Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

subego · Dec 17, 2010, 01:18 AM

Just SHUT THE **** UP ALREADY!

Jesus.

Dork. · Dec 17, 2010, 01:30 AM

Wow, if even Jesus is pissed at Jimmy Wales, maybe he's overdoing it a bit.

Doofy · Dec 17, 2010, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Just SHUT THE **** UP ALREADY!

Yes.
And GET A SHAVE.

(click the little cross thingy on the banner - he goes away).

Eug · Dec 17, 2010, 02:05 AM

I was actually starting to cringe whenever I thought of going to Wikipedia. It felt like a perpetual telethon.

However, the last few times I went there, there was no such annoyance. Is it finally gone?

reader50 · Dec 17, 2010, 03:33 AM

If you close it, it stays shut for a few days. And other staff appear too, it's not just Jimmy.

iMOTOR · Dec 17, 2010, 03:38 AM

You get what you pay for.

subego · Dec 17, 2010, 04:12 AM

Like with Google.

CharlesS · 05:05 AM

Bandwidth ain't free, especially when you're one of the most visited sites on the whole Internet, but that doesn't give Wikipedia an excuse to ask for money. They should pay their bills the respectable way, by filling the site with things like this:

Or this:

Bonus points if they add the kind that start talking to you, the random green double-underlines that pop up something huge in front of what you were trying to read when you accidentally hover over them, or the kind that cause Google Safe Browsing to flag the page for malware. Or the kind that cover up the content you're trying to read and force you to hunt for a tiny "close" button that moves around as you're trying to click on it.

Wikipedia should look like this:

Sheesh. Wikipedia is one of the least annoying sites on the whole Internet, Jimmy Wales plea or no Jimmy Wales plea.

subego · Dec 17, 2010, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Bandwidth ain't free, especially when you're one of the most visited sites on the whole Internet, but that doesn't give Wikipedia an excuse to ask for money. They should pay their bills the respectable way, by filling the site with things like this:

Bonus points if they add the kind that start talking to you, the random green double-underlines that pop up something huge in front of what you were trying to read when you accidentally hover over them, or the kind that cause Google Safe Browsing to flag the page for malware. Or the kind that cover up the content you're trying to read and force you to hunt for a tiny "close" button that moves around as you're trying to click on it.

Like with Google.

turtle777 · Dec 17, 2010, 09:21 AM

Still, if your business models requires begging for donations, you might wanna rethink some things.

At least if you're NOT a charity.

-t

SpaceMonkey · Dec 17, 2010, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Still, if your business models requires begging for donations, you might wanna rethink some things.

At least if you're NOT a charity.

-t

I don't understand how running Wikipedia as a non-profit charitable organization is an illegitimate business model.

Phileas · Dec 17, 2010, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Still, if your business models requires begging for donations, you might wanna rethink some things.

I totally disagree. Most of our museums, universities and even NPR rely on donations and bequests. I haze zero problems with WP asking for money and even less donating to them.

turtle777 · Dec 17, 2010, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Phileas

I totally disagree. Most of our museums, universities and even NPR rely on donations and bequests. I haze zero problems with WP asking for money and even less donating to them.

You may disagree.

Just imagine a museum that has a "Please donate" sign at every single piece of is exhibition. Ugh.

-t

ort888 · Dec 17, 2010, 12:41 PM

Now imagine that same museum, but not existing at all because they have no money.

turtle777 · Dec 17, 2010, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

Now imagine that same museum, but not existing at all because they have no money.

*shrug*

I imagine things all the time that don't exist due to the lack of money.

My Porsche, my villa in Italy, World Peace etc...

-t

subego · Dec 17, 2010, 12:56 PM

Museums around here just charge you admission (free for students).

CharlesS · Dec 17, 2010, 03:20 PM

So should Wikipedia do that then?

subego · Dec 17, 2010, 03:35 PM

They could have a tiered system. Pay for ad or urgent appeal free.

It doesn't need to be that drastic. Lower key would be a start. I was considering donating before it got on my nerves.

Protip: don't have Madison Avenue photo of insanely rich dude making the pitch.

CharlesS · Dec 17, 2010, 03:50 PM

How would you define "lower key"? It's a static, non-animated banner that doesn't jump around, flash, use Flash, obscure anything, or do anything to distract you from the article you're reading. How is it worse than any other banner ad on the Internet? I don't get it.

And what does Wales' personal wealth have to do with it? I doubt he has enough to keep a massively popular site like Wikipedia running indefinitely out of his own pocket, nor would I expect him to.

Doofy · Dec 17, 2010, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

How would you define "lower key"? It's a static, non-animated banner that doesn't jump around, flash, use Flash, obscure anything, or do anything to distract you from the article you're reading. How is it worse than any other banner ad on the Internet? I don't get it.

It's his grimacing, unshaven face over and over and over and over again that does it.

CharlesS · Dec 17, 2010, 04:12 PM

So the whole reason for this thread is that you don't like beards. Okay.

I, myself, use Wikipedia all the time and appreciate the fact that it's not only free for my use but that they use pretty much the least obtrusive method that they could possibly have chosen to cover their operating costs. YMMV I guess.

nonhuman · Dec 17, 2010, 04:48 PM

Go buy an Encyclopedia.

It's just for a short period of time while they're raising funds for the next year, sheesh...

iMOTOR · Dec 17, 2010, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

World Peace etc...

-t

World Peace has nothing to do with a lack of money.

turtle777 · Dec 17, 2010, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

World Peace has nothing to do with a lack of money.

Oh hell, a shitload of money surely would help.

But, for the sake of the argument, let's make that "Solve World Hunger". There.

-t

Doofy · Dec 17, 2010, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

But, for the sake of the argument, let's make that "Solve World Hunger". There.

Solved. Just halve Amerikan portions and send the other half to the starving.
A few cargo planes and some microwaves, job done.

turtle777 · Dec 17, 2010, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Solved. Just halve Amerikan portions and send the other half to the starving.
A few cargo planes and some microwaves, job done.

Hey Doofy, I'll get right on it.

While we're at it, would you mind getting me a new car for Christmas

-t

Doofy · Dec 17, 2010, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

While we're at it, would you mind getting me a new car for Christmas

'Fraid you'll have to wait until next year now Turty.

(I'm amazed at the old dear's new Freelander, BTW. Properly good in the snow - completely embarrasses both the Jeeps.)

subego · Dec 17, 2010, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

How would you define "lower key"? It's a static, non-animated banner that doesn't jump around, flash, use Flash, obscure anything, or do anything to distract you from the article you're reading. How is it worse than any other banner ad on the Internet? I don't get it.

Huh?

Some banner ads are good, some are obnoxious.

Have you seen the Moto banner ad around here? Just a horrible ad. The guy in the picture looks like he's about to burst a blood vessel. Is that what Moto does to you?

Wait... Don't answer that.

And what does Wales' personal wealth have to do with it? I doubt he has enough to keep a massively popular site like Wikipedia running indefinitely out of his own pocket, nor would I expect him to.

I don't either, but you can't see that some might find the request less compelling when it comes from the guy who has a yacht? I wouldn't have even thought about it if he hadn't plastered his puss all over the place.

reader50 · Dec 17, 2010, 09:40 PM

My only objection is the repetitiveness of the banner. They rotate it occasionally with a plea from at least one other staff member, and I think they show the staff from different angles sometimes. That's good, but I mostly get Jimmy on left. Ads should have variety.

CharlesS · Dec 17, 2010, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Huh?

Some banner ads are good, some are obnoxious.

Have you seen the Moto banner ad around here? Just a horrible ad. The guy in the picture looks like he's about to burst a blood vessel. Is that what Moto does to you?

Wait... Don't answer that.

Not sure really how this relates to my question.

I don't either, but you can't see that some might find the request less compelling when it comes from the guy who has a yacht? I wouldn't have even thought about it if he hadn't plastered his puss all over the place.

So what? Bill Gates is one of the richest people in the world, and no one criticizes him for running a charitable non-profit organization. Same goes for museums, symphony orchestras, universities, etc. — they may charge for admission, tuition, etc., but they often largely depend on support from donors in order to keep afloat. I don't see what would make Wikipedia any different from those things.

turtle777 · Dec 17, 2010, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

So what? Bill Gates is one of the richest people in the world, and no one criticizes him for running a charitable non-profit organization.

I do. You are welcome.

-t

Phileas · Dec 17, 2010, 10:35 PM

There's a simple solution to this. If the appeal gets on your nerves to such a degree, stop using wikipedia. Peace of mind for you, one less leach for WP to worry about.

There, problem solved.

iMOTOR · Dec 17, 2010, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

I do. You are welcome.

-t

Since when did you turn into such a bleeding-heart lib?

subego · Dec 17, 2010, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by Phileas

There's a simple solution to this. If the appeal gets on your nerves to such a degree, stop using wikipedia. Peace of mind for you, one less leach for WP to worry about.

There, problem solved.

Not really.

If they ask for money in a way that puts off donors, they have a problem whether I use it or not.

iMOTOR · Dec 17, 2010, 10:49 PM

I don’t think any reasonable people are being put off by the banner ad.

indigoimac · Dec 17, 2010, 11:05 PM

meh, it's a free, quite valuable service. they could make it subscription based and a good chunk would pay for it -- they try to put it off this way -- just like local pbs stations.

I think both, pbs, and wiki, should have ads. free revenue, and i doubt it will bias anything any more than various corporate sponsorships both organizations have garnered.

alternatively, they should have julian assange make a plea banner. i would laugh.

Also, they have more or less done this every year, it appeared they are 2/3 of the way to their pretty average goal. I'm sure they'll be done soon enough, lol.

subego · 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Not sure really how this relates to my question.

To answer your question directly, examples of lower key would be:

Less of them.
No photography.
More variety.
Less demanding (I can deduce what's going on, I don't need urgent: please read).
Less Jimmy Wales.

Originally Posted by CharlesS

So what? Bill Gates is one of the richest people in the world, and no one criticizes him for running a charitable non-profit organization. Same goes for museums, symphony orchestras, universities, etc. — they may charge for admission, tuition, etc., but they often largely depend on support from donors in order to keep afloat. I don't see what would make Wikipedia any different from those things.

I'm not criticizing him for running a charitable organization. I laud it, which is why I don't want him to **** it up.

Let's put it this way. If Bill Gates wants you to give money to starving children, he doesn't make the pitch, he steps back and lets the starving children make the pitch. Maybe he's there, but it's overwhelmingly clear it's not about him.

That's not what Jimmy's doing.

subego · Dec 17, 2010, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

I don’t think any reasonable people are being put off by the banner ad.

I won't go so far as to include myself in the category of "reasonable people", however I can say with absolute assuredness you are mistaken.

Doofy · Dec 17, 2010, 11:23 PM

Jimmy went away about a month back here. He's still on over there?

I'm asking because if he's still on, then it makes no sense. Wiki plea can't really compete with the need to buy swag for Christmas, can it? Shouldn't he be begging sometime in summer?

Laminar · Dec 18, 2010, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by indigoimac

meh, it's a free, quite valuable service. they could make it subscription based and a good chunk would pay for it -- they try to put it off this way -- just like local pbs stations.

I think both, pbs, and wiki, should have ads. free revenue, and i doubt it will bias anything any more than various corporate sponsorships both organizations have garnered.

PBS has ads. The kids shows are "brought to you by" Juicy Juice or something, the carpentry shows are "brought to you by" Stanley and Delta, Sesame Street is "brought to you by" the letter "H," etc.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Jimmy went away about a month back here. He's still on over there?

I'm asking because if he's still on, then it makes no sense. Wiki plea can't really compete with the need to buy swag for Christmas, can it? Shouldn't he be begging sometime in summer?

I donated $150,000 to Wikipedia in the names of my friends and family for Christmas.

Doofy · 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

I donated $150,000 to Wikipedia in the names of my friends and family for Christmas.

So if you're earning that much why are you still living in a shitty house and driving a shitty car?

I like unicorns.

Laminar · Dec 18, 2010, 01:07 AM

No, YOU'RE a Brian.

Doofy · Dec 18, 2010, 01:10 AM

I keep telling you Brian, there's only one Brian. And you're it. Pay attention.

subego · Dec 18, 2010, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by Laminar

I donated $150,000 to Wikipedia in the names of my friends and family for Christmas.

Dear ~~Santa~~ Laminar,

I have been good and would like a MacBook Air. The 11 inch one. The 13 inch one is dumb.

P.S. turtle has been naughty and should get the Krampus.

Laminar · Dec 18, 2010, 01:19 AM

Turtle gets a Zune and a Kin.

turtle777 · Dec 18, 2010, 01:22 AM

Hooray. Zuncchini.

-t

besson3c · Dec 18, 2010, 02:07 AM

CharlesS · Dec 18, 2010, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Less of them.

Wikipedia has zero banners for 80+% of the year. How many high-profile sites do you know of that have less than that? And during the small portion of the year when it's visible, the thing even lets you close the fund-raising banner and have it not come back on future visits. It's probably the lowest-key fund-raising method I've ever seen on the Web.

Originally Posted by subego

I won't go so far as to include myself in the category of "reasonable people", however I can say with absolute assuredness you are mistaken.

Being reasonable is generally mutually exclusive with having the sort of massive sense of entitlement you'd need to have to complain about this.

turtle777 · Dec 18, 2010, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Being reasonable is generally mutually exclusive with having the sort of massive sense of entitlement you'd need to have to complain about this.

OR... maybe I'd just prefer to see Google ads instead of Jimmy's face ?

-t

Cold Warrior · Dec 18, 2010, 11:22 AM

If wikipedia gets such a huge amount of hits, they should set up their own ad network, play by whatever privacy rules that'll help them sleep at night, and make cash the whole year with some unobtrusive ads. Just so long as Intellink ads are a no-go. Those wouldn't play well with wikipedia's current setup.