A Personal Appeal from Wikipedia Programmer Brandon Harris
Wherein I explain as to why my face was on every Wikipedia page for an hour.
I am the Angry Hippy. 
Last week, Wikipedia tested a banner ad using my image and words to see how well it would work come our annual fundraiser. You may have seen it. You may have seen comments about it.
(Note that this testing is ongoing; there will be further tests, so don’t be surprised to see me there in the future.)
I have a lot of words I want to say about this but really there are two subjects: the process as to how banner ads are chosen, and my personal feelings as to why you should, like, donate a fucking dollar to Wikipedia.
Today, I’m going to explain the process.
Every year, a small team of kick-ass people get together and formulate a plan to raise enough money to keep the fires at the Wikimedia Foundation burning. It’s an important task and one I most certainly do not envy: it is an extremely stressful job, composed of long-in-the-tooth days and punctuated by lots of armchair criticism.
It’s also very scientific.
Many non-profits are funded through “large gift” systems. That is, they subsist via donations and grants from wealthy philanthropists or organizations. Typically the amounts involved are in the tens of thousands of dollars but can reach into the millions (such as large trusts). Obviously, a smart charity with an agile team of large-donation fundraisers can quickly make some serious cake with this model.
However.
The problem with the “large gift” model is that it opens the charity to being hamstrung or possibly being perceived as biased. Large grants often have strings attached: “Here is a million dollars, but you have to spend it building this feature.” Conditions like this aren’t flexible: you can’t take some of that money and spend it to keep the site running.
The more insidious problem is one of bias. If the Foundation accepts a multi-million dollar donation from a shady oil company, even if there are no strings attached, what does that say? Is there an implication that Wikipedia will be “soft” on the articles written about said shady oil company?
What happens next year, when shady oil company says, “So, we’d like to double our gift this year, but there’s some rather. . . unfortunate. . . words about us in your Wikipedia?”
Can’t do it. Won’t do it.
Enter the “small donation” model. The Foundation is fueled by thousands and thousands of “small” donations from “normal” people – the people who use it every day, me and you. The information in Wikipedia is crowd-sourced. Why not its funding, as well? In this way we avoid both the strings and the bias.
We obtain our small donations via banner ads. These banners are handled with science and undergo some rigorous A/B testing. The fundraising team creates a banner and writes (or handles) the landing page “appeal”. Multiple versions of these combinations and wordings are then run against each other in a kind of “Fundraising Thunderdome”: Two banners enter, one banner leaves.
The banner and appeal that has the highest monetary gain is the winner – until a new banner is created that tests better.
Enter the “Personal Appeal from Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales.” These banners – we call them “Jimmy Banners” – make an incredible amount of money compared to any other banners that are tested. So much more that it’s frankly ridiculous and irresponsible to not use them almost exclusively. There’s been a lot of exploration into exactly why this is true and various theories have been brought forth and played around with.
This year, the Fundraising team is playing around with “personal appeals” from other people associated with the Foundation. The other week, several members of the staff were interviewed (on camera) by the Foundation’s “storytellers” so that they could better write appeals in our own words. Why were we here, and why was this important.
I am, apparently, a “walking sound bite,” which is why I was first in the chamber. And that’s why my face is on Wikipedia.
For the curious, my two appeals and the results of my banner tests versus Jimmy Wales are available.
(Spoiler: I made more money.)
Comments on A Personal Appeal from Wikipedia Programmer Brandon Harris
Of course you made more. =D Your ad has more of a “Look man, you’re getting this info for free. Can’t you like, spare a few bucks to keep us going?” The Jimmy Wales’ “closeup” ads peer into the deepest recesses of your soul O_o;; (I kid, I kid)
I wonder if there’s a perception that Jimmy Wales, as a founder, makes a lot of money versus a perception that you, as an editor, do a lot of work. (Which is not to say that Wales does less work or that you make less money, just a hypothetical motivation question).
You brought home the hippie dollar.
This response is meant for Brandon Harris whether or not he sees it I will not know. But here it goes: I thought your appeal to people for donations was honest and from the heart. I understand how this capitalistic society really works, as well as, how flawed it truly is, BECAUSE OF GREED AND THE ODD OBSESSION TO CONTROL PEOPLE, that some very rich people are infected with, as if it were a virus. I thank you for the work you do brother, and if I was able, would give what I had to help Wikipedia maintain its ability to remain unbiased. I started a non-profit about 6 years ago, with the goal of educating and donating to community centers that truly care about the wellfare of inner city children. To say it bluntly, poor kids whose parents are not exactly the best role models, and therefore, without the proper guidence, tend to be left behind in one way or another. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful, even with a grant for $9,983.57, given to me to help me start the company. Which was called AID CHANGE. So I have an idea how hard it is to keep a not-for-profit company afloat. If I had it I would give it my friend. Thanks for all the work you do to keep us all educated. I hope you and Wikipedia never stray from telling the whole truth, not to say that you do now, I have not read your encyclopedia from cover to cover, so to speak. Ha Ha Ha. I get the feeling you were being honest and really know what is going on in this world and wanted to say thanks, so I googled your name and found this page. So THANKS BROTHER, and the best of luck to you in all that you do. You have my respect. Sincerely, Bradley Ryan
I just made a donation to save my soul.
I am a poor Filipino worker from (of course) the Philippines, and I would like to donate $5.00 a month out of my wee paycheck – because I believe in Wikipedia. Plus, I use this site a lot. More power to you, Mr. Harris!
I’ve donated BUT…how do I contribute a perspective to “Bombings of Switzerland in World War II”. I’d like to share a perspective on why bombs were dropped on Swiss cities provided to me by a cousin who served on a B24 that may have bombed Switzerland. It May provide a different explanation to that in the official reports. If you’re interested, contact me and I’ll reply.
Thanks for the useful and accurate nature of all who work for Wikipedia. Thanks, Brandon.
If u help me understand string theory postulating the Brian Green , is everything ultimately a point where is a thing not a point; how is it that energy of sub-atomic particles do not contain molecular weight or what I would call planck weight, I wull send u a hunderd dollars. http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html
http://www.theabhakingdom.com/The_Gateway.html
[also, why hasn’t this guy solved all problems related to grand unified field theory]
To Balladudude:
Interesting comment. You made a good point. However, the problem with your offer is that the offree, whom I assume is the same guy that has not “solved all problems related to grand unified field theory”, would have to teach you via Wikipedia to understand concepts you may be incapable of understanding. I suspect you have a very good understanding of physics; certainly one superior to mine.
To All:
I love Wikipedia, and I admire the altruism of their mission, but I don’t agree with their new campaign to solicit money from consumers. They have many other way to generate income that they failed to disclose. I’m going to donate blood to the Red Cross instead.
Why do you disagree with their technique? How are your alternatives different and better?
I donated (on the jimmy version). And I’ve clicked a total of about ten banner adds in my years on the web, so that’s saying something.
Sad truth, if wiki wasn’t there, I’d find the info somewhere else, I know you work hard so do I, sorry.
You may be surprise to hear from me for we do not know each other but I understand you may need professianal assist in expatriation of funds from recent business success of you. Contact me at my ewbsite for help.
Almost got me, Jeremy.
BARHAH!
wikipedia sucks ass, fucker.
{{Hugs!}}
I just read the wikipedia message from Brandon Harris. I then looked at the Alexa page ranker. I had to have a little laugh. He claims that Wikipedia is the 5th most visited page, but it’s the 6th.
If only it were a standard wiki page… then I could correct his incorrect stats. Haha
As you know, Alexa is not a good measurement of page rank. We get our results from ComScore. It’s also entirely possible that YouTube and Google are split out as separate entities on Alexa, when they are both Google properties.
Is an amazing work, but i thing wiki should get some of money using links into the articles, and with a definition pages of a monsters companies like coca-cola, microsoft, apple etc, if anyway wiki shows information about this companies wiki must get some dollars by this way….
N about you mr Harris i think ure hair and ure work at wiki are amazing thankyou and congrats because ure work help me to made my homeworks for college :D
Srry my english is sucks greetings from MEXICO i hope u get my msg…
squeeze on my nuts lick on my butt wikipedia….they got money why you want mines?
in all this world of distrust and fake appearances, you have to make a guess. i would guess that Brandon could have easily deleted the negative responses that make folks reconsider his authenticity, but he did not. i’m believing him & appreciating wikipedia. how many times I’ve entered something in the search engine & received a great response from them; rather than having to click a bunch of ads telling me I just won something only to try to make me buy something from other indescribably annoying sites. i’ve taken it forgranted. this makes a crazy world more right. i’m taking a leap of faith for you Brandon. thanks for standing up about this. i’m with u. (I never post stuff…this is highly unusual for me AND I donated $20!)
If I was walking through a mall and I saw someone trying to raise money for a cause, and they were looking at me like I stole something from them (like Brandon Harris is in his “Personal Appeal” photo with his arms crossed), I’d be pissed off and there’d be no way that I’d give them any money. The photo of the founder is much better. It looks like he’s politely asking for the money as opposed to Brandon demanding it (which is the worst kind of way to raise money). Whether Wikipedia knows it or not, Brandon Harris’s photo is representing them in a very negative way. It would be smart to replace that photo with a picture of someone smiling. Until then, I will continue to take pride in using Wikipedia’s system for free.
Just fyi, this is my personal blog, not the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikipedia’s. I will pass your concerns on, however.
U steel my words, I totally agree, he should not be looking like a begger, but like confident person with self esteem.
I will be using the wikipedia free of cost untill they change the photo.:D
Interesting. Your words sure give weight to an important path of psycho-social analysis. That is, there´s no way one image can totally reach through to everyone´s hearts with the same efficacy. The point that arises is what image best ($) appeals to what kind of donation that is sought for. That is, both Jimmy´s and Harris´s appeal to some particular functioning within us. The question that should be scientifically considered is which one appeals to that part of us that´s able to establish the most PERMANENT relationship with wikipedia. Maybe we cannot answer this question right away and the empirical, long term research that Wikipedia is carrying out seems to be the best instrument to raise this answer. Personally, I feel that Harris´s image comes across more like the “talking cricket”, that calls on to the responsibility-taking side of people, one that seems more efficient in terms of establishing a relationship, not just one single donation. But I guess only empirical research, as the one being carried out, can qualify or disqualify this hypothesis.
Get a haircut and get a job, and not necessarily in that order
I, uh, have a job. Working for the Wikimedia Foundation.
Brandon sexy Harris! I am going to donate because I want to have sex with you. Happy Thanksgiving.
Please – this is just a site for recycled information-there is nothing original here – just a compilation of data in a an easy to search format – why so serious about the “threat” of large donations? If the donor insists on anything but objectivity, just decline the donation. Your site is not world peace or a cure for cancer. Stop acting as if your site is so important. Donate money to abused children, abused women, or cancer research first.
I appreciate that you’re trying to cure cancer (I assume as much, given your email address is “curecancer@”), but I’m just going to say that we should agree to disagree about the importance of Wikipedia.
I actually have had several intersections with cancer in my life (not the least of which was the death of one of my best friends, Howard, and one of my oldest friends, Martina), so I am not unfamiliar with its pull. I empathize greatly.
I do not believe that there is any one issue that should rise in prominence over any other issue. Can one say that curing cancer is more important than curing AIDS, or world hunger? I don’t think so.
That said, I believe that Wikipedia can serve as a vector to solve *most* of these problems. Education is, in my opinion, the Silver Bullet for ALL our problems. With enough smart, educated minds, we can cure cancer. Or AIDS. Or create solutions for world hunger.
We can *end oppression*. We can *fight evil*. That’s what we’re working towards: a bright future of knowledge and tolerance.
I hope you can see it from my point of view, and know that we are on the same side.
Jorm,
I appreciate the etiquette and maturity of your reply. Sites like these facilitate the exchange of ideas, which is axiomatically good. I hope “Fed up with your self grandeur” learns from your example.
Will
Dear fed-up,
I believe it´s important to be fed up, obviously to the point of not blurring our views, which may not be your case. But, if you allow me to contribute to this important discussion with my own personal statement as a worker in the health field and as professor in this area, well, I must say, from practical experience, that an enterprise such as Wikipedia DOES make the difference, or rather, even more difference it purports itself to make. For one, concerning health itself and CANCER in particular, both I as a researcher in health and my students have benefitted from info in wikipedia and other similar tools more than by using other tools available in the very path of research of tackling cancer than tools with a different orientation on the web. This contrasting and complementary role of Wikipedia, holding its stand as an antithesis helps shape the other tools that contrast with it as well. The result is we all benefit from the synthesis that comes out. I hope I could get my point across. Thanks for listening.
I like the new pic on the banner ads. Or the older pic I just noticed.
It’s enough to bump Lemmy up a few notches here: http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-charliesheenmaximlivingsexlegends,0,5057260.story
Ola, A wikipédia precisa disponibilizar formas diferentes dos usuários entrarem em contato mais diretamente com a equipe. Eu fiz um trabalho sobre a wikipedia quando conclui minha faculdade aplicando as regras de Nielsen nos métodos de pesquisa Wikipédia:Navegue e Categoria:Conteudo. Alem de uma pesquisa sobre o conhecimento dos usuarios aobre esses métodos.
Gostaria de repassar a equipe Wikipedia. garanto que a arrecadação também seria maior se os usuários tivessem como fazer contatos com a equipe mais diretamente.
please take your picture off of the trite request for money. The first time I saw it I was sick of it.
You can always click the “x” in the corner to hide the banners (or better yet, you can donate).
The importance of keeping your image for a while, and I say this obviously addressing the whole wikipedia staff, is of essential importance in terms of empirically testing what image BEST favors the establishment of a relationship with users, which has to do with identification. It´s important that prospective DONORS, not just the regular public, identifies with the image portrayed. Mind you, users are not necessarily donors. It´s important to sift through the users to find out who the most committed donors can be BUILT UP. There are a lot of academic and curious people like me who have always felt fortunate Wikipedia is around, and Jimmy´s figure has conforted me by saying, “Hey pal, it´s okay if you don´t donate, but will you please help us help you?” So, the “It´s-okay” mirror-discourse in my mind ended up stronger in me. Now, Harris´s image, just as it is, says to me “Come on, man, don´t you wanna be part of it all? Don´t you want to make that difference?” So it brought up that militant side of me that had been asleep for so long. So here´s the bottomline to me, as it may be to many academic, scientific or middle class people, which maybe amounts to a great deal of users: Using wikipedia excites the Scientist in me, but donating to Wikipedia excites the Militant in me. In this faxhion, the relationship I now have with wikipedia is WHOLE, that is, addressing both urges in my soul. This may be true to many prospective donors. The whole question here is what can make a user a donor? What can effectively BUILD a committed donor out of a regular user? What´s more important in terms of financial support: to rely on casual gestures of donation or to build a lifetime support relationship, that appeals to personal causes in individuals? Well, I´d be glad if I could contribute to Wikipedia more closely. I must say this whole discussion is really exciting and look forward to contributing more with my insights and work. Thanks. Maybe by working together we can tackle these questions, which to me, are key in cosolidating an important identity of relationships between Wikipedia and donors, bringing Wikipedia to a considerable point of maturity concerning self-sustainance.
Stop with the begging already, every year its the same crap and it gets old. The fact that the Wikipedia organization is part of a larger entity Wikimedia and Wikimedia has no accountability of what it does with the money that Wikipedia kicks up is a cause for concern. Compound that with the fact that the Wikipedia Jimbo makes close to half a million a year tells us that you guys are far from starving and probably can afford to take a pay cut to get your finances in order.
Stop the beggin, get your shit together and have some ads.
Hello! I’m sorry you disagree so heavily. I’d like to correct some misconceptions in your comment, however.
First, the Wikimedia Foundation absolutely has accountability for what it does with the money. All non-profits do. You can obtain financial records and see for yourself from http://www.wikimediafoundation.org.
Second, I have no idea how much money he makes in a years, but Jimmy Wales is not employed by the Foundation, nor does he receive any amount of money from us. He pays for his own flights and his own lodgings. I’m not sure where you heard that from but it is demonstrably untrue.
Having ads on the site would cripple its neutrality, which is one of the most important cogs in the Machinery that Is Wikipedia.
Anyways, if the banners bother so you so much, you can always click the little “x” in the corner and they’ll go away. Alternatively, you can actually donate and they’ll go away then, too.
i’m from Malaysia. since last 3 years i have use a lot of info from wikipedia. so i have donate $10. the info i get from wiki are much more value than my $10.
That’s great! Thank you!
Note: a “conversation” consisting of four comments by “different people” all posting from the same IP address has not been approved or published. It’s okay to disagree with me in public; it is not okay to spam or harras.
That’s great! Thank you!
I like the new pic on the banner ads.
You had me sold. Until I remembered that there is still a ridiculous and inexplicable lockdown on the bio of one pseudo “internet celebrity” that is factually inaccurate and serves only to promote her agenda.
If someone as minor as her can wield that kind of power over what information is presented on the page, it DOES make me question the ‘bias’ of the site.
You give an amazing pitch, though!
Wikipedia is one of the most important inventions since the printing press. Saying that we should donate to cure diseases instead of donating to Wikipedia is like saying we shouldn’t give any money to colleges or universities until these diseases are cured. It’s a ridiculous argument. The man who will one day discover the cure for your illness could be a high-school student reading Wikipedia at this very moment who is inspired by the website to become a medical researcher.
Definitely!!! I happen to be a college professor and couldn´t agree more!
you are much more fun to look at – people are pretty shallow – so there you go – good looking funky intelligent looking man equals more donations… and the shirt was a good choice…
Prior to Wikipedia the internet kind of sucked. Wikipedia has transformed the internet from a series of disjointed websites to a place where you can find a thoughtful and substantive answer on just about any subject. I use Wikipedia all the time, but I must admit I haven’t donated. After reading your thoughtful appeal I’ll make sure to begin pitching in.
I’d also like to say that I admire that you’ve managed to mix your career as a programmer with your personal mission to make the world a better place. The world needs more people like Brandon Harris. Thanks for helping to make Wikipedia so awesome.
Brandon, I´ll tell you how I felt about your appeal (in contrast with those of Jimmy´s) for the sake of helping all of you guys get a better insight about your fundraising relationship with your readers (a target audience, anyhow, please forgive me for using this marketing-loaded tech term, after all, these capitalism folks seem to put a lot more fatih and industry to what they do than most “good-will” people…unlike you guys, of course). Anyway here´s my personal insight both as regular citizen of the planet and as the head shrink I happen to be.
Jimmy seems to me as this great insightful genius of the Einstein type and this hard-working, exceedingly devout “avis rara” that incarnates amongst us apes only a few times in a millenium, one person whose genius, gut, seems to be so magically blessed as not to depend so much on an “insignificant” contribution of some “anonymous dude like me”… whereas the Brandon Harris image comes across as that of a “dude just like me” whose cause is MY CAUSE AND CAN´T DO WITHOUT ME. In that sense, it´s way more persuasive! Ya dig? The regular folk in us (stripped of that “man of success” status) will identify with the Harris image more, and will help identification with the Jimmy image too, that is, the Harris image reveals more of that essential core in Jimmy himself and in everyone… Well, I hope I was able to put in simple words what I mean.
Hi, I am from India. Just one suggestion from my side….. In India the site shows payment options only by credit card but unfortunately many young people over here dont own a credit card and generally own a debit card. I personally wanted to donate but cannot because of the above stated problem. Maybe if wikimedia introduces more payment options, the donations can go up.
Yea I felt the same last month.
Now there is an option to pay through Visa (Visa/Debit card). I just made a donation through my debit card.
Direct bank to bank transfer via Net banking would further increase the donation.
wikipedia’s help to everyone is immeasurable or beyond compare but to ask donation funds from users wil certainly brought it’s decline as people will realize that wiki is not really to help but to dupe money. money is dirty as it is the root cause of evil not to say that it is the god of the jews.
Dear Alex,
See, there’s no possible interaction in a system, without giving, that means, you cannot participate in any system without being willing to give, that is, if you are willing only to receive. You must be willing to give, if not to weekypedia, than to someone whosoever that is part of your world, or do you not live in a world? Whatever you give away (not necessarily to wikipedia), will favor the very world that wikipedia is a part of. So wikipedia will benefit from your giving anyway. The fact that you direct your giving to wikipedia or to raising a child that will one day help wikipedia grow (or not) is a matter of choice. Just as children depend on someone caring for them, so does wikipedia. Ya dig?
Hopefully it’s less effective. Wikipedia’s continued existence isn’t a good thing, after all. Sure, I use it if I need to look up an episode guide for a TV show, but for anything where accuracy matters it wouldn’t be my first choice.
I’m not sure this ad will be more effective than those of Jimbo, though, as it’s too obvious they’re going for the hippie slack stoner vote.
While Wikipedia remains a big hit in today’s era of the technological information bandwagon, it is unfortunate to say that Wikipedia is only as reliable as the people whom continue to post on it. Ofcourse the web database guzzles bandwidth because it is an easily accessible source of information, granted it is considered an encyclopedia and hey, people love the information when it is free. The only thing I would suggest to keep that infotyrant running is to charge an annual membership fee of anywhere from $5 to $10. Ofcourse about 1/100th of the people would bother with the web page anymore but, it is no different then begging for the money and playing off of a sob story.
So, agitated hippy, cowboy up. All corporate giants are able to ask for government aid, right? They get their bailouts and it isn’t fair to us the people. Now you’re asking for a handout for your driven passion of keeping Wikipedia on the air. You should make an actual business decision (since Wikipedia has grown so much, you should consider it an info corporation), a risk per say, and charge people a small annual fee. Not asking for handouts like the hippies that hang out a few blocks from my house. Don’t think because you do a favor for billions of people, that even one of them is truly obligated to return the favor. So charge a price. Would I continue using Wikipedia if a fee is initiated? To be honest, probably. Now ask the rest of the people this.
Charging a fee to use Wikipedia would drastically change it, maybe even destroy it. Wikipedia is just as reliable as printed books. The notion that it is unreliable because anyone can post to Wikipedia is a myth. The IBM study showed that vandalism on Wikipedia is repaired in under 5 min (on average). By the way, you can’t believe everything you read in printed books. If anything, the high cost of printing books makes them more biased on account of the large capital needed requiring the backing of funding from corporations, universities, or government entities that force dogmatic views on the author. The comedian Stephan Colbert told all his viewers to vandalize the page on elephants and it had been shut down due to vandalism by the time I finished watching the episode. So the joke is on him and his lame made-up word “truthyness.”
Yes Christ charging to use Wikipedia would change it greatly, as I already previously acknowledged. And anybody posting to wikipedia being a myth? No, while it is constantly vandalized, Wikipedia tends to be highly biased becaused it is compiled from a greater public interest which have conflicting views amongst eachother. Oh, and lets not forget about the cost of books and how they are not credible. Lets see, if the information derived from school text books is just as reliable as what is found on Wikipedia, then why are they typical backed by multiple copyrights? It isn’t just the pictures bub. Also, what books are you reading that are where the author(s) is being dogmatized? You sound just like another 99% bandwagoneer blaming everything bad on the government and big evil corporations. Lets see here, shut your trap. Maybe if it weren’t for penny penchers like you who want things for free, great things for free, and if a price is imposed you wig out, corporations wouldn’t seem so bad. You act like corporations get an easy ride from the government, unlike the US citizens who file for bankruptcy, get government loans and grants, collect falsely claimed disability, and also just not pay their bills in general but, everything is eye for an eye. While it is unfortunate for the greater population to get punished because of a few (actually quite many), that try to screw the system. Quit blaming everything bad that happens on entities that are bigger than you, that were created by people, like you and I, that had bigger ambitions.
bueno uikypedia, me a sido de gran ayuda para todo. y me gusta porque segun lo k yo creo las informaciones que tiene son muy importantes lo uso bastante desde el estudio hasta informaciones de famosos, peliculas, etc…saludos de rep. dom.
segun mi hermana sin eso no se puede vivir jajaja es mi opinion respetenla ok
grasias!!!!
I just want to say that Wikipedia has taught me so much since I started using it in middle school, when research papers and professors’ websites were way beyond my level of understanding. I am a nanotechnology engineering student aspiring to do research in nanomedicine. I have always taken the time to explain science and math concepts to my friends, and I know it’s a lot of work compiling all that information and teaching it to someone. Sometimes if I’m busy I’ll end up referring them to Wikipedia. I appreciate what you do, and I will be making a donation.
P.S., you are very good looking.
Is Brandon Harris on powerful antidepressants or something ? His face swallowed so much and looks like he is about to ether suicide or shoot someone.
Every time I go Wikipedia this sh*t appears. I would pay a $1 just to get read of this shocking face. To bad I have no money on PayPal account.
*hugs*
you fly to isreal ths year poland last year and god knows what other TOTALLY USELESS geeky gab fest “the foundation” sent you to wasting donated funds, maybe you and mega$jimbo and the 100 or so SEO brainiacs and marketers that so cleverly put yer mug on the pan handling banner (that led me to find out more….go figure) yeah perhaps you should consider pay cuts and dropping the junkets before begging from the unwashed…aarrrggg i got sore fingers ……nice try hippy gamer …lol………
You have to realize that you are simply a gift to this world! :)
and that’s beautiful.
love this
this is not right it is free it should never cost anything
I’m really astonished to see ppl’s negative and abusive comments against wikipedia & Jorm, and equally appeased to see Jorm’s calm and positive replies (just his mature replies prompted me to donate). How can anyone hate wikipedia?? It’s ok to not want to donate, but why would you abuse ppl who are doing the good work??
Great work Wikimedia Foundation… keep it up!
Because it isn’t doing good work. Wikipedia is a joke. Can you really not see why?
Wait a minute. I am going to infer (possibly incorrectly) that you are suggesting that Wikipedia isn’t doing good work because Wikipedia is a joke. You might enjoy this article. In addition, your last sentence kind of seems like a loaded question which in turn could lead to an attack on umesh. Perhaps if you provided more evidence, we would be more inclined to listen to your argument.
Enough of that. Brandon, thanks for your work. Coincidentally, I donated under Jimmy’s banner, but that is because I saw it before yours. Thanks for the great attitude and perspective on knowledge and education.
Michael
The short version of your reply: “No. I can’t see why.” Thanks for playing, but reconsider in future before attempting to punch above your weight. Your reliance on these links is proof enough of your weak mind. I’ll give you more time and see if you can figure out for yourself why Wikipedia is useless and pointless. I won’t hold my breath.
How about I give you one concise reason why Wikipedia is NOT useless (since clearly I understand the concept of an argument, and you do not).
Wikipedia provides an excellent, centralized location for beginning research. In general, Wikipedia is not accepted in academia as a reliable source of information as it can be freely edited by those who are not an expert in the given subject matter, but it contains countless links to sources that are managed by experts. While I concede that Wikipedia is not the only good location for beginning research, it is an excellent one because of the breadth of material that it covers.
I have given you one reason why Wikipedia is NOT useless. If I have indeed “punched above my weight”, please provide a rebuttal instead of more unjustified claims. Alternatively, feel free to hold your breath.
Michael
PS: I think my use of links demonstrates that I have at least a small amount of technical proficiency with HTML. Clearly, you didn’t even glance at the articles, so sadly it was a waste of the extra three minutes I spent finding the links. :-( Admittedly, the last two were a bit gratuitous, but the third from last was spot on. ;-)
may be from your perspective.
I don’t give a **** about what others say about the wikipedia’s founders or its editors…More than 60% of my searches are answered in wikipedia. It is a great site..looking neat without any Ads. Thats all I want from wikepedia.
Why cant we just donate if we have or simply appreciate if we dont have something to give?
Hi from Russia. I regularly use Wikipedia, preferably english one, and I want to say thanks (I’ve donated only 144 rub. because that was the only hanging cache available in the online payment system I use, not so much, but I hope this will help).
Also I want to say that we here playing this funny game with article titles too, and I’ve found this quite cheerful: http://i44.tinypic.com/kbvb5u.jpg :)
Greetings!
This is connect-o-freaky. Last night went to check out wikipedia… saw your appeal… clicked on Brandon and spent some money….
Tonight…. Googled “gaijin” followed the link and HERE YOU ARE AGAIN!
As a “poverty” professional (teacher), I really value Wikipedia… This is special cos the whole donation process doesn’t give you the chance to say why you’re donating.. Now I have……..
Over the past week I have noticed various banners on Wikipedia & have chosen to read them because you don’t see tacky advertising on wikipedia. The messages have been simple & direct.
It makes me feel how I feel when I get a letter from my child’s school asking for a voluntary donation- those that can do, those that can’t don’t. I always pay the full recommended donation, even if for some trips it does leave me short. If my donation for my child going on a school trip benefits a child whose parents could not or would not pay then my payment wasn’t in vain.
Asking for money/donations for a service that was previously free is asking your consumers to put a price on the service you provide. Nothing is free in life- Wikipidia info has been invaluable to me & therefore I will happily donate what I can afford.
I do hope wikipidia stays ad free =)
you’re a lieng bum wiki makes millions asshole and why is your name jorm on here when your real name is BRANDON HARRIS
Yes, I donated my first $5 to wikimedia after reading Brandon Harris’s appeal. One more reason that made the donation appealing to me is that wikimedia now accepts donation in vietnamese dong, so it did not require lots of efforts to donate, except some mouse clicks.
Cheers,