their articles.

I totally agree with GTS. I also agree with Chris, to a point. I have used Wikipedia, but I did understand how it was generated and that gives me serious pause. I have sometimes found things I know were absolutely incorrect, but no one had challenged. While many of us are educated enough to read what we find there with a critical eye, many - as GTS astutely points out - are not, and take it all as truth.

Particularly disturbing for me is that anything with any political info, has a leftist slant. Now many of you may be fine with that, but the fact is that such a view presents only one side of the story. I worry about kids using this for "research" and not being savvy enough to read between the lines. I have read the argument that Wikipedia is consistently left leaning because the large part of contributors are a younger, computer-using demographic. Makes sense; but doesn't give a realistic and balanced view of things.

So I have mixed feelings. I agree that it is a good concept, etc. I agree that online encyclopedias are needed. But bad info and research isn't needed. Some things shouldn't be "user-generated", or they lose quality. Like GTS, I am old-fashioned, and still think quality and standards in info that presents itself as a resource for research, should indeed be top notch - and balanced.

I use Wikipedia for research and info. It is surely a starting point to any research I do. I am well aware that anyone and everyone can contribute to the site, including me. As such it is vulnerable to trolls, vandals and bias but why should I throw out the baby with the bath water? I have seen the same bias in History books at the library that really made my blood boil.

I compare and contrast the info I read on Wiki for my studies, with the related scholarly links my university provides me. My university also has no problems with me citing Wiki as a source for some of the info I use in my studies. Yes, I have seen minor conflicting info and have pointed them out whenever I use Wiki as a source in my studies.

I look to Wiki for another opinion so so speak. It has served me well in the long run as we must think critically in these times of free info and so much of it at our finger tips we must be discerning. I am glad that my school allows for creativity and encourages it. Its goal is my growth in learning and maturing and completing the task God has for me to do.

I hope Wiki doesn't have to resort to ads to keep it afloat I kinda like not having them on there. They do accept donations and I hope they get one or a few good donors to support them. I guess the next best thing would be to have Google take them but I hope it doesn't have to resort to ads to keep it going.

@ Chris Hogg:
I know I will get hung for saying this, but I honestly think it would be fair for Wikipedia to host tasteful, non-invasive advertising to help fund itself. I know it goes against the whole principle but it's such a valid resource and it gets such high traffic that I think it would do more good than bad.

It's a sign of the times, maybe it's their only option. I'm for it.
I think the basic premise of wikipedia is great. It allows people to contribute as a community and if information is inaccurate, it eventually gets corrected.

As far as some universities not encouraging its use; that has nothing to do with the quality of its content, it's b/c they don't want students taking the easy way out, they prefer that they conduct their own independent research.

As far as its political info being liberal slanted, that's nonsense.
It may appear that way to people who isolate themselves off in the far right and seek only information that validates their own preconceived notions. It's representative of the people, are people slanted?

As far as GTS's mentioning of an endless debate of creationism VS
evolution, I would say the only people still 'debating' it are the religious right. Although the flat earth society might also be interested.

It will be a sad loss if it does go down. One of the great things about wikipedia is often times you can find great images either fully in the public domain or with a CC or GNUFDL licence. And there are some great and very useful images to be found attached to articles there.

User contributed is not authoritative but if you think anything that comes from so-called experts is the absolute truth, think again.

Perhaps they feel ad revenue would somehow taint them but I don't think so. Making public their financially strapped situation is a good move. It lets those with the funds to be able to help them know about it. Hopefully someone will step up to the plate.

I used Wiki all the time, as a baseline when I am interested in finding out more about a subject. Like anything on the internet it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and you can research it further.

Wiki's user base is also VERY quick to respond to incorrect information and take it down pretty fast, and if you find questionable content you can let them know as well. The whole concept behind it is that it is user based and with that is going to come people that are going to abuse the sytem, or at times not come clear on their message of what they are trying to say.

Most schools will not only take siting from Wiki, but from many other sites now - but again it makes a good reference point.

I can't see Wiki closing down either and I would much rather see them have subtle advertising than to be bought out.

wikipedia is one of the most valued resources on the net. If this rumour is true, wikipedia won't end, the founders won't disappear. Infact this is just the beginning to bigger and better things, bigger and better paths and bigger and better channels. Wikipedia is just a wave that hasn't fully made its splash yet.

If this rumour is true, there are tons of opportunities and resources out there that will keep this solution going and going and going.

I've used wikipedia more and more lately, but is not my main and only resource. I won't use wikipedia as a source that i can rely on. It is a starting point that will help my research and understanding. It is what i use to open my pathways and generating new opportunities and understanding.

Schools and colleges might have banned wikipedia, some might find wikipedia a danger to society, a mis-representation...but like anything if you used properly, it must be checked over and over again.

UPDATE: Feb 11 2007

According to a comment posted on Nick Carr's blog, a member of Wikimedia said the quote about needing funding was taken out of context.

For anyone that is interested, here is what it says:
"Hi. I an employed staff member of Wikimedia Foundation - the organization that runs Wikipedia. Ms. Devouard's comment was taken out of context.

Wikipedia will not be closing any time soon. Ms. Devouard was simply referring to the ongoing, pressing needs for funds that Wikipedia, like most nonprofit organizations, face. Ms. Devouard was attempting to showcase how, because of our global reach, Wikipedia needs to be much more creative in its fundraising efforts."

Looks like a few of us were correct in our earlier statement that it has to be a desperate call for cash. Or this guy is trying to pick up the pieces after the whole blogosphere FREAKED when this news broke.

----------
On another note, I don't think Wikipedia can integrate advertising because they would lose their non-profit status and have to start paying tax on earnings.

I will be gutted if this shuts down. One of my favourite ways to waste time at work is to flick through the random pages!!

It is an exceptionally useful too and I for one will be very sad if it does go.

PRESS STATEMENT REGARDING ISSUE

If the Wikimedia Foundation did go under, which it won't any time soon, but if it did, the information can be hosted by anyone else.

Anthere, our chair, said this in regards to ultimately we only have enough to run the Foundation at full steam for four months. We have a history of running way more economically than 99% of web-only businesses (note we're a charity).

Something hopeful: Danny Wool was hired two or three years back as the first employee of the Foundation. His purpose was to organize fundraising and grants. Only thing, he was always busy with other things like accounting, PR and deleting libel, so he had no time. The Foundation has hired a bunch of new people. While that means more money spent, it also means we can speed operations and work more efficiently.

Regarding ads: Many of the contributors have sad they'd not want to continue if there was advertising, no matter how unobtrusive and ethically high picked.

To peggels: We do have a link saying "Make a donation" on every page's left hand sidebar.

To cgull: Google, and no other company for that matter, could buy us. Charities can't be owned by corporations. They can be associated with, but never owned.

Take when we had donation matching by the Virgin Unite foundation, a registered charity run by Sir Richard Branson. We had tons and tons of complaints, so much that the next matching donor jumped ship immediately. While their ID is confidential, I can say they were a major Western-world tech company.

If you're just browsing, and don't mind month old content, may I suggest Answers.com (or any other mirror)? Then you're not contributing to the strain on the servers, but you're still reading our content.

That would be awful!

I love that website and use it so often.

i love wikipedia

I sure hope not, I use Wikipedia pretty much every day to look up a lot of obscure stuff that no other encyclopedia has and it's right at my fingertips.

I don't know about all that funding stuff but I love Wikipedia it's so informative and thorough.

Since its one of the top results you get on Google surely they'll get the funding they need.

I would hate to see them go.